Comments: Consumer Reports/JD Power Rankings

backy · March 2009

I'll quit the thread, but I won't engage in flame wars and personal attacks, sorry.

Too late. See #602, for example.

As for your quotes, you again are mis-interpreting them. That is not a personal attack on you, but fact. The first quote re JD Powers IQS was about specific data on a specific car, not about "dismissing" CR or JD Power survey results in general. I went on to discuss how important it is to understand what the JD Power IQS actually measures--not just reliability (over the first 90 days of ownership), but owner opinions on car design, performance, features etc. The second quote was about how you are interpreting the CR and JD Power surveys vs. the surveys themselves.

I don't know why you think I "took you to task" for telling someone they should avoid the 2000 Elantra. For the record, here was my response to that poster, who was asking whether to go for a 2000 Elantra with 76k miles, for $3200.

A car that is 9 years old with 76k miles can have anything break at any time. KBB private-party value is about $3000, so there may be negotiating room on the car. If the car is in good condition and was well-maintained (all records, including for the important 60k service), and checks out OK when you take it to a mechanic for an inspection, it might be worth it. But for a few hundred bucks more you can get a much nicer car, with a better reliability record. The Elantra was redesigned for 2001 and that generation has a better reliability record. For example, CR recommends the 2003-6 Elantras as Good Choices in used cars, and Edmunds.com has the 2001-6 Elantra as its Top Choice for small used cars. But on those cars, too, the maintenance history is important. The car does require a timing belt change every 60k miles. I owned a 2001 GLS for 5-1/2 years, sold it to my sister, and she still has it and except for some body damage (not the car's fault), it looks and drives great. My 2004 GT looks and runs like new except for a few dings and scratches. Both cars have been very reliable. So it they were well-maintained, these cars can be good bets as used cars.

BTW, if's very easy to set up multiple computers to use the same ID and password. I do that myself. Just login on both computers using the same ID and password, and be sure cookies are enabled and you check the little box to remember the login. The computers will remember your login settings indefinitely (until you clear the cookies).

tidester · March 2009

Why in the world would Honda drivers be more likely to complain than Hyundai owners?

I didn't say they were. It was a hypothetical scenario. You missed the "what if" part.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

dbostondriver · March 2009

Consumer reports uses a time test method of polling thousands of owners of current and older models. JD Power uses data from the first '90 days. Furthermore Consumer Reports is a not for profit while JD Power gets the majority of revenue from corporations.
I think that pretty much speaks for itself, but I'm sure GM lovers will find reasons to fault Consumer Reports.

backy · March 2009

The JD Power IQS is for the first 90 days of ownership, but they have longer-term studies (3 years) also.

CR has had nice things to say about GM recently. It recommends the Malibu, Vibe, Aura, Lucerne, DTS, Avalanche (rated #1 in its class), Silverado, and Sierra. It rates the CTS, STS, Corvette, Cobalt SS, Traverse, Acadia, Outlook, Enclave, Suburban, and Yukon highly in their classes but doesn't recommend them either because of insufficient reliability data or below-average reliability based on their survey. Lots there for GM lovers to like.

imidazol97 · March 2009

> GM lovers

The accusatory tone against all owners of a brand of car is NOT appreciated. I hope the hosts remove this post. If someone wants to play brand games I'm sure we can find more than enough to discuss.

andres3 · March 2009

Not only have I always been right, but I've been absolutely 100% right.

JD Powers is worthless junk on par with the value of AIG insurance without the bailout money backing it (which is probably a negative value, not even zero).

JD Powers is further corrupted and biased by being nothing more than a marketing advertising ploy paid for by the corporations that are willing to pay for good reviews.

JD Powers doesn't measure long term reliability, but only advertises paid-for commercially managed and directed initial and short term quality responses to "configured and set-up" questions. Basically, it's all scripted.

Now CR on the other hand is of scientific and mathetmatical value, with no advertising or marketing tendencies. It is simply a factual database of records on existing vehicles. CR has always shown the true real unfiltered raw data of what is really going on in the marketplace. CR has never waivered from being the "BIBLE" of authenticity and objective review. They have always been above reproach for ethics, honor, honesty, and accountability. They have always been "straight" with the American public.

