Even if its true that Consumer Reports has a majority of import car buyer readers, it wouldn't affect the awfully piss poor reliability ratings of US branded cars.
CR provides its ratings based upon the percentage of owners who report problems within given areas. So the number of owners for a given car should not affect the outcome, just so long as the sample size is sufficient that the pool of respondents is meaningful. (There would be a margin of error based upon the sample size, but for commonly owned cars, this difference should not be signficant.)
The one flaw with CR is that the survey respondents are volunteers who are subscribers to the magazine, which means that the survey pool might be biased or otherwise skewed in ways that may not be representative of the population at large. But still, if the outcome for a certain car is negative or good, then there are probably good reasons for it. Being that CR data is often consistent with what can be found in other sources, such as JD Power, I'd say that it's generally pretty accurate and worth considering.
Consumer Reports doesn't give out the complete listing of who their "respondents" actually are and what they actually said. They just give enough data that infers that their data is "reliable" for use in car purchases.
Expect a few brilliant surprises and enhanced performance in every aspect of the business soon from G.M. They will be quicker to market than ever with the well executed "home run" designs on world platforms. They will be an even better leader in price/value products. They will be world class or better in quality on all products. They will successfully become internationally cohesive and as broad in scope as necessary to meet global markets. They will change as needed to accomodate a smart business plan. It wont be painless ...but it will happen. They will continue to be one of the best employers in the world, respecting human rights,equal opportunity, fair and equitable wages and benefits and educational opportunities. GM will not stand still .. it cant, never has and never will.
What you state above is likely true because Managment here still recognizes that GM is a huge presence here mainly in excellent trucks, SUV's and Cadillacs. All of these are immensely profitable franchises if handled well. It makes sense to stay the course and cash-in on the goodwill these nameplates carry.
GM is also a well respected maker of auto's in other parts of the world, specifically Europe, Australia and China.
The problem arises is that in the US it's auto business, excluding Caddy's, is ho-hum or a dismal at best. In the States in auto's GM might be a third or fourth rate supplier.
Because of it's great position in many segments GM is not going to go away or disappear. But it may have to a) reinvigorate its US auto business ( it is way way behind ), or b) let it disappear as a low-margin loser.
Doing this allows GM to redirect valuable resources to the products that actually make huge profits and/or are well respected.
Lots of people wished they had bought Chrysler @ $3 a share in 1975. If you dont want to take risks stay out of the market. The greater the risk the greater the opportunity . Time will tell.
"Lots of people wished they had bought Chrysler $3 a share in 1975."
I wonder what their stock looked like immediately before the fed bailout? Of course, now that they are a joint operation with Mercedes, perhaps their stock has stabilized.
My mom purchased shares of Toyota stock early last summer (either early or late June) at around $72. Six months later the stock is at over $105 (for those weak in math, thats better than a 45% increase in around 8 months). And Toyota wasn't exactly WEAK last summer...
You guys ARE aware that Americans CAN own stock in foreign companies? Just as foreigners can own stock in American companies?
Perhaps GM stock will be worth something.....after they are absorbed by Toyota...
I did. I forget what I sold it at later. It would be nice to do the same with GM.
I missed buying McDonnel Douglas after the big crash in Dallas that dropped the share price drastically-I was in financial limbo at the time and didn't want to commit.
...of buying a GM vehicle than risking the future of my country and it workers by buying foreign. So far, my risk has paid off. My Buick and Cadillac vehicles have been excellent. My 1988 Buick Park Ave comes from perhaps GM's worst period and is holding up extremely well as are numerous survivors I see on almost every block. Did all 1985-90 Park Aves and LeSabres migrate to Philly? They seem to be everywhere. Maybe the citizens of Philadelphia knew a great car when they saw them and held onto them all these years. Gee, where are all those 1980s Toyotas and Hondas? Well, I think I saw one when I looked in the refrigerator, only it said "Coors" on the side.
Gee, and I'm sure the MacIntosh sweeps all the top spots in MacWorld magazine. I trust CR as much as I trust those guys touting get-rich-quick schemes on late-night infomercials. I find it funny about the guy consulting CR for a toaster purchase. They're ALL Chinese-made garbage except for a few really expensive examples. What's the difference?
Actually, some of GM products did well in CU testing. I won't post htem all, but GM had many vehicles on the recommended list. I don't see anything in CU's results that are much different than any other type of information available.
I don't believe CU is biased against GM or domestics. I'm not biased against GM, just crappy product. Ironically, basically every GM car I've owned/driven, falls in that category.
Just look at CU's used cars to avoid from Chevy: Have you driven a '98-'04 Blazer? Those things are horrible by any measure, not to mention unreliable. '01 Impala, had one, and it was garbage too. Trailblazer, here on edmunds, their is a whole thread just on failed transmissions, not to mention all of the other issues these SUV's have.
Just about every make has a vehicle on the do not buy list exept, Toyota. All that means is Toyota has more consistency than any other automaker.
Why Honda Accord that is made in US by US workers with 70% of US made parts is not American car and Chevy that is made in Mexico with Chinese and Australian parts is American? Please explain... Is just because it is "Chevy" and "Honda"? So it is just a name? They are both publicly owned companies, so profit is shared among shareholders.. Or it is a "unions involvement"? If it so, then I understand why Wal-Mart being brought up every time.. Just an analogy - Sushi you eat in your local restaurant that are made by US citizens are less American then a burger you eat while on the trip in Japan?
...with an '01 Impala just about every day and "unreliable" is the last word I'd used to describe it. My girlfriend bought this car new in March 2001 and shen never had it in for any unscheduled maintenance. She's had numerous accidents with this car and it still keeps going and going and going. Heck, her Impala turned out to be such a great car, it inspired her Dad to buy a new 2003 Impala.
I wouldn't drive a Chevrolet Blazer or any other SUV regardless of how well-made it is. My brother, however, did have a 1989 Blazer and it was extremely reliable. My brother is one of the few people who actually take an SUV offroad as he is an avid outdoorsman. He currently has a Jeep Cherokee Sport and has reported no problems. He prefers it to Jeep's more current offerings as it has a solid rear beam axle as opposed to rear independent suspension. He says the solid-beam axle is better is offroad conditions.
"...of buying a GM vehicle than risking the future of my country and it workers by buying foreign."
And in a nutshell, what would be the risk to the future of this country and its workers by buying foreign?
Workers? There are as many vehicles produced in this country as ever. Whatever loss of production that has occurred on the 'domestic' side has been made up by increased production, in this country, by the 'import' nameplates. In fact, while the Big 2 have started shipping more of their 'domestic' production to Mexico/Canda, the import names have increased production in the U.S.
Are there fewer net WORKERS employeed? Yes. But that isn't due to fewer vehicles being produced in this country; it is due to increased efficiency (mostly by the import brands but also, finally, by the domestic brands). Are you arguing that we should reward inefficiency just so more workers are required?
Or are you more concerned by a loss of jobs in the supplier network? Over the years, the 'import' brands which have been assembling cars in this country have been INCREASING their domestic content. Are they, on the whole, as high as the 'domestic' nameplates? No, they aren't. However, while the domestic content of the 'imports' has been RISING, the domestic content of many 'domestic' models has been DECLINING.
