By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Read my post again, I cited a few examples.
The last I remember CR, reliability for cars was denoted in a very short blurb of generalizations in their yearly car issue. Totally useless to me at least. There was also the 5 bubble outline of various models in a variety of broad areas. First of all, there was never any clear definition of how the bubble rating was derived, nor what exactly each broad area actually described (excepting obvious ones like trans and engine). However, even there, CR did not bother to break down by trim line in many cases (though in some cases they would). What good is "Engine" reliability if the model in question was offered with 3 different engine styles. I also note differences between equivalent models in years (look up anything between 1993-2000) between Dodge/Chrysler, Geo/Toyota, Ford/Mercury. Since they are only using five bubbles, they are starting out with a generous error margin, even a one bubble disparity is unacceptable as far as I care. The data is useless to me at that point. Also, they lumped years of vehicles together even though many times there were improvements to particular problem areas across years that was assumably affect data.
Finally, they "recommend" and worst of all call things "best buys" with no real explanation as to why or how they reach that conclusion.
As others have pointed out, I speculate that there is probably feedback due to the surveys being done only by their readers, but it doesn't matter whether we are right or wrong on this point as their nonsense results dismiss themselves. If CR really cared about their accuracy (which they clearly don't) they would provide a method to access all the raw survey data.
Oh, and another part of my skepticism about any fill in the blank survey (which CR uses) is that I have read a lot of "complaints" on NHTSA (With numerous beauties like "When coming to a stop, engine idles").
BTW, I have no problems with Honda and Toyota, and their high reliability ratings are mostly deserved, but they are definitely overrated by a segment of the car buying public. I see comments on forums like how "reliability with a Toyota is assumed." Well, having known people that needed tranny replacements on their Honda, and failed differentials in their Toyota due to improper heat treating, and people, the interior trim in a Corolla is not exactly the Ritz (even though CR says it is), even the "imports" face challenges in consistent and cost effective manufacturing. One thing for certain, is that Toyota and Honda have been much better at addressing grave manufacturing and design defects than the big Three, especially during the 90s, and that is important.
This has nothing to do with CR not telling me what I want to hear and everything to do with their published data: it speaks for itself. Also, I never found their reviews very informative, they are always comparative to a somewhat ad-hoc field of 4 or 5 cars and they are short and vague. Their consumer electronics/appliances tests also were way too short for the amount of data and a lot of the "comparisons" in the articles amounted to hand waving and generalizations. I understand the need to have data that is accessible to the non-tech public, but I just don't think their is enough specificity to make an informed decision.
Also, read this. It is the most convoluted explanation, and it ends up promoting the Accord (what else?). Read paragraph 2... The Accord is not mentioned in the list of cars that did poor in the side crash test, yet the Camry is. Later on, the statement is made that "no car without side airbags rated higher than poor" (which would include the Accord, so why wasn't it mentioned at the top?). If you look at the data on IIHS, you will quickly see how misleading this press release is. There is no forgiving explanation for this CR writeup. Another odd thing was that two days ago I went to CR's website, and they had a release that they were dropping "recommend" ratings from certain cars (Altima being one) due to the results based on the same misleading analysis of the results, apparently they pulled the article. They struck off the Altima, well that's nice because you don't have data for with side airbags (even though they have been available). The Accord doesn't do much better without side airbags. As far as the whole standard/opt thing, they were optional even in the Accord until 05. Is this fair for dropping the recommend rating? No it is not. It would have been easy enough for their Altima blurb to simply say: "Make sure you get side-airbags". I don't see this release on their free site anymore, maybe they recanted. I'm not going to waste my money on them to check.
Meanwhile they dropped the Mazda6 and Jetta for reliability... However no mention of the rash of ATX problems in recent 99-02 Accords. As someone who normally recommends Accords, I will still say that you are playing with fire if you purchase a used OOW Accord that has not had a transmission overhaul/replacement from these years. What good is a reliability guide if you don't know what specific things you are likely to get burned on.
Whatever, CR is CRap.
Thanks.