JD Powers is a joke. JD Powers is the equivalent of Ford's commercials were they set people up to drive multiple vehicles and then testify (not under oath) to the superiority of the Fords. Does anyone ever wonder what would stop Ford from sabotaging the Accords and Camry's being compared with the Fusions? They have a financial incentive to do so; so it makes sense they would do so when they run the show and make the rules.

Since CR doesn't profit from labeling one car bad and another spectacular, they have no motive to rig the vehicles.

JD Powers has motive to rig their data, their results, and their testing procedures.

tidester · March 2009

CR on the other hand is of scientific and mathetmatical value

Perhaps, but only to the extent that the sample frame and the target population coincide, i.e. their surveys only include subscribers who choose to respond.

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

imidazol97 · March 2009

CR does not verify that people purporting to report information on a vehicle actually own and have owned said vehicle.

CR does not verify that people returning questionaires are the subscriber.

CR does not balance the reporting of information among vehicle brands and models. It can't. The election to report information is solely made by the subscriber if they have a motivation, good or evil, about their vehicle.

CR subscriber base is not reported so that the demographics are known. Many people read it, but do so at the library or online through my library as do I when I want to check their opinion on something (other than cars).

The idea that there is scientific methodology and mathematical value to the CR information in the final form in which they slush it through to the consumer is ludicrous. The raw data contains some information, but as CR has admitted the difference between their circle values is small, whereas in the past it was larger. The equivalent level of information could be obtained by convenience polling at the entrance to randomly chosen Krogers on randomly chosen days around the country and asking people, if they wish to, to take a poll about their car. A similar level of information would be obtained--useful, interesting if interpreted by knowledgeable statistician, but not rocket science.

jipster · March 2009

CR's reliability data has always seemed accurate to me, based on what I've read on Edmunds, other sites, and personal experience. So, they must be doing something right. Whether their methodology is 100% scientifically sound or not... it's close enough. :shades:

imidazol97 · March 2009

CR also is not noncommercial. They are always trying to sell their reports to local radio and TV outlets. They are making money just like other businesses.

They are selling magazines. If they don't give the kinds of reports their group of readers expect, expect to sell fewer magazines. That means fewer $$$ for CR. To say they're noncommercial is to say the stimulus bill was thrifty and didn't waste taxpayer money.

On the other hand we have JDP who is run like a professional business. They don't masquerade under another pretense of not being a business. They poll owners based on ownership records available through the BMVs of all states. Their selection is random. Data they obtain is sold to the auto companies, I presume, I do not know that for fact. But the only data more interesting would be the warranty data the manufacturers have about their various brands and models within the brands--and they ain't sharing that info.

I was polled in the past at Lowes in a random selection poll. They were stopping every certain number customer and asking them to take part in a poll. It was about golf and how much and when and why I watched golf on TV. At the time Lowes was participating in NASCAR support. But their polling was not like CR's.

To be equivalent of CR's polling, Lowe's would have printed a second receipt with an invitation to fill it out asking about your car and mail it back to them if you wanted to do so.

backy · March 2009

On the other hand we have JDP who is run like a professional business.

Are you implying that Consumers Union, which is a nonprofit organization, is run in an unprofessional manner? If so, what is the basis for your opinion?

Also, when you say CR is "making money just like other businesses", are you questioning their nonprofit status? Or just that they have to bring in enough revenue to pay the bills?

dbostondriver · March 2009

Beating up a non-profit and debating that domestic brand owners don't respond to surveys? C'mon, consumer reports has won every law suit they have been in. They don't limit polls to subscribers
"We also survey consumers outside our readership to get the most accurate representation of U.S. households.
Like the rest of Consumers Union, the Research Center is free of corporate influence and advertising. Its surveys are not commissioned or funded by industry, government, academia or big media. Rather, these surveys are designed to gather unbiased, objective information from consumers for the sole purpose of informing and protecting them."
And what is wrong with being a GM Lover? I'm a Honda Lover, but would like to own a BMW one day. Maybe even a used Corvette Z06.
You can't deny the fact that GM makes and has made crappy automobiles for over 20 years. Pick a GM nameplate that has been around for 10 years. You think Camry, you think to the reliable car you uncle had in 1989. You think Malibu and you think of the city. You think BMW M5 and Ronan and Transporter pop up. You think Cadillac and you think and episode of Sopranos or rap video. You think Fast and Furious and no GM comes to mind. You think Knight Rider and Commaro comes to mind.
You think bailout and AIG, BOA, Citi, and GM comes to mind.