Risking the future of your country? I'm at a loss on this one as well. I keep hearing talk about how the profits from the Big 2 stay here in the U.S. while all the profits from the imports goes overseas.
First, assuming the profit from the Big 2 stayed in this country, how would this manifest itself? What does an automotive company do with profits?
Would we see it by new plants being opened or upgraded? Would we see it in new R&D facilities? Would we see it by new design studios? Just exactly WHAT do you think a company DOES with it's profit? Would a smart company invest that profit in improving current products or developing new products?
Now ask yourself - which companies ARE expanding facilities in the U.S.? Which companies ARE investing funds in the U.S. to improve their current N.A. products or develope new products?
And which companies are spending profits to buy up smaller companies around the globe (profits sent overseas) and improve themselves in OTHER markets (by spending profits overseas).
Honda Accords today may be made by a majority of US made parts, and assembled in the US, but that wasn't always so. The difference between Honda and US brands isn't necessarily that one is built in the US, Mexico, or Japan (or even Canada now). I still strongly believe that the workers in Japan having built cars of high quality their entire lives are better at assembling cars, but the main difference lies in the quality control, engineering, and design of the cars. Japanese design and engineering simply provides Honda's american workers with a superior car and car parts to assemble. US auto assembly worker's are given garbage parts, garbage engineering, and grabage design. Garbage in equals garbage out, no matter how good you are at putting it together.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Garbage in equals garbage out, no matter how good you are at putting it together."
Somebody should tell this to Consumer Reports when they compile their statistical data. I saw the Consumer Reports chimp on CNN this morning. It made me want to get my .45 and make like Elvis.
LOL... the american car worshippers of the forum now have to discount and ignore not only CR (which is the most factual and least biased publication on automobiles; accepting no advertising from anyone!) but also now have to discredit IntelliChoices Best Overall Value of the Year winners.
The list..... ALL Japanese, with a sprinkle of German, and a Corvette, (excluding giant 3/4 ton and larger trucks and giant vans).
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Gee, where are all those 1980s Toyotas and Hondas?" We got plenty of them all over Southern California, big ol' 80's American cars on the other hand is a rare sight.
Now when it comes to trucks...it's a whole different story.
...1980s Japanese cars are all but gone execpt for a few with their corroded quarter panels flapping in the wind and belching out plumes of blue or white smoke with engines that sound like bricks in a dryer. The only way an '80s Japanese car could survive here is by hibernating in an oil bath every winter. I'm sure all that old domestic iron that was in California still survives in other parts of the country. There is a great demand for old domestic cars from the South and other sunny areas.
Garbage in equals garbage out, no matter how good you are at putting it together."
Are you talking about CU or GM?
Regarding the Impala, it is recommended and does generally gets good reliability scores, but the '01 does stand out for a few very annoying issues and is on CU's avoid list. The ISS and engine cradle problems would be fairly expensive to deal with outside of warranty.
My wife's '01 never left her stranded, so I guess from that point of view it was reliable, but the ISS (intermediate steering shaft) was a persistant problem that is found some other GM products (Tahoe/Suburbans) that just added to the many things I didn't like about the car. Numb steering/ brakes, slow 3.4L, it's a car I don't miss and wouldn't want again and we only had it for 40k miles.
The question cannot be answered definitively, because what constitutes "buying American" will always be subject to opinion--based on nameplate, percentage American content, where built, who owns the company, etc.
Is a Chrysler American? I don't know. It's an old American name, but it is owned by Mercedes and uses German components and designs (among others). Volvo is presently one of Ford's best efforts. Mazda's designs may save Ford. The Chevy Malibu and Saab 9-3 share a platform. The Cadillac Catera and the Saturn L300 were Opel designs.
I think some people certainly try to only buy American out of loyalty as well as habit. But a lot of people began buying what they perceived to be good design and reliability, as marketplace choices increased.
The traditional "American" manufacturers have made enormous strides in improving their products, but the world never stands still and waits for anyone to catch up. A product will more or less sell on its merits (and desirability). If Ford and GM can get their ducks in a row and field competitive designs across the board, then they will survive and thrive. Competition is good for all concerned.
"is assembled of imported parts here in the US, is that counted as a US part in the % of the car that's North American on the label?"
No.
Gears, casing, synchros, gaskets, etc. are parts. The value of these parts goes into determining the % of domestic content (of parts). Transmissions are assemblies.
That being said, I don't know if the parts which go into the transmissions assembled here in the U.S. are imported or not. I do know however that if those parts ARE imported, it is reflected in the final % of domestic content (as non-domestic content).
BTW - are you aware that some of the American suppliers of parts for the 'import' brands ALSO supply those same parts for assembly of Japanese market automobiles? For instance: the American company which builds/supplies catalytic converters for Toyota's U.S. operation ALSO supplies catalytic converters for cars built (and sold) in Japan.
Ok, we understand that you feel strongly about the issue. Since Consumer Reports and JD Powers have been rating traditionally-Japanese brands higher on reliability and TCO, then you assume they must be biased. They also rate Buick highly. Buick has been a statistical anomaly for GM over the last ten years. They have been rated much better in reliability than cars from the other GM divisions. What I am attempting to do is counter your argument that everyone who reads or responds to CR surveys is biased. So, if you were to get the chance to debate a representative from Consumer Reports, or JD Powers, or even Edmunds on why you feel a buyer should choose a Ford or GM sedan rather than other alternatives, what data would you use to support this argument?
Where do you feel this bias against traditionally-American cars came from? One could not buy a Toyota in the US until the first Toyopet rolled off the boat in 1960, and it was an admittedly uncompetitive car. So, this bias must have begun sometime in the last 40 years. Why? Where did it come from? How should GM, Ford, and DC change this bias in order to reverse their fortunes in the market?
(By the way, I live within only a couple of miles of a Ford plant, and many people in my area work for them, so I also wish for the company to succeed for the economic health of my community.)
CU of course. Very few times has their data been consistent with my real-life experiences. Either that or I'm the luckiest guy in the world when it comes to cars. In that case, I guess I could get a Yugo or a 1986 Hyundai Excel to go 250K miles.
I've heard of the problems with the engine cradle on the 2000 Impala. Maybe they corrected the problem by the time my girlfriend got her car. Never heard about the ISS. Still, girlfriend's car has 85K on it without a hiccup. Her car has the 3.4 V-6. I don't think it's that bad, but it's nowhere as nice as the 3.8. I tried to convince her to upgrade to the 3.8, but she was being a cheapskate. The 2000-05 Impala isn't the type of vehicle I'd want to have as my only car if I could afford something better, but as a work car or a second vehicle, it's awesome.
CR only sends surveys to its subscribers who mostly buy imports. Heck, if MacWorld sends surveys to its subscribers, I'm sure MacIntoshes will look awesome compared to PCs. I never got a CR survey. My girlfriend got one from JD Powers for her LaCrosse and she gave it a glowing review.