My apologies! I was starting to get visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
If you happen to run across a new 04, the sedans carried $3,000 rebates and the wagons had $4,000 off. Also, Mazda has had a 1,000 rebate if you use their financing. Their rates are high, but you can refinance as soon as your paperwork clears, usually within a month.
Even with no or a small rebate, the 6 is a good value. It's a solid, fun-to-drive and mostly trouble-free car. I believe most of the owners here will back me up on that.
What model year does the MPV inherit the platform change? We have a 2001 MPV that my wife would like to update (not enough oomph in the engine - a problem corrected in 2002).
Thanks in advance!
The Fusion will definitely have 10 fewer horses but will also have roughly 10 more ft-lbs of torque than the 6. FWIW I've never heard of the 6 losing 10 horses for MY06.
The version of the Duratec30 in the Fusion only has VVT on one side of the combustion circle, the intake side IIRC, whereas the 6 has it on both sides. Intake and exhaust.
One thing that seems to be certian is that a SVT, or maybe ST, version of the Fusion will debut in a year or two using the same direct injection turbo Duratec23 as the MAZDASPEED6. Same AWD system as well.
As far as I'm concerned, the hp loss will most likely not be noticeable, but the slightly more torque will definitely be felt, considering the current V6 is a dog in the lower RPMs...
It doesn't take much common sense to figure out that by disclosing problems with your own car in a CR survey, you are actually hurting your resale. One day, a lot of people are going to figure this out and the CR survey isn't going to be worth much at all. It certainly has seemed to miss the boat on the 6. After the initial problems with the door staining and the fuel valve, the 6 has been mostly trouble free. Mine is, anyway.
I'll remember that later this month when I get the Mazda survey on service; I'll make sure to give a nonsense answer.
There is arguably no more influential source of automotive information than Consumer Reports. The magazine's rankings, based on its own tests, readers' opinions and crash test safety data, are feared and to some extent also cultivated by all automakers.
Forrester Research of Cambridge, Massachusetts, says one-third of U.S. car buyers consult the magazine, and auto industry officials say their own internal research shows at least 25 per cent of buyers are influenced by the annual auto issue.
-- Jeremy Cato, Canadian Driver website (www.canadiandriver.com)
"...auto industry officials say their own internal research shows at least 25 per cent of buyers are influenced by the annual auto issue."
Well, at least 75 percent of the consumers can think for themselves!
I love how they chose the Accord Hybrid also. The Accord as a whole is a great car, and it was on my list of choices as well as the 6 and the Altima. I also commend the Hybrid for it's use of technology to save a few bucks on fuel, and help the environment. That's not the issue.
My question: Why would CR choose the Hybrid ALONE for it's top pick?
1. Does that make the other model Accords inferior? I think not.
2. Will it help in sales of the car? No, demand is so strong now that I doubt this will affect sales at all.
3. If CR is out simply for "the consumer", then why would they choose a car that is at least $2K MORE than an Accord V6, yet gets SLIGHTLY better MPG than the 4-cyl Accord? Not to mention the fact that if you could even find one right now, would you be able to drive one out of the lot AT STICKER?
Uhh, no.
If I was an intelligent consumer, concerned about the rising gas prices, I'd stick with the 4-cyl. It's lighter, more readily available, and I'd save the extra $8K or more and put it toward gas for the life of the car, and use the rest to buy solar panels for my house!
Don't get me wrong, the Accord Hybrid is a step in the right direction, kudos to Honda for that. But this just proves, once again, that CR just doesn't get it! And until they do, I'll be driving circles around them in my "non-recommended", trouble-free, guilt-free Mazda 6!
Has anybody check in CR's mail for some checks made out to them by somebody called "American Honda Corporation?" :confuse:
I wonder what CR will say about the Accord Hybrid when owners start reporting the cost of replacing the batteries or that electric motor that sits between the engine and transmission. Think we'll see another flip-flop?
I would be surprised if CR actually begins to downgrade the car once all the suckers...uhh, environmentally responsible citizens...begin to bemoan the costs of replacing those extra hybrid parts. I think they see themselves, rightly or wrongly, as a force for social good, and pointing out the obvious downside issues with hybrids, at least at this point in their development, would, I suspect, not be in alignment with what I think they see as the greater public good of promoting their success in the marketplace.
I hadn't really thought about it before your post, but those things have got to be a nightmare for first responders--in a bad accident you'd have caustic chemicals and smoke (if there was significant fire) and possibly a big lead spill requiring pretty serious HAZMAT-type containment and remediation, wouldn't you?
'24 Chevy Blazer EV 2LT
I know high voltage is one. I have several family members who are volunteer firemen and all of them had to go through special training on how to handle a wrecked hybrid. Staying far away from the big red, yellow, and orange wires is a good start.
I remember reading something to the effect of two technicians having to work on a hybrid at all times. One to do the actual work and one to hold a big hook to pull the former away from the vehicle in case s/he accidentally discovers the working end of those big batter packs. Can anyone verify that?
denali....the acid in the battery pack is so caustic it will burn thru just about anything...there are also special gloves like the power company linemen wear to avoid being electrocuted, also the occupants can be zapped if the first responders do the wrong thing at the accident. They stressed that the shock will be life ending experience for everyone involved. The state issued manual was like reading an inch thick "haz-mat" manual. (each brand had their own instructions) I think alternative fuel vehicles are a good thing...but the current hybrids come with some issues that I am not willing to deal with.
Here is an article debunking that:
http://trucks.about.com/cs/safetyissues/a/hybrid_accident.htm
There will be some haz mat issues but probably nothing worse than the spills that occur when a tractor trailer flips over.
There is an entire Hybrid Vehicles board available for your reading and debating pleasure.
Mazda6, Mazda6, Mazda6, all together now ...
2006 mazda6 info is trickling in. in addition to the Base,sport and grand touring they have added a grand sport model...all versions avail in 4 and 6 cyl, manual and auto.
grand touring and grand sport will have available navigation.
There appears to be two new colors. Tungsten gray and dark cherry.
I will post additional details as they come in...I expect more later this week.
Devil's advocate - most states require more training for hair stylists than for EMT's so I don't always trust what the state recommends.
So I presume that when Mazda introduces a hybrid, your dealership will not sell them??
grand touring and grand sport will have available navigation.
Please, PLEASE tell me that the navigation system is a STAND-ALONE OPTION, and not bundled into the Leather, Moonroof, or Bose...
IMHO, a car with all options minus the auto and navigation is perfect for me. Navigation systems are a waste of money, and another distraction from the true purpose of being behind the wheel, DRIVING! Mazda will lose another customer if navigation is bundled into those gawdawful packages...
Exterior
- New front grille design
- New front/rear bumpers
- New side sill garnish design
- New black bezels for front/rear lights
- New 16-, 17- and 18-inch alloys
- Front fog lamps integrated in bumper facia
- Available HID headlights
- New Exterior colors (Dark Cherry and Tungsten Gray for Sports Sedan & Sport Wagon, Bright Island Blue and Tungsten Gray for 5-Door)
Interior
- New trim materials, including thicker armrest material
- Door handles front/rear on passenger side
- Dark Titanium colored center panel
- New sporty seat design and new cloth fabric
Comfort and Entertainment
- Voice control navigation system available
Powertrain
- Refined 2.3-liter and 3.0-liter engines
- New five-speed Sport Shift AT automatic transmission for 2.3-liter engines
Chassis
- Retuned front and rear suspension bushings
mzgreyghost.....the GT and grand sport have no options other than stand alone navigation. They already come with leather, roof etc...
I was presuming since you feel they are unsafe for emergency workers, that your conscience wouldn't let you sell such a vehicle.
I took your take on hybrids as a slam on the Accord Hybrid someone else was buying. Hence my wondering about what you would do when Mazda introduces one. That combined with your little tidbit about sending false info to CR on a competitor's car kind of sends a poor message.
If I offended you - I apologize. But if someone calls you on somthing you've written you have to face it.
I don't have to face anything that is ridiculous and your statement questioning my conscience was way over the top...and quite frankly I take offense. your statement is like saying....if you dont like every single car you offer for sale you have no conscience. Plus your trying to play "gotcha politics" and I don't play that game, sorry.