mickeyrom · March 2009

Great post...But I have a question,why does Honda get a pass from everyone.If you go to the Honda Civic Hybrid site here on Edmunds,you will read complaint after complaint,yet CR and others kiss their butt and simply drool over anything with a Honda nameplate.

dbostondriver · March 2009

The Honda Civic get great reviews, but the Hybrid gets pretty bad remarks for reliability and acceleration.
Also of note Acura gets pretty average reviews. While reliable, they rate poorly in comparison to ride and quality compared to Lexus and BMW. And lets not kid ourselves, the RDX is a joke. A tiny SUV with a turbo charger and huge premium.

backy · March 2009

In the April CR issue, they singled out the Pilot ahd TL as two of their "low points" from the past year of testing. Doesn't sound like drooling to me... more like spitting.

dbostondriver · March 2009

TL is butt ugly from the front and Edmunds said it was too heavy in the front. It really sucks that after all these years Acura can't make a hot RWD car. The TSX is OK but not worth my money.

dbostondriver · March 2009

Look GM "admirires" constantly find ways to prop up GM products regardless of their short comings. My favorite is the G8 being a 3 series killer. Putting a Corvette engine into a Holden does not make a great car. Manual transmission :P is not even an option.

andres3 · April 2009

CR tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Sometimes it's just the cold, hard, ugly facts (or black dots).

Other times it's just bright colors and rainbows (or red dots).

Whatever those facts may be, CR reports them. That is the beauty of it.

dbostondriver · April 2009

Just a heads up to all the Consumer Reports hater - GM admirers.
CR gives the Chevy Silverado the best review. Are they wrong about that?

imidazol97 · April 2009

>Whatever those facts may be, CR reports them

Be still my heart. That's funny.

longo2 · April 2009

If Consumer Reports had picked up on the Honda transmission problems in the Odysseys, I would never had purchased a new one in 2004. The same transmission was used in several other Honda models for years that got a pass as well.

There was a know defect in the thing that finally got a recall after years of owner grief. The Honda transmissions that were replaced under warranty with OEM had the same defect and burnt up just like the rest. (even the recall "fix" is iffy in my mind and just a stop gap measure to get them over theold Odyssey run and into the new 05 models.)

The new 05' Odyssey had a different transmission that solved the issue. (no oil supply to a gear that ran dry, heated up and fried) But in the years of every Honda owner haveing the same problem, a CR warning was no where to be found.

Toyota a/t's were also problematic for years...Camrys and Avalons a/ts would 'lock up the tourque converter in high gear and not allow the transmission to shift down quickly...lots of reports of owners nearly getting run into because the car would hesitate and stumble, looking for a lower gear to handle acelleration through an intesection.

That went on for years as well, and CR had no mention. Don't get me started on Toyota engine 'Sludging'!

mickeyrom · April 2009

Interesting...so how did these two brands get such a great reputation for quality and dependability?
I just test drove a new Insight and came away unimpressed.The thing seemed totally underpowered,had a extremely stiff ride and has what to me looked like a cheap interior.It is well equipped unless you get the base model in which case it comes without cruise control and has hubcaps.It's hardly cheap,still over 20K so why the cheap down of a fairly expensive car.

imidazol97 · April 2009

Isn't it amazing how CR wasn't on the forefront of notifying folks. The

Odyssey discussion

here about transmissions has new failures continually, often multiple failures in the same car. And the replacement transmissions are over-priced even after Honda pays "part" of the cost.

longo2 · April 2009

"Interesting...so how did these two brands get such a great reputation for quality and dependability?"

Good question mickey, I think part of the answer is the companies relentless happy face PR departments who provide the 'loaners' and free junkets to the Gearheads working at the Car-Mags.

The publications depend on adverstising, and if a few big companies permanently pulled their glossy ad' pages, they would quickly diasapear off the magazine racks.
Car Mags are Big multinational Businesses, and the last place you can source long term reliability information about the Cars they test, but enough people glance at all the glowing quicky reviews and think, "wow, that sounds great!"