Where do you feel this bias against traditionally-American cars came from? One could not buy a Toyota in the US until the first Toyopet rolled off the boat in 1960, and it was an admittedly uncompetitive car. So, this bias must have begun sometime in the last 40 years. Why? Where did it come from? How should GM, Ford, and DC change this bias in order to reverse their fortunes in the market?
Well, first of all, the bias began with the Babyboomer generation that saw anything as GM/Ford/Chrysler as part of the "establishment" and that buying an import was making some kind of statement. What they failed to see was that by doing so, they were wrecking their own futures as well as that of their children.
The second thing that happened was the Arab oil embargo that put the kibbosh on sales of V-8 powered full-sized American cars. Americans did suck at building small cars at that time. VW really wasn't that much better. The only people that had at handle on how to build a decent small car were the Japanese - particularly Toyota, Honda, and Datsun. Mazda almost killed themselves trying to perfect the rotary engine. The Japanese cars weren't really that great themselves as they usually collapsed into piles of iron oxide after two NE winters, but their powertrains were better than those from the U.S. and Europe.
What do I think they should do? Go back to building AMERICAN cars again - not poor copies of Japanese or European ones. Chrysler has got it. Ford is getting it. GM is still putzing around. C'mon! Where's that Camaro? Gimme a RWD Chevrolet Impala SS with a V-8! No more cheesy FWD at Buick or Cadillac!
might rag on the Impala, doesn't Consumer Guide consistently give the Impala a recommended rating?
Consumer Reports' ratings are also getting to the point they're almost meaningless, because the different tiers of reliability are so close together. The difference between "much better than average" and "better than average" is almost negligible. "average" really isn't that far of a step down, and even "worse than average" ain't that bad. "Much worse than average" is a broad spectrum, though.
The problem is that what constitutes an average car these days is so improved over the old days, that there just isn't much room for improvement. So a car can actually score worse than average and still be a good car. And even a car at the upper end of the "much worse than average" spectrum still might not be too scary.
I wish CR would show the actual percentages of problems in categories, instead of assigning their little black and red dots. For instance, for "much better than average", I think something like 0-3% of respondents had a problem. Well then, let them show the actual number, such as 1.2% or whatever. As it is now, a car with a 2.9% rate is much better than average, while a car with a 5.1% is only average, and one with an 8.1% is probably worse than average. But in every case, more than 90% of them are still troublefree.
CR's recommendations are also kinda funny in the way they calculate them. A car could actually score quite well, but still be labeled a car to avoid, only because other cars did a little better.
...there are very few cars I'd feel uncomfortable buying and they're all upmarket German makes whose purchase, maintenance, and repair costs would scare all be the most reckless libertine. Heck, I'm confident that the cheapest Kia will reliably get me to work.
>wish CR would show the actual percentages of problems in categories, instead of assigning their little black and red dots. For instance, for "much better than average", I think something like 0-3% of respondents had a problem.
I wish they would tell me they had responses from 10 vehicles of this type and base their circles on that or they had responses about 2000 vehicles of this type and...
They don't tell the real information. As you indicate their good/bad difference may be trivial in some cases leaving them to put whatever spin they wish to put.
I wish CR would show the actual percentages of problems in categories, instead of assigning their little black and red dots.
CR already does this -- each ranking corresponds to a range of percentages. These are clearly displayed in its publications.
Aside from the fact CR limits its survey pool to its subsribers, I see nothing wrong with its current system. The methodology is clearly explained for anyone who wants to read it, so there are no mysteries within. And the data generally correlates with other survey data, such as Intellichoice and JD Power, so there's no reason to not view it as credible.
What I love here are the attempts to use anecdotes to prove general points, i.e. I like my Oldsmobile, therefore all Oldsmobiles are excellent and better than Toyotas.
That's an illogical approach. Survey data is comprised of hundreds or thousands of data points, versus the one data point provided by an anecdote. I'll take a CR survey over one Big 2.5 cheerleader's unique experience every day of the week.
What does Toyota really offer besides reliability? I know, how can I over look reliability?
Let me explain. I drive my cars to death. To me 100,000 is just getting broken in. The only car I've ever owned (out of nearly 50) that didn't see 100,000 miles was a Geo Metro I sold with 89,000 on it. Is a Metro a refined, reliable car? No. Yet I experienced 0 problems during those 2 years (yes I bought it new. Did I take care of it? Regular maintanece, but I used it as a hunting rig one year, and took place that people in 4X4's just started with there mouth open.
Now if I can go 100,000 in virtually every car I've ever owned without having any trouble, even in cheap beater cars, what advantage does a Camry hold for me? (My Sebring Coupe spun a distributor at 96,000, but in fairness I run it at the local drag strip.)
Add a little side not of a friend that had to drive on 4 miles of unpaved "highway" to get to his house. He bought a new Camry in '92. After 6 months both axle seals went out are were not covered by the warrenty becuase he had taken it "off-road". Yet his '63 Wildcat had no issues with this trip.
I'm not anti-import or loyal to any brand, but Corolla's Camry's and Avalons are appliances, and I'm a car guy.
I came in this country 5 years ago, from Europe. My favorite car there was Ford. It has nice models and their quality and reliability is remarkable. My relatives here told me Ford is crap here, do not buy one. My first car was a Honda Accord ('87). Great car. I still miss it. When it died at 300 k (it did not actually die, but the costs of keeping it were too high), I bought a US built '97 Accord. Now people around me all had multiple generations of Honda's and Toyota's. All told me the same thing: since they started making them here in US they are not as reliable as the old ones. Sure enough, that was the story with my Accord. Barely 100 k on it and it gave me serious signs that trouble is on the horizon. So, I thought I'd give Ford US a chance and I bought a brand new Ford. This Ford is actually heavily based on a Volvo. I like what they did with the design and I think they outsmarted all the Japanese. But you can see in the details that it is buzz cut build style. And there are small technical issues that do not happen with Japanese cars. Non of the European cars are perfect, so I am used to taking the car back to the dealership to have this and that fixed. What's amazing is the very poor training of the Ford dealers. They don't know a thing about their cars, so problems remain unfixed, which reflect bad on the reliability score of the manufacturer. In contrast, before selling my 97 accord I took the car into a Honda dealership for checkup to assure the buyer. I was amazed of how well those guys were informed about the vehicle. I was able to sell the car with more then I anticipated because of that service manager. I will not buy a Honda (I think now) again. First of all none of their designs fits my needs. I do not like their arrogance (they do build good cars though ). Although we can own Honda, we do not, and it is a Japanese owned company. I've been here a short time, but maybe I am here because I love this country, so patriotism plays an important part in my buying decision. Ford does awesome everywhere else in the world. I wish they can turn things around here, too. Maybe some of you know why Ford does not bring home some of its foreign models? And I do think Chrysler is a German company, now. All their latest models are German designs.
CR already does this -- each ranking corresponds to a range of percentages. These are clearly displayed in its publications.
That's not what I want to see, though. If, for example, car A scores a 2.9% problem rate while car B scores a 5.1% problem rate, I want to SEE the problem rate. NOT a little red dot signifying that Car A scored between 0-2.999999X% while car B scored 5.0-7.99999999X or whatever and gets a clear dot.
CR's way gives you a range so you can narrow it down a bit, but I'd rather see the real number. Now if Car A scored, say, 0.1% while Car B scored 7.9%, then I'd be more impressed with the quality of Car A. But if it's 2.9% and 5.1%, that's neglible to me. But enough to still get one car rated much better than average while one is just "average".
Also, I'd like to see the actual number because let's supposed a car I liked scored much worse than average in several categories. Well, to score that bad, 15% or more have to have problems. That's a pretty broad range. If only 15% of them have a given problem I might be willing to chance it if I really like the car, but if it's scoring 50% or some other high number, then I ain't touching it with a 10 foot pole!
The reason they don't show the actual number is because then people would look at them and see how close most of them really are. And then many of CR's recommendations would become meaningless. And subscriptions would probably drop.
Consumer Reports' rating system kinda reminds me of the grading system of a Catholic school I once attended. Now in public schools, the grading system is something like...
90%+: A 80-90%: B 70-80%: C 60-70%: D <60%: E (used to be "F", but I think that was too stigmatizing on kids, so they changed it to an "E".
Well at this catholic school, it was more like...
93%+: A 86-93%: B 78-86%: C 70-78%: D <70%: F (they were catholic, they didn't care about traumatizing us)
In the case of the catholic school, the actual grades end up being a bit more meaningless, because they're tighter together. And while it could be argued that the higher thresholds would make us strive harder, that wasn't always the case. Heck, I remember our school got in trouble because in 8th grade, it turned out that one of the kids only tested at a 4th grade reading level! So just like our school's testing and grading methods could be misleading, so are CR's.
As it is now, a car with a 2.9% rate is much better than average, while a car with a 5.1% is only average, and one with an 8.1% is probably worse than average. But in every case, more than 90% of them are still troublefree.
CR's recommendations are also kinda funny in the way they calculate them. A car could actually score quite well, but still be labeled a car to avoid, only because other cars did a little better.
Thats hilarious. Isn't the desire of any reasonable and prudent person to get the very best vehicle for their own hard earned money? Second best is not usually associated with being good or being a winner. Second place sucks they used to say. As for third, fourth, fifth, or last place. They are incomparable to top notch finishers, even if the difference is small in percentage, the difference exists, and is very real. Also, when cars are traditionally reliable, it also correlates with having almost no chance of getting a vehicle that is on the EXTREMELY unreliable side of the spectrum. If a car is far below average, that means there are many cars of that model that fall FAR FAR FAR WAY below average!
A little better is still a lot better in my book. Give me the very BEST for my hard earned money!
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
"Isn't the desire of any reasonable and prudent person to get the very best vehicle for their own hard earned money?"
Yes, that's true. But you are saying the "best" car is the most reliable and everything else is completely secondary.
What andre1969 is saying is that he may have several criteria (style, performance, etc.) and that overall reliablity is only part of the equation. He wants a better (more precise) picture of the expected reliability so he can judge, for himself, if the differences in reliablity are worth it.
In other words, just as some folks will pour over specifications (legroom, headroom, braking distance, power/weight ratio, etc.) why not do the same with the ratings? I wouldn't put much stock in a bunch of little red/black dots if I was trying to compare legroom or expected fuel economy. I would want the numbers.
That's not what I want to see, though. If, for example, car A scores a 2.9% problem rate while car B scores a 5.1% problem rate, I want to SEE the problem rate. NOT a little red dot signifying that Car A scored between 0-2.999999X% while car B scored 5.0-7.99999999X or whatever and gets a clear dot.
They don't bother with that because (a) it's harder to read quickly and (b) the differences are not statistically significant within a given category.
The differences between two "much better than average" cars should be relatively unimportant, and within the statistical margin of error, i.e. the difference between a car with which 0.5% of owners report a problem versus another with 1.0% is not terribly meaningful, particularly when considering the margin of error.
The meaningful differences are between the extremes. A car that is "much better than average" in a given category is highly likely to be superior to one that is "much worse than average". The specific percentage isn't important, but the differences between the two should be obvious.
In any case, it's obvious that all of these surveys and reviews have certain benefits, it is up to the intelligent reader to use them wisely rather than invent conspiracy theories in a poor effort to discredit them. This is what I'd do:
-To get an enthusiast's perspective, read the enthusiast magazines (Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, Autoweek, Sports Car International, Edmunds, and even Motor Trend). They do have certain preferences, so bear that in mind and consider whether or not they match yours. They generally pay little mind to reliability, so they won't help you with making a decision on that basis.
-For a review of a car as an appliance, Consumer Reports reigns supreme. Very little enthusiasm for cars as pleasure items, but very good for dealing with practicalities.
-For consumer reliability feedback, look to CR, Intellichoice and JD Power. Generally, you will find them roughly in agreement with one another. If you see that they differ, do some more research and try to figure out whether one has identified a flaw that might impact your purchase decision.
-Resale values are generally a good measure of customer satisfaction. If you are buying a bread-and-butter mid-market or budget car, you will find that resale and reliability generally (but do not always) correlate.
-Look at the NHTSA ODI site for recalls and TSB's. If you see a lot of TSB's that match up with CR's reliability rankings, chances are pretty good that CR has identified a serious problem that no amount of preventative maintenance will fix, a good red flag of something to be wary of.
I also find enthusiast forums for non-Big 2.5 cars to be filled with owners who are surprisingly candid about the positives and negatives about their cars, rather than drinking the Kool Aid. The info is largely anecdotal, but in the context of other information, can be highly informative.
is only one aspect of the whole vehicle experience. For example, Car A could be totally reliable but handle like crap, ride like crap, accelerate like crap, and look like crap. Meanwhile, Car B could be a bit less reliable but have great handling, acceleration, and everything else.
It just depends on what your priorities are. Reliable crap can still be crap. (not calling any particular car crap, mind you).
Or, put it another way. My 2000 Dodge Intrepid has 114,000 miles on it. Original transmission. Ratings will vary from year to year as a car ages, but the 2000 Intrepid was usually rated "average". My Mom's 1999 Altima crapped its first tranny at 35,000 miles, although tranny #2 is still holding, at roughly 190,000 miles. The Altima was usually rated better to much-better than average.
My Intrepid handles better than her Altima. It's much roomier. Quieter, better ride, etc. Her Altima's seat hurts my back after about 10 minutes. And it's fugly. So, while CR might rate the Altima better for reliability, which one of these two would have been the best for MY hard-earned money? A car with so-so reliability that's held up well and does what I want it to, or a car with a great reputation that pooped its tranny and doesn't fit my needs and wants?
I agree that the difference between 2.9% and 5.1% is trivial. In fact, I have no qualms about buying a car with a worse-than-average reliability rating precisely because the average has become so high.
In 1998 I bought my first car (not a family hand-me-down or sibling time-share). After a lot of research I purchased a 1996 Nissan 200SX SE-R. There were no Big 3 (back then there were still 3) cars on the list. I went down to the local Pontiac dealer and asked him if he had any inexpensive, sharp-handling, manual transmission cars. (The Pontiac motto of the time was "Driving Excitement")
Nope.
Fast forward to late 2004 when I'm purchasing my second car. The short list was VW R32, Subaru WRX and Pontiac GTO. The lack of safety and luxury features on the GTO gave the nod to the VW. In fairness, the Subaru was lacking in comfort and safety as well... but had AWD and was much less expensive.
Neither of the two purchases I made were CR "Best Buy"s. I was willing to trade that extra percentage point or two for other factors like interiors, handling, etc.
Rambling back to the topic at hand...
AWD 'rally' cars are pretty hot right now. The WRX, Evo, VWs with 4motion, Audis with Quattro, etc. are all popular cars these days. Where are the American rally cars? Even Acura and BMW are getting into the mix and yet there are no AWD contenders from Ford or GM. :confuse:
Finally, like Lemko I live in the Philadelphia area. Unlike Lemko I am not a confessed GM (Cadillac) fan. I see just as many rusted out quarter panels on 15 year old imports as I do stripped paint and missing trim sections on 15 year old domestics. I also smell burning oil from domestics as often as I hear a rattle from an import.
In any car over 4 years old, maintenance will play a larger factor in the condition of the car than manufacturing.
I'm not anti-import or loyal to any brand, but Corolla's Camry's and Avalons are appliances, and I'm a car guy.
Ok, what cars from the domestics that compete with a Corolla, Camry, Avalon is not what you describe as an appliance?
If you say Impala, GP, G6, & Malibu, LaCrosse I'll fall off my chair laughing.
There are only 2 domestic car's that I'd consider that compete with the Cam/Cords. That would be a Fusion and possibly the Saturn Aura as long as GM doesn't butcher it and put the 3.5 or 3.9 with a 4 speed in it.
I do like the 300, but I'm talking v6 fwd sedans in this comparison.
Group them together how you like, but to me the Accord is a much better all around car than a Camry. If fact if I was in the market for this type of car my list would include the Altima, Fusion, Sonota, Azura and Mazda 6 before the Camry. Will see about the Aura when its out.
The Corolla cant match up to the Civic or Mazda 6 in my mind. And if your looking for sporty in this class, the Corolla XRS is a turd compared to an SRT-4, or even a Cobalt SS or Saturn Red-line.
The Avalon? I'll take a Magnum R/T AWD with the tow package thank you very much.
Even if its true that Consumer Reports has a majority of import car buyer readers, it wouldn't affect the awfully piss poor reliability ratings of US branded cars. Having 1,000,000 Hondas with only 100 reported problems, is still excellent reliability. Having 10,000 Dodge Neons, with 10,000 reported problems, is still miserably bad reliability.
Let's compare what the government office of the NHTS has to say about the 2005 Neon and the 2005 Honda Civic. Both are in the same class and both are a year old.
Oops, my mistake. Since I've had extended seat time behind the wheel of an Accord EX v6 and a Camry XLE v6, I would agree that the Accord is more engaging to drive, but the Camry is for someone who wants to be isolated from the driving experience which it does very well and it seems many people want that type of car.
I'm curious about the '07 Camry. The powertrain certainly has my attention as does an '06 Accord EX v6 w/ 6speed manual.
Malibu/G6 .. 58.0 K units YTD Camry ...... 54.8 K lame duck model Corolla...... 50.0 K Civic ........ 49.5 K Accord ..... 47.3 K Huh??? Altima ...... 36.1 K
Yes this would be my question.. How much of those sales are to rental of government agencies?
what is the purpose of this argument who cares how many cars gm sells to rental companies and the govt, what does that have to do with a company making a quality product? just because those agencies for whatever reason didnt choose imports dosent make the gm cars less reliable using that annalogy il never buy an import cause all the pizza delivery guys drive them
Comments
CR provides its ratings based upon the percentage of owners who report problems within given areas. So the number of owners for a given car should not affect the outcome, just so long as the sample size is sufficient that the pool of respondents is meaningful. (There would be a margin of error based upon the sample size, but for commonly owned cars, this difference should not be signficant.)
The one flaw with CR is that the survey respondents are volunteers who are subscribers to the magazine, which means that the survey pool might be biased or otherwise skewed in ways that may not be representative of the population at large. But still, if the outcome for a certain car is negative or good, then there are probably good reasons for it. Being that CR data is often consistent with what can be found in other sources, such as JD Power, I'd say that it's generally pretty accurate and worth considering.
Consumer Reports doesn't give out the complete listing of who their "respondents" actually are and what they actually said. They just give enough data that infers that their data is "reliable" for use in car purchases.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Jim P.
In other words, you are dreaming and out of touch with reality.
GM is also a well respected maker of auto's in other parts of the world, specifically Europe, Australia and China.
The problem arises is that in the US it's auto business, excluding Caddy's, is ho-hum or a dismal at best. In the States in auto's GM might be a third or fourth rate supplier.
Because of it's great position in many segments GM is not going to go away or disappear. But it may have to a) reinvigorate its US auto business ( it is way way behind ), or b) let it disappear as a low-margin loser.
Doing this allows GM to redirect valuable resources to the products that actually make huge profits and/or are well respected.
I wonder what their stock looked like immediately before the fed bailout? Of course, now that they are a joint operation with Mercedes, perhaps their stock has stabilized.
My mom purchased shares of Toyota stock early last summer (either early or late June) at around $72. Six months later the stock is at over $105 (for those weak in math, thats better than a 45% increase in around 8 months). And Toyota wasn't exactly WEAK last summer...
You guys ARE aware that Americans CAN own stock in foreign companies? Just as foreigners can own stock in American companies?
Perhaps GM stock will be worth something.....after they are absorbed by Toyota...
I missed buying McDonnel Douglas after the big crash in Dallas that dropped the share price drastically-I was in financial limbo at the time and didn't want to commit.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Story
I don't believe CU is biased against GM or domestics. I'm not biased against GM, just crappy product. Ironically, basically every GM car I've owned/driven, falls in that category.
Just look at CU's used cars to avoid from Chevy:
Have you driven a '98-'04 Blazer? Those things are horrible by any measure, not to mention unreliable. '01 Impala, had one, and it was garbage too. Trailblazer, here on edmunds, their is a whole thread just on failed transmissions, not to mention all of the other issues these SUV's have.
Just about every make has a vehicle on the do not buy list exept, Toyota. All that means is Toyota has more consistency than any other automaker.
Bottom line, buy what you like.
Honda and Toyota shares are traded on the NYSE. You can even buy them using dollars. Shocking, I know, but true...
Just an analogy - Sushi you eat in your local restaurant that are made by US citizens are less American then a burger you eat while on the trip in Japan?
I wouldn't drive a Chevrolet Blazer or any other SUV regardless of how well-made it is. My brother, however, did have a 1989 Blazer and it was extremely reliable. My brother is one of the few people who actually take an SUV offroad as he is an avid outdoorsman. He currently has a Jeep Cherokee Sport and has reported no problems. He prefers it to Jeep's more current offerings as it has a solid rear beam axle as opposed to rear independent suspension. He says the solid-beam axle is better is offroad conditions.
And in a nutshell, what would be the risk to the future of this country and its workers by buying foreign?
Workers? There are as many vehicles produced in this country as ever. Whatever loss of production that has occurred on the 'domestic' side has been made up by increased production, in this country, by the 'import' nameplates. In fact, while the Big 2 have started shipping more of their 'domestic' production to Mexico/Canda, the import names have increased production in the U.S.
Are there fewer net WORKERS employeed? Yes. But that isn't due to fewer vehicles being produced in this country; it is due to increased efficiency (mostly by the import brands but also, finally, by the domestic brands). Are you arguing that we should reward inefficiency just so more workers are required?
Or are you more concerned by a loss of jobs in the supplier network? Over the years, the 'import' brands which have been assembling cars in this country have been INCREASING their domestic content. Are they, on the whole, as high as the 'domestic' nameplates? No, they aren't. However, while the domestic content of the 'imports' has been RISING, the domestic content of many 'domestic' models has been DECLINING.
Risking the future of your country? I'm at a loss on this one as well. I keep hearing talk about how the profits from the Big 2 stay here in the U.S. while all the profits from the imports goes overseas.
First, assuming the profit from the Big 2 stayed in this country, how would this manifest itself? What does an automotive company do with profits?
Would we see it by new plants being opened or upgraded? Would we see it in new R&D facilities? Would we see it by new design studios? Just exactly WHAT do you think a company DOES with it's profit? Would a smart company invest that profit in improving current products or developing new products?
Now ask yourself - which companies ARE expanding facilities in the U.S.? Which companies ARE investing funds in the U.S. to improve their current N.A. products or develope new products?
And which companies are spending profits to buy up smaller companies around the globe (profits sent overseas) and improve themselves in OTHER markets (by spending profits overseas).
The difference between Honda and US brands isn't necessarily that one is built in the US, Mexico, or Japan (or even Canada now). I still strongly believe that the workers in Japan having built cars of high quality their entire lives are better at assembling cars, but the main difference lies in the quality control, engineering, and design of the cars. Japanese design and engineering simply provides Honda's american workers with a superior car and car parts to assemble. US auto assembly worker's are given garbage parts, garbage engineering, and grabage design. Garbage in equals garbage out, no matter how good you are at putting it together.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Somebody should tell this to Consumer Reports when they compile their statistical data. I saw the Consumer Reports chimp on CNN this morning. It made me want to get my .45 and make like Elvis.
LOL... the american car worshippers of the forum now have to discount and ignore not only CR (which is the most factual and least biased publication on automobiles; accepting no advertising from anyone!) but also now have to discredit IntelliChoices Best Overall Value of the Year winners.
The list..... ALL Japanese, with a sprinkle of German, and a Corvette, (excluding giant 3/4 ton and larger trucks and giant vans).
Now when it comes to trucks...it's a whole different story.
Are you talking about CU or GM?
Regarding the Impala, it is recommended and does generally gets good reliability scores, but the '01 does stand out for a few very annoying issues and is on CU's avoid list. The ISS and engine cradle problems would be fairly expensive to deal with outside of warranty.
My wife's '01 never left her stranded, so I guess from that point of view it was reliable, but the ISS (intermediate steering shaft) was a persistant problem that is found some other GM products (Tahoe/Suburbans) that just added to the many things I didn't like about the car. Numb steering/ brakes, slow 3.4L, it's a car I don't miss and wouldn't want again and we only had it for 40k miles.
Is a Chrysler American? I don't know. It's an old American name, but it is owned by Mercedes and uses German components and designs (among others). Volvo is presently one of Ford's best efforts. Mazda's designs may save Ford. The Chevy Malibu and Saab 9-3 share a platform. The Cadillac Catera and the Saturn L300 were Opel designs.
I think some people certainly try to only buy American out of loyalty as well as habit. But a lot of people began buying what they perceived to be good design and reliability, as marketplace choices increased.
The traditional "American" manufacturers have made enormous strides in improving their products, but the world never stands still and waits for anyone to catch up. A product will more or less sell on its merits (and desirability). If Ford and GM can get their ducks in a row and field competitive designs across the board, then they will survive and thrive. Competition is good for all concerned.
No.
Gears, casing, synchros, gaskets, etc. are parts. The value of these parts goes into determining the % of domestic content (of parts). Transmissions are assemblies.
That being said, I don't know if the parts which go into the transmissions assembled here in the U.S. are imported or not. I do know however that if those parts ARE imported, it is reflected in the final % of domestic content (as non-domestic content).
BTW - are you aware that some of the American suppliers of parts for the 'import' brands ALSO supply those same parts for assembly of Japanese market automobiles? For instance: the American company which builds/supplies catalytic converters for Toyota's U.S. operation ALSO supplies catalytic converters for cars built (and sold) in Japan.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Where do you feel this bias against traditionally-American cars came from? One could not buy a Toyota in the US until the first Toyopet rolled off the boat in 1960, and it was an admittedly uncompetitive car. So, this bias must have begun sometime in the last 40 years. Why? Where did it come from? How should GM, Ford, and DC change this bias in order to reverse their fortunes in the market?
(By the way, I live within only a couple of miles of a Ford plant, and many people in my area work for them, so I also wish for the company to succeed for the economic health of my community.)
I've heard of the problems with the engine cradle on the 2000 Impala. Maybe they corrected the problem by the time my girlfriend got her car. Never heard about the ISS. Still, girlfriend's car has 85K on it without a hiccup. Her car has the 3.4 V-6. I don't think it's that bad, but it's nowhere as nice as the 3.8. I tried to convince her to upgrade to the 3.8, but she was being a cheapskate. The 2000-05 Impala isn't the type of vehicle I'd want to have as my only car if I could afford something better, but as a work car or a second vehicle, it's awesome.
Where do you feel this bias against traditionally-American cars came from? One could not buy a Toyota in the US until the first Toyopet rolled off the boat in 1960, and it was an admittedly uncompetitive car. So, this bias must have begun sometime in the last 40 years. Why? Where did it come from? How should GM, Ford, and DC change this bias in order to reverse their fortunes in the market?
Well, first of all, the bias began with the Babyboomer generation that saw anything as GM/Ford/Chrysler as part of the "establishment" and that buying an import was making some kind of statement. What they failed to see was that by doing so, they were wrecking their own futures as well as that of their children.
The second thing that happened was the Arab oil embargo that put the kibbosh on sales of V-8 powered full-sized American cars. Americans did suck at building small cars at that time. VW really wasn't that much better. The only people that had at handle on how to build a decent small car were the Japanese - particularly Toyota, Honda, and Datsun. Mazda almost killed themselves trying to perfect the rotary engine. The Japanese cars weren't really that great themselves as they usually collapsed into piles of iron oxide after two NE winters, but their powertrains were better than those from the U.S. and Europe.
What do I think they should do? Go back to building AMERICAN cars again - not poor copies of Japanese or European ones. Chrysler has got it. Ford is getting it. GM is still putzing around. C'mon! Where's that Camaro? Gimme a RWD Chevrolet Impala SS with a V-8! No more cheesy FWD at Buick or Cadillac!
Consumer Reports' ratings are also getting to the point they're almost meaningless, because the different tiers of reliability are so close together. The difference between "much better than average" and "better than average" is almost negligible. "average" really isn't that far of a step down, and even "worse than average" ain't that bad. "Much worse than average" is a broad spectrum, though.
The problem is that what constitutes an average car these days is so improved over the old days, that there just isn't much room for improvement. So a car can actually score worse than average and still be a good car. And even a car at the upper end of the "much worse than average" spectrum still might not be too scary.
I wish CR would show the actual percentages of problems in categories, instead of assigning their little black and red dots. For instance, for "much better than average", I think something like 0-3% of respondents had a problem. Well then, let them show the actual number, such as 1.2% or whatever. As it is now, a car with a 2.9% rate is much better than average, while a car with a 5.1% is only average, and one with an 8.1% is probably worse than average. But in every case, more than 90% of them are still troublefree.
CR's recommendations are also kinda funny in the way they calculate them. A car could actually score quite well, but still be labeled a car to avoid, only because other cars did a little better.
I wish they would tell me they had responses from 10 vehicles of this type and base their circles on that or they had responses about 2000 vehicles of this type and...
They don't tell the real information. As you indicate their good/bad difference may be trivial in some cases leaving them to put whatever spin they wish to put.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
CR already does this -- each ranking corresponds to a range of percentages. These are clearly displayed in its publications.
Aside from the fact CR limits its survey pool to its subsribers, I see nothing wrong with its current system. The methodology is clearly explained for anyone who wants to read it, so there are no mysteries within. And the data generally correlates with other survey data, such as Intellichoice and JD Power, so there's no reason to not view it as credible.
What I love here are the attempts to use anecdotes to prove general points, i.e. I like my Oldsmobile, therefore all Oldsmobiles are excellent and better than Toyotas.
That's an illogical approach. Survey data is comprised of hundreds or thousands of data points, versus the one data point provided by an anecdote. I'll take a CR survey over one Big 2.5 cheerleader's unique experience every day of the week.
Let me explain.
I drive my cars to death. To me 100,000 is just getting broken in. The only car I've ever owned (out of nearly 50) that didn't see 100,000 miles was a Geo Metro I sold with 89,000 on it. Is a Metro a refined, reliable car? No. Yet I experienced 0 problems during those 2 years (yes I bought it new. Did I take care of it? Regular maintanece, but I used it as a hunting rig one year, and took place that people in 4X4's just started with there mouth open.
Now if I can go 100,000 in virtually every car I've ever owned without having any trouble, even in cheap beater cars, what advantage does a Camry hold for me? (My Sebring Coupe spun a distributor at 96,000, but in fairness I run it at the local drag strip.)
Add a little side not of a friend that had to drive on 4 miles of unpaved "highway" to get to his house. He bought a new Camry in '92. After 6 months both axle seals went out are were not covered by the warrenty becuase he had taken it "off-road". Yet his '63 Wildcat had no issues with this trip.
I'm not anti-import or loyal to any brand, but Corolla's Camry's and Avalons are appliances, and I'm a car guy.
My relatives here told me Ford is crap here, do not buy one.
My first car was a Honda Accord ('87). Great car. I still miss it. When it died at 300 k (it did not actually die, but the costs of keeping it were too high), I bought a US built '97 Accord. Now people around me all had multiple generations of Honda's and Toyota's. All told me the same thing: since they started making them here in US they are not as reliable as the old ones. Sure enough, that was the story with my Accord. Barely 100 k on it and it gave me serious signs that trouble is on the horizon.
So, I thought I'd give Ford US a chance and I bought a brand new Ford. This Ford is actually heavily based on a Volvo. I like what they did with the design and I think they outsmarted all the Japanese. But you can see in the details that it is buzz cut build style. And there are small technical issues that do not happen with Japanese cars.
Non of the European cars are perfect, so I am used to taking the car back to the dealership to have this and that fixed. What's amazing is the very poor training of the Ford dealers. They don't know a thing about their cars, so problems remain unfixed, which reflect bad on the reliability score of the manufacturer.
In contrast, before selling my 97 accord I took the car into a Honda dealership for checkup to assure the buyer. I was amazed of how well those guys were informed about the vehicle. I was able to sell the car with more then I anticipated because of that service manager.
I will not buy a Honda (I think now) again. First of all none of their designs fits my needs. I do not like their arrogance (they do build good cars though
I've been here a short time, but maybe I am here because I love this country, so patriotism plays an important part in my buying decision. Ford does awesome everywhere else in the world. I wish they can turn things around here, too. Maybe some of you know why Ford does not bring home some of its foreign models?
And I do think Chrysler is a German company, now. All their latest models are German designs.
That's not what I want to see, though. If, for example, car A scores a 2.9% problem rate while car B scores a 5.1% problem rate, I want to SEE the problem rate. NOT a little red dot signifying that Car A scored between 0-2.999999X% while car B scored 5.0-7.99999999X or whatever and gets a clear dot.
CR's way gives you a range so you can narrow it down a bit, but I'd rather see the real number. Now if Car A scored, say, 0.1% while Car B scored 7.9%, then I'd be more impressed with the quality of Car A. But if it's 2.9% and 5.1%, that's neglible to me. But enough to still get one car rated much better than average while one is just "average".
Also, I'd like to see the actual number because let's supposed a car I liked scored much worse than average in several categories. Well, to score that bad, 15% or more have to have problems. That's a pretty broad range. If only 15% of them have a given problem I might be willing to chance it if I really like the car, but if it's scoring 50% or some other high number, then I ain't touching it with a 10 foot pole!
The reason they don't show the actual number is because then people would look at them and see how close most of them really are. And then many of CR's recommendations would become meaningless. And subscriptions would probably drop.
Consumer Reports' rating system kinda reminds me of the grading system of a Catholic school I once attended. Now in public schools, the grading system is something like...
90%+: A
80-90%: B
70-80%: C
60-70%: D
<60%: E (used to be "F", but I think that was too stigmatizing on kids, so they changed it to an "E".
Well at this catholic school, it was more like...
93%+: A
86-93%: B
78-86%: C
70-78%: D
<70%: F (they were catholic, they didn't care about traumatizing us)
In the case of the catholic school, the actual grades end up being a bit more meaningless, because they're tighter together. And while it could be argued that the higher thresholds would make us strive harder, that wasn't always the case. Heck, I remember our school got in trouble because in 8th grade, it turned out that one of the kids only tested at a 4th grade reading level! So just like our school's testing and grading methods could be misleading, so are CR's.
CR's recommendations are also kinda funny in the way they calculate them. A car could actually score quite well, but still be labeled a car to avoid, only because other cars did a little better.
Thats hilarious. Isn't the desire of any reasonable and prudent person to get the very best vehicle for their own hard earned money? Second best is not usually associated with being good or being a winner. Second place sucks they used to say. As for third, fourth, fifth, or last place. They are incomparable to top notch finishers, even if the difference is small in percentage, the difference exists, and is very real. Also, when cars are traditionally reliable, it also correlates with having almost no chance of getting a vehicle that is on the EXTREMELY unreliable side of the spectrum. If a car is far below average, that means there are many cars of that model that fall FAR FAR FAR WAY below average!
A little better is still a lot better in my book. Give me the very BEST for my hard earned money!
Yes, that's true. But you are saying the "best" car is the most reliable and everything else is completely secondary.
What andre1969 is saying is that he may have several criteria (style, performance, etc.) and that overall reliablity is only part of the equation. He wants a better (more precise) picture of the expected reliability so he can judge, for himself, if the differences in reliablity are worth it.
In other words, just as some folks will pour over specifications (legroom, headroom, braking distance, power/weight ratio, etc.) why not do the same with the ratings? I wouldn't put much stock in a bunch of little red/black dots if I was trying to compare legroom or expected fuel economy. I would want the numbers.
They don't bother with that because (a) it's harder to read quickly and (b) the differences are not statistically significant within a given category.
The differences between two "much better than average" cars should be relatively unimportant, and within the statistical margin of error, i.e. the difference between a car with which 0.5% of owners report a problem versus another with 1.0% is not terribly meaningful, particularly when considering the margin of error.
The meaningful differences are between the extremes. A car that is "much better than average" in a given category is highly likely to be superior to one that is "much worse than average". The specific percentage isn't important, but the differences between the two should be obvious.
In any case, it's obvious that all of these surveys and reviews have certain benefits, it is up to the intelligent reader to use them wisely rather than invent conspiracy theories in a poor effort to discredit them. This is what I'd do:
-To get an enthusiast's perspective, read the enthusiast magazines (Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, Autoweek, Sports Car International, Edmunds, and even Motor Trend). They do have certain preferences, so bear that in mind and consider whether or not they match yours. They generally pay little mind to reliability, so they won't help you with making a decision on that basis.
-For a review of a car as an appliance, Consumer Reports reigns supreme. Very little enthusiasm for cars as pleasure items, but very good for dealing with practicalities.
-For consumer reliability feedback, look to CR, Intellichoice and JD Power. Generally, you will find them roughly in agreement with one another. If you see that they differ, do some more research and try to figure out whether one has identified a flaw that might impact your purchase decision.
-Resale values are generally a good measure of customer satisfaction. If you are buying a bread-and-butter mid-market or budget car, you will find that resale and reliability generally (but do not always) correlate.
-Look at the NHTSA ODI site for recalls and TSB's. If you see a lot of TSB's that match up with CR's reliability rankings, chances are pretty good that CR has identified a serious problem that no amount of preventative maintenance will fix, a good red flag of something to be wary of.
I also find enthusiast forums for non-Big 2.5 cars to be filled with owners who are surprisingly candid about the positives and negatives about their cars, rather than drinking the Kool Aid. The info is largely anecdotal, but in the context of other information, can be highly informative.
It just depends on what your priorities are. Reliable crap can still be crap. (not calling any particular car crap, mind you).
Or, put it another way. My 2000 Dodge Intrepid has 114,000 miles on it. Original transmission. Ratings will vary from year to year as a car ages, but the 2000 Intrepid was usually rated "average". My Mom's 1999 Altima crapped its first tranny at 35,000 miles, although tranny #2 is still holding, at roughly 190,000 miles. The Altima was usually rated better to much-better than average.
My Intrepid handles better than her Altima. It's much roomier. Quieter, better ride, etc. Her Altima's seat hurts my back after about 10 minutes. And it's fugly. So, while CR might rate the Altima better for reliability, which one of these two would have been the best for MY hard-earned money? A car with so-so reliability that's held up well and does what I want it to, or a car with a great reputation that pooped its tranny and doesn't fit my needs and wants?
In 1998 I bought my first car (not a family hand-me-down or sibling time-share). After a lot of research I purchased a 1996 Nissan 200SX SE-R. There were no Big 3 (back then there were still 3) cars on the list. I went down to the local Pontiac dealer and asked him if he had any inexpensive, sharp-handling, manual transmission cars. (The Pontiac motto of the time was "Driving Excitement")
Nope.
Fast forward to late 2004 when I'm purchasing my second car. The short list was VW R32, Subaru WRX and Pontiac GTO. The lack of safety and luxury features on the GTO gave the nod to the VW. In fairness, the Subaru was lacking in comfort and safety as well... but had AWD and was much less expensive.
Neither of the two purchases I made were CR "Best Buy"s. I was willing to trade that extra percentage point or two for other factors like interiors, handling, etc.
Rambling back to the topic at hand...
AWD 'rally' cars are pretty hot right now. The WRX, Evo, VWs with 4motion, Audis with Quattro, etc. are all popular cars these days. Where are the American rally cars? Even Acura and BMW are getting into the mix and yet there are no AWD contenders from Ford or GM. :confuse:
Finally, like Lemko I live in the Philadelphia area. Unlike Lemko I am not a confessed GM (Cadillac) fan. I see just as many rusted out quarter panels on 15 year old imports as I do stripped paint and missing trim sections on 15 year old domestics. I also smell burning oil from domestics as often as I hear a rattle from an import.
In any car over 4 years old, maintenance will play a larger factor in the condition of the car than manufacturing.
Ok, what cars from the domestics that compete with a Corolla, Camry, Avalon is not what you describe as an appliance?
If you say Impala, GP, G6, & Malibu, LaCrosse I'll fall off my chair laughing.
There are only 2 domestic car's that I'd consider that compete with the Cam/Cords. That would be a Fusion and possibly the Saturn Aura as long as GM doesn't butcher it and put the 3.5 or 3.9 with a 4 speed in it.
I do like the 300, but I'm talking v6 fwd sedans in this comparison.
Group them together how you like, but to me the Accord is a much better all around car than a Camry. If fact if I was in the market for this type of car my list would include the Altima, Fusion, Sonota, Azura and Mazda 6 before the Camry. Will see about the Aura when its out.
The Corolla cant match up to the Civic or Mazda 6 in my mind. And if your looking for sporty in this class, the Corolla XRS is a turd compared to an SRT-4, or even a Cobalt SS or Saturn Red-line.
The Avalon? I'll take a Magnum R/T AWD with the tow package thank you very much.
Let's compare what the government office of the NHTS has to say about the 2005 Neon and the 2005 Honda Civic. Both are in the same class and both are a year old.
Complaints
Neon 7
Honda 31
Service Bulletins
Neon 13
Honda 61
Oops, my mistake. Since I've had extended seat time behind the wheel of an Accord EX v6 and a Camry XLE v6, I would agree that the Accord is more engaging to drive, but the Camry is for someone who wants to be isolated from the driving experience which it does very well and it seems many people want that type of car.
I'm curious about the '07 Camry. The powertrain certainly has my attention as does an '06 Accord EX v6 w/ 6speed manual.
Camry ...... 54.8 K lame duck model
Corolla...... 50.0 K
Civic ........ 49.5 K
Accord ..... 47.3 K Huh???
Altima ...... 36.1 K
Now fleet deliveries to be factored out??
what is the purpose of this argument who cares how many cars gm sells to rental companies and the govt, what does that have to do with a company making a quality product? just because those agencies for whatever reason didnt choose imports dosent make the gm cars less reliable
using that annalogy il never buy an import cause all the pizza delivery guys drive them