Look at the case of Hyundai, they were the Goats of the industry, running jokes on late night talk shows and had replaced the Skoda, Fiat, Lada and the Ford Pinto ( to name a few) as examples of how bad a car could be.

Some Gear Heads still preface the test results of the highly rated Hyundai products by making snide remarks about the companies early models.
It's about time Hyundai had a little chat with these one dimensional hacks and gave them some ideas about original 'lead ins for their reviews.

Ever read a Car-Mag piece mentioning Toyotas 'Early Model ' rust buckets to start a review of the new?
Or mention the Cadillacs with leaky engine blocks (we had one) that sprayed antifreeze like lawn sprinklers to begin a piece on GM products?

To make this long story shorter, my point is, there's no money to made on head line stories of transmission problems, engine sludging, bad head gaskets, leaky interiors, or a thousand other poorly designed or manufactured items from any of the 'Majors'.
Or a car writer that posted his own mpg calculation on his new test model?

In fact if you did take this road, it would be a one way trip to the unemployment office.

deltheking · April 2009

CR lists the 99-03 Odyssey`s as used cars to avoid.If u subscribe to CR or have an account with them-- u can check out.

It specifically mentions the Ody tranny problem on these years and hence lists it in the CR used car list to avoid.

Well for all cars I have owned,CR was so accurate ,,a black dot and I had that problem.I have 2 Camry`s-- absolutely problem free ,one with 120k miles and CR is very accurate on that.Toyota sludging also gets a mention in CR and it lists all the Toyota models and years which were affected.It also states the sludging is mostly due to folks not changing their oil regularly.
I have an 04 Nissan quest and every problem CR lists as a black dot,,I have it.Same for my 99 Ford and 00 Nissan sentra.

So ,CR in MHO is the most accurate out there,,,almost clinical,,U can almost predict the next problem in your car based on its findings.
Just MHO.

longo2 · April 2009

"It specifically mentions the Ody tranny problem on these years and hence lists it in the CR used car list to avoid."

Good to know, problem was, CR was behind the curve on the Ody transmission issues, when I bought my new one in 2003.
Now if the Ody' was rated then as "New Car to Avoid" I would still be driving my Old Blue Van.

I think CR has to pick up on the problems faster than they do and go with it.

BTW, to be fair, I too have had vehicles that were Black Marked in certain areas that we never had issues with...luck of the draw..built on a Wed?

andres3 · April 2009

Well it took about 3.5 years or 42,000 miles for my 2003 Accord's transmission to start showing problems and fail (after warranty mind you). Still, Honda stepped up and covered it and paid for everything immediately and I got a brand new tranny for free within 2 days.

This makes complee sense, SINCE CR could not predict the future, but sure enough, around 2007 I started to see black dots on the Accords V6 Auto Tranny in CR. CR made no mistake here with Honda. It's just that the parts didn't fail right away (often enough) to affect CR's rankings.

longo2 · April 2009

"around 2007 I started to see black dots on the Accords V6 Auto Tranny in CR"

My point exactly...that bad Honda a/t had been out since 1999, and it took CR 8 years, and 2 years after that model was replaced by the new 2005 drive train did they finally mention it.
The Accord, Acura and Odyssey all used the same a/t. at least those are the ones I know about.

So, for all of us who bought those affected Honda products from 1999 to 2004 there was no mention of any issues with the a/t's from CR until 2007!

If you research Honda transmission problems from 1999 and on, you will find lot of them were buring up in much less than 3.5 years, some of them in 6 months or less.

Here's a good place to start if you are interested...

http://guide.opendns.com/?url=Honda+transmission+problems&client=ie6

imidazol97 · April 2009

>Accord, Acura and Odyssey all used the same a/t.

Many people report the replacements failing after a similarly small amount of mileage. Does get people to 100K to trade the vehicle, but for those keeping a car longer since they are reliable, having the transmission fail at 120K is on their own dime. So the free replacements (actually in the price of the car) aren't good if the replacements fail later on the customer's cost rather than running 200-250K.

CR was too blinded by their favoritism to report on early symptoms. Note the popular smiling tester in from of a red S2000 with a big smile on his faceas an ad for CR.

210delray · April 2009

I would hardly call it " blinded by their favoritism." The reliability survey depends on consumers reporting their problems. If failing transmissions aren't reported for whatever reason, then it's simply not going to show up in the magazine. My guess is that not enough failed in the earlier years for a downgrade to show up.

BTW, I have no dog in this fight, having never owned a Honda product.

imidazol97 · April 2009

>having never owned a Honda product.

Point taken.

For how many years have Hondas had early transmission failures... Back in the 90s the transmission warranties were extended to 100K and a longer time period because of Honda's transmissions. It's not an unknown problem.

longo2 · April 2009

Reporting on reliablity of the current crop of fast depreciating, poorly put together vehicles out there, needs to be improved, not only for the benifit of the Consumer, but for the health of the car companies as well.

It does no one a service not to due everything possible not to hunt down reliabilty issues with the same focus as keeping track of your credit rating.

If CR chiefley relies on it's members to report a/t issues, they are doing a great disservice to the rest of the car buying public.

I stopped supporting CR years ago, after I too discovered that certain car brands got passes for problems with no reporting on those issues until long after anyone shopping for a that car, had already done the deal.

Imagine how fast Honda would have come up with a solution to their a/t problems if CR had nailed them years sooner, early enough to cut into their $ales numbers.

Everyone except CR seemed to know about the problem 5 or more years before they started Black Marking it.

210delray · April 2009

Well this source gives more timely feedback, but the problem is not enough people know about it and therefore don't participate.

dtownfb · April 2009

I've gotten e-mails and have seen them on other sites. The problem is they look too much like spam.

dudleyr · April 2009

While the transmission problem Honda had was real, and serious it did not effect every car. Most people did not have a problem. Look at the Chrysler transmission, now those were terrible and got a black dot as quite a large percentage failed.

CR used to compare how a car did against other cars of the same year, and that was probably a better system. Now the reliability is on an absolute scale. The absolute scale may give a better idea of problem areas, but it is hard to tell reliability.

To illustrate (making up numbers as I don't have any in front of me) - by the new method if a car is above a certain failure rate it gets a red circle no matter what the year. The tendency is for less red to show up as the car ages and the parts get less reliable. This helps to illustrate that cars are less reliable as they age.

With the old method, a car was compared to its peers. So it would get a red circle even if it failed a fair amount as long as there were other cars that failed more. Or a car that only fails 5% of the time would still get a black mark if the other cars only fail 2% of the time

With the new method a car that is two years old might get a red circle as it has a relatively low failure rate, but it could still be below average and would have a black circle by the old method.

This is why problems don't stick out as early on the CR tests as they used to.

The way to find problem areas now is to compare to other cars of the same year. Basically any new car that does not have a full Red circle is a poor bet. Honda does/did not have a full red circle for transmissions, and should have been suspect if the charts were read properly.

Understanding how data is gathered is very important and they (CR) explain it every year in the auto issue.

deltheking · April 2009

I thought CR still did the comparative rating.When did they change to the absolute problem rating system?
Thanks

deltheking · April 2009

Also CR is now recommending new models with less than 3 yr history.Previously it never used to do that.
Also for a new car--it has all red dots in reliability stats--but at the end it gets a black dot--saying much worse than average.
So does it mean -the car is reliable enough,,but still below average compared to other cars?
Thanks

backy · April 2009

CR has recommended new models with less than a 3 year history for a long time. They did it when the overall reliability record of the manufacturer was strong, e.g. for Toyota and Honda. However, they recently got burned by this policy when their survey found problems in the current-gen Camry's transmission--bad enough to put the V6 "below average" for a time. So CR announced they would no longer give Toyota a "free pass" on recommending new models. They still seem to do it for Hondas, however.

I have never seen CR give a car all red dots, but a black dot for overall reliability. Can you give us a specific example or two of where they have done that?

dudleyr · May 2009

I don't remember the exact year they went to an absolute system, but it was at least 3 or 4 years ago maybe more. I could thumb through some old issues I guess.

Yes a car can now get mostly all red (some would have to be half red I would think) dots and still get a black circle for overall. This is because a new car is supposed to get almost all solid red. Just a few half red marks will bring the reliability down and result in an overall rating of below average.

I should clarify my earlier post as well. The overall score is still compared to other cars of the same year, just the individual parts are on an absolute scale. This is why a new car with mostly red can still get black for overall.

So if a 1 year old car has a half red mark for transmission it could be a well below average if most other cars have solid red (which is the case). Even though one would intuitively think that a half red circle is good.

deltheking · May 2009

The newer models--GMC Acadia,Saturn Outlook-- these have all red full/half dots but at the end the overall reliab. is much below average.
I was sure that CR changed their absolute rating system 3 or 4 years before.
So is it better now to check the individual car`s whole rating instead of just the final verdict??B`cos if the difference between a half and a full red dot finally at the end gives it a black dot,then it is a minor difference.Am I correct in assuming that?
CR has been pretty darn accurate on every single car I have owned.U could see the ratings and almost predict it.It was like a science.
But,,CR for some reason seems to give a free pass to Honda,,especially with the tranny problems,,not for Toyota or other brands.
If there is 1/5th chance of tranny failure,,even if other parts are good ,,I dont think it should be recommended.

backy · May 2009

Your original statement led me to believe you were talking about all solid red dots equating to an overall black dot ranking. Yes, a new car with half-red dots could below average overall because most new cars today have very few problems in their first year.

deltheking · May 2009

Since u asked,I checked Cr again.
Some CR models like GMC Acadia,Saturn Outlook get final black dots even though they do not have any black ones in the ratings.
Kia optima,Ford Edge ,Ford Escape,Nissan altima etc-- all these have 1 or more black half/full dots in the ratings --but the final verdict is a half red dot.
How can this work both ways?Am I missing something here?
Thanks

deltheking · May 2009

Another example--when 04 Quest came out,it was a CR recommended model.
But it actually is the worst minivan out there and the worst Nissan model and now CR lists it as used car to avoid...
So is it why Cr has stopped recommending new cars..I amnot totally sure,,but CR still recommends new redesigned cars..
Your opinion ?Thanks

backy · May 2009

Yes, there's more to this than dots. There's the numbers behind the dots. Also, some problems are weighted more heavily than others. Also, the dots are not the same in your examples. E.g. the Acadia has one "blank" dot, while the Edge has none of those. Also, you have to compare cars from the same model years, because the older a car gets, the more of a dropoff there is in reliability. So a newer car is expected by CR's rating scheme to be more reliable than an older car.

deltheking · May 2009

So,say a 2007 car now in the 2009 CR survey has a red dot,,but then more problems emerge,,then in the 2010 survey ,,will the 2007 model now show a black dot as new data emerges or does it remain a red dot for the rest of it`s life.
Sure CR is slightly complicated but in my experience very accurate.

nortsr1 · May 2009

Between your replies to deltaking and his to yours, I am now so totally confused as to the red full, red half and black dots...I have finally decided to no longer look at the dots and from now on just read reviews and take it from said reviews.

imidazol97 · May 2009

In reading the attempts to explain how CR uses the actual data from its unscientific survey to determine dots and reliability, I can only comment what most have learned from a science and math background: the Law of Parsimony. When it takes this much in and outing of different alleged factors to explain how CR is manipulating their dot system and how the dot system has changed through the years, it's not the real answer.

CR has manipulated the supposed data to fit their own opinions and uses that to set the dots. One only needs to read their evaluations of cars they like and one's they don't like in their comparison testing from an analytical POV to determine that's what's happening. The writing style used to minimize or maximize importance of problems noted in cars also explains their dot system is subjective.

mickeyrom · May 2009

Just because a car is dependable for it's first 25K miles does not mean that it will continue into the rest of it's life.My KIA has been great so far, but the jury is still out as far as I'm concerned.In other words lets see what the next 75K brings.That is the length of the warranty.

imidazol97 · May 2009

Not sure what your reply means for my post, but Hyundai is on my list to shop if we decide to buy a new car rather than a used one through the summer. Just as reliability for US brands has changed, the reliability for Hyundai/Kia has drastically changed.

The big negative for me is there's no nearby dealer.

backy · May 2009

So you are saying that it is not appropriate for CR to revise their reliability survey methodology over time--maybe in an attempt to make it better?

Unless you have some hard evidence to back up your assertion that CR is manipulating the survey data to fit their own opinions, I have to take that as opinion.

Comments: Consumer Reports/JD Power Rankings

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles