GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda...Who will sell you your next car?

andres3

Thank you for proving my point.

If anything, people with high expectations will be harsher and even more critical if problems do come up.

Toyota and Honda buyers expect perfection, anything less..... is well.... (un Toyota and unHonda-like).

dieselone

Perhaps it would help if you provided examples of what questions are asked on the CR survey

Since it's been a few years since I've filled one out, I can't reliably answer the question. I just know they were general questions regarding reliability and satisfaction with the vehicle.

And yes, I believe you can have both unreliability and high satisfaction. I say that cause, I place performance, refinement/quality, and fun to drive, over reliability.

dino001

To play devil's advocate, on the other hand many will keep it to themselves. For various reasons, such as "adjusted for expectation", "remembering how crappy was my '95 Chevy", but also for simple vanity, as nobody likes to admit they made a bad choice. What I mean, they may curse it inside and swear next time they'll try something else, but they'll keep happy face.

As much as myself would like to say people are brainwashed (never been a Toyota's fan), sales numbers do not lie. If you take fleets and purely commercial vehicles (medium duty trucks, vans, etc.), domestics would probably fall behind Nissan (don't know, just guessing). This means when Smith buys a new car for his department, Buy America clause (or price) may force him or otherwise compell to chose Chevy or Ford, when he buys one for himself, he runs straight to Honda or Toyota dealership. It may be different, if he wants to buy used, as Chevy or Ford are much better value used: as the quality gap is well compensated by much better price. In my opinion used Camries, Accords, Civics and Corollas are increadibly overpriced. It's almost insane how much retail dealers are asking for them. But who am I to say - if market bears it, they'll keep asking for them.

andres3

I don't believe resale on Honda and Toyota cars is overpriced. Resale is high due to several factors, one of the main ones being that the American public has finally got smart and figured something out:
1) used Accord with 50K miles will cost you maybe $100 in repair costs over the next 100K miles.
2) used Malibu with 50K miles might cost you $7,000 in repari costs over the next 100K miles.
Do you want to pay for a car thats in the shop all the time, or do you want to pay up front and have a car that performs the functions it was intended to do?

dino001

It is not will, it is may. There is a likelihood, not certainty. It's all about risk management - pay today and perhaps save later or pay less today and perhaps pay tomorrow. The risk premium may be quantified and I certainly believe some premium over domestics may be justifiable.

However, I just think that market pricing on used late-model domestics is also influenced by large supply of late model fleet sales not ony by anticipated reliability. That's why I think "value factor" goes towards domestics in late model used car category. It then goes back to Hondyota for vehicles older than 6 years, as "fleet supply" influence loses its impact and reliability prediction/perception becomes essentially sole factor in vehicle value in the market.

In other words, I can see someone paying 2-3 grand more for 6-8-year old Camry than 6-8-old Impala, but 5-8 grand difference in 2-year old may be just too large to pass, as long as one can accept other aspects of those wondermachines.

nvbanker

"Friends at work are breaking/cracking their so called "bulletproof" composite beds on there new Tacoma's. I here absolutely nothing about this in the media."

And, you never will....it's not news, Rocky.

baggs32

It tells you nothing because you haven't conducted basic research. The red and black circles are clearly designed to provide a lot of data quickly in a user-friendly manner. You are confusing the presentation, which is simplified for common readers, with the methodology behind it.


:confuse: You didn't tell me whether the method, which is used to reach the conclusion as I stated, is standardized or not and why.

Rather than "guarantee" something without data, I'd prefer the data.

You found the current numbers so I assumed you could find them on you own.

Typical response, but you've provided no proof. If you're going to make allegations like that, you should provide some evidence that is credible and believable.


Prove it. You keep asking for proof, I give it, and you never offer any in return when asked to provide it. I'm done with this line of discussion until you provide something yourself. Telling everyone they're wrong all of the time and not providing any useful feedback is easy to do. CR taught you well.

Besides, I can hear the other members snoring.

snakeweasel

I disagree.

You are free to do so, but nothing is an absolute. But public I don't mean every single buyer but the general consensus of the public as a whole.

snakeweasel

Toyota and Honda buyers expect perfection, anything less..... is well....

I know enough Honda and Toyota owners who say they have perfection in cars that they would otherwise call a POS if they were American cars.

qbrozen

later on you mention that we need some examples of this survey because alot of people don't understand what is asked. I think you are absolutely right.

For instance, you stated:
The survey is not rooted in subjective questions, i.e. "Have you had a lot of problems with your car?".

Now, first off, this IS subjective. What are "a lot"?? And what are "problems"?? I hope this isn't how the questions in these surveys are worded if you want to insist on them being objective.

If you've spent time on these forums, you should see exactly the problem with counting on consumers for objectivity. Check out all the posts about how "my funmobile v5000 is a total lemon because the window squeaks! i'm telling everyone I know never to buy one!" Now, do you honestly think someone like that is not skewing their answers to a survey somehow?

tmp888

Quality/Durability is a living thing. What happened in the past does not guarantee will happen in future.

A friend of mine and his wife have been driving Hondas (90ish Accord and Civic) and they love the vehicles because they were so reliable/durable. In 2004, they decided to buy an Odyssys (Honda van) with an assumption that the van would be as reliable/durable. 20K some miles latter the transmission went out (it had to be replaced).

I also have couple friends one works for Ford other works for GM as engineers. They say the new design requirement for powertrain at Ford/GM to last close to 200K miles for passenger vehicle and at least 250K for light truck.

Maybe couple of years from now we would not say dosmetic cars are junk any more???

socala4

Now, first off, this IS subjective. What are "a lot"??

Let's try this again. What I said was:

The survey is not rooted in subjective questions, i.e. "Have you had a lot of problems with your car?".

Note the use of the word "not."

You have some bizarre idea of what the survey questions are like. Users are asked to list those items that required repair on their cars over about fifteen categories.

CR isn't asking the respondents whether they believe their own cars to be average/ better than average/ worse than average. The respondents are asked to list those items that didn't work. The summation of those one million responses is then converted into those easy to read red and black circles.

This is an astonishingly easy concept to understand, so it surprises me that it baffles so many of you. You folks seem to fail to understand the difference between how the questions are posed on the survey, and how the data is presented in the magazine. You seem to think that the respondents are asked to fill in black and red circles, but they aren't.

dieselone

I know enough Honda and Toyota owners who say they have perfection in cars that they would otherwise call a POS if they were American cars.

I think the difference is, you can have a car you really like even if it has problems and a car you don't like even though it is completely reliable. I've had many cars like this. As I mentioned before, the SVT Contour I owned was one of those cars I really liked, but if wasn't for the extended warranty it would have put me in the poor house with all the problems. Everytime I picked up from the service department it put a smile on my face.

My wife's company cars: an 01 Impala, two 03 Taurus, and her current 06 Ford 500 (best of the bunch, but not inspiring in anyway), have all been fairly reliable. The Impala had the ISS, engine cradle issues, along with a bad oil pressure sending unit. Even though these cars were mostly reliable, they are far from being rewarding or desirable. IMO, all they have to offer is reliability nothing else.

IF I have a car I like for several reasons: performance, quality, styling, etc. and it's unreliable it's still possible for me to like the car because it offers other traits I value.

1487

You are completely off base. It is exactly the opposite of what you described. Honda and Toyota owners are so loyal and so biased against anything that isnt Japanese that they will put up with problems and still buy the same brand next time around. If you look at long terms tests here on Edmunds and in other sources you will find that problems with imports are ALWAYS dismissed and the final verdict is always "this was still a great car". Reliability should be automatic in 2006 and I get sick of reading excuses like "this particular model had very un-Honda like reliability but we'll consider it a fluke" when I read long term tests. C&D had an RL that was in the shop a hlaf dozen times and they still gave it a ringing endorsement at the end. The Japanese can do no wrong in the eyes of the press or the eyes of the brainwashed public.

You always read that import buyers are more educated and higher income than domestic buyers but when you read the arguments made by people who swear by imports you start to question that assertion. People say imports are "better built", "better engineered" or "better designed" when they have no way to back that up. Someone earlier said the Impala wasnt rigid because it's on an old platform and that is just BS. The W platform was one of the most rigid in it's class when the '98 models came out and it was strengthened more when the original Impala came out in 2000. I would bet it still ranks near the top of it's class in rigidity. The Epsilon platform (MAlibu, 9-3) is even more rigid. The gap has been closed in fit/finish, rigidity, design, etc. The primary reason to buy Japanese is resale value and the availability of Navigation. That is really about it. There are no other aspects of automotive design or execution that they clearly dominate when compared to the big 3. I dont understand why people who swear by imports have to constantly justify their choices by saying it's the "smart" or "logical" thing to do. That cannot be proven so it's best to say that some people prefer imports and will not ever buy anything domestic, period. When people swear by domestic cars and trash Toyotas they are considered close minded midwesterners who are too stupid to accept Japanese superiority. When people swear by Japanese vehicles without any regard for the facts (including the fact that the quality gap barely exists) they are considered to be "smart" consumers who are spending money wisely.

dieselone

The Japanese can do no wrong in the eyes of the press or the eyes of the brainwashed public.

That's a rediculous comment. I've driven and ridden in to many Camry's and Accords etc. to believe that the only reason people buy/like them is because they're brainwashed.

I've never owned a Honda or Toyota, and I don't know why I defend them. All I can say is they make a very competitive product and people are certainly not STUPID/BRAINWASHED for buying them.

lilengineerboy

I never said anyone was biased against anyone else. I never said anyone loved cars from the US, Japan, or mars. I made a few logical rational arguments about why that type of research can have flaws. If that violates someone's world model and makes it hard for them to sleep at night, I apologize. It is unfortunate that people aren't smart enough to interpret data and make their own decisions, but I guess Fox News would go out of business if that were the case.
Being reasonably well versed in statistical analysis and surveys for data collection, I don't have a problem with CR one way or the other. It is very hard to create and analyze a survey like that and get meaningful results dealing with all the error that gets introduced along the way. If it is a tool that works well for someone, I think thats great and they should use it and be proud. My vacuum and my weed wacker were both CR "recommended" (my dad looked them up for me and the vacuum has been great and the weed wacker acceptable (first one replaced under warranty, 2nd one has been fine for the season so far).

socala4

Wow, a lot of emotion in here

Not sure what you read, but my response to you in #1254 was fairly clinical.

No survey is perfect, and I don't see anyone here arguing that CR data is expected to be perfect. By definition, every survey has a margin of error built into it, and CR should be no exception.

The debate here is whether the CR survey is biased, and I've seen absolutely no proof of that, either here or anywhere else. (Lots of accusations, of course, but no proof.) However, the one conspicuous pattern that I do notice is that those who would buy a GM car, come hell or high water, seem to have a lot of problems with CR, yet can't articulate a good reason why. They aren't offering us sound statistical analysis, just sour grapes.

analyzerlx

Many of you may laugh at me wanting to get a Kia on my next vehicle purchase, but believe me- Kia is a solid company at least imo! I had an '88 Corolla and it was a solid car and wish I still had it. I had an '88 Chevy Citation- horrible! '98 Olds Achieva - great engine and tranny- everything else seemed to be falling apart! I also had an '03 Chevy Cavalier- same deal as the olds! I then bought an '04 Kia Optima - read an article stating it's similar to '90s Japanese models and it's true- especially in the hp to mpg rating. I think that the '90s was a coming of age for Japan and I don't mind my Optima being compared to that heritage. From other products I see coming out of Kia I wish I would have waited a few months and bought a Sedona instead of a Sienna. The payments would be cheaper, I can tell you that much! I hate to say it, but the Japanese are getting lazy or complacent. The Koreans are making even better cars than ever and I think American companies are going to feel even more of a sting about 5 years or less from now, when loyal Kia owners start acting like Honda or Toyota fanatics. I guess it's just the nature of global economics! btw, I love my Sienna- but I love getting deals a lot more. I only wish that my little Kia would retain its value better. :mad:

edwin10

My next car will be a 07 Chevy Suburban 3/4 ton, just
ordered it today, should get it in about 8 weeks or so.

Who cares what someone else drives, the best car is one
you will not get killed in by a drunk driver, a driver
that falls asleep at the wheel and hits you head on,
or a driver fooling with their radio/food/makup, etc.

This car will replace a 00 Chevy Suburban 3/4 ton, and
it has been great. It will pull your house off your
lot and down the street, and it is heavy, if a drunk in
a car hits me, I feel sorry for him. Now that is a
good car.

edwin10

Been reading these replies to American vs Japanese cars,
and CR ratings. I used to take CR magazine, but quit
because most of their ratings, were not right. I bought
luggage they said was good, and it was bad, I currently
own some American cars and trucks, and two Japanese
cars. CR missed the boat on these vehicles, one American
car they rated poorly has been great at 70k miles so far,
and an American truck has been very good, when CR said
it was much worse than average. One Japanese car CR
said was very good, has been awful, my daughter has
hated it, and when she graduates next month she wants
something else, and let me tell you this the trade in
for this Japanese car is NOT GOOD. So I can not believe
some of you when you say trade in is good on Japanese
cars. SHOW ME THE MONEY....

imidazol97

Jackpot!

andres3

If American Vehicles are equal to Japanese cars in every way (or the gap is insignificant now as you say) then show me.

Take the 2003 Honda Accord V6. 240 HP and 21/30 MPG. Show me an American vehicle from 2003 that had that kind of power with that kind of gas mileage. You won't be able to.

Japanese are light years ahead on engines, transmissions, and technology.

nippononly

which Kia?

So you prefer a low price to what you feel is the best-built car? Just trying to understand
"I love my Sienna- but I love getting deals a lot more"

Are you buying a Sedona to replace the Sienna? I just heard the Sedona got the best crash-test ratings in the latest round of IIHS tests....

imidazol97

What kind of problems have you had with your Accord 03? The discussion has reports of steering lead, rattles in the dash and A-pillar area, braking problems (was it warping rotors), brake wear, hard seats, large A-pillar blocking vision especially at intersections, ...?

The 03 was the model with the major pop sounds in the front end at driveways. Didn't a couple of people report Honda even bought theirs back?

Wasn't hard starting a problem also? neumie2000, "Honda Accord (2003-2006) Maintenance & Repair" #669, 26 Apr 2006 5:35 am

What is the torque rating on the engine at typical startup speeds? High horsepower rating at high rpms rarely match the way people drive, especially the Accord owners I see around this area. They have an average age that's much higher than typical.

Not everyone got the perfect Accord!

>Japanese are light years ahead on engines, transmissions, and technology

Aren't those Honda transmissions through many years with extended warranties to cover for failures? And there's the Odyssey trannies...

snakeweasel

You are completely off base. It is exactly the opposite of what you described. Honda and Toyota owners are so loyal and so biased against anything that isnt Japanese that they will put up with problems and still buy the same brand next time around.

That fits many Japanese owners to a tee. My sister is a big time Toyota fan. Her current one went in for warranty work 3 or 4 times in the first two years and she claims it to be highly reliable. Yet when my car had its very first issue at 130K miles her response was "Thats what you get when you don't buy a reliable car". So her car is more reliable even though mine went something like 20 times as far as hers before something went wrong. :confuse:

snakeweasel

I have a friend who swears by Mitsubishi and only buys them, even though everyone of his started falling apart at around 60K or so miles.

imidazol97

Jackpot!

I worked with a guy who had a Volkswagen Beetle long ago. Perfect car. Couldn't have been a better car. Same thing. American-bad; Volkswagen-good.

dieselone

What is the torque rating on the engine at typical startup speeds? High horsepower rating at high rpms rarely match the way people drive,

I have driven an '03 Accord EX v6 (good friends). From a dead stop it's quick. Sure it doesn't have a ton of torque at low rpm, but it's geared to put power to the ground. The few times I floored it from a stop, the traction control kicked in on dry pavement. Even around town, it never felt sluggish, just quick. Much more responsive than the '03 Lesabre rental I drove to his house, or any v6 domestic sedan I driven.

As for reliability, I can't comment. I've never owned a Honda, my friend has had 2 or 3 Accords and none required non routine maintenance. (OK, I guess he could lie, but he has no reason to impress me or justify his purchase decision, so I'll take his word for it, we've been good friends since high school)

Imid, I don't doubt for a minute, that you do not like the way the Accord drives, looks, etc. I know my inlaws didn't like it at all and went with an 05 Camry XLE instead. Thankfully we have choices.

baggs32

If you've spent time on these forums, you should see exactly the problem with counting on consumers for objectivity. Check out all the posts about how "my funmobile v5000 is a total lemon because the window squeaks! i'm telling everyone I know never to buy one!" Now, do you honestly think someone like that is not skewing their answers to a survey somehow?

Hence my questions about the methodology. If they don't filter out the reasonable, as defined by the surveyor, answers from the not so reasonable then the results become less useful. Measuring reliability is a hard thing to do because everyone has their own definition of what it is. I've never heard of CR actually defining reliability myself so I'm assuming we are supposed to use our own definition and hope it jives with theirs?

dieselone

Hence my questions about the methodology. If they don't filter out the reasonable, as defined by the surveyor, answers from the not so reasonable then the results become less useful. Measuring reliability is a hard thing to do because everyone has their own definition of what it is. I've never heard of CR actually defining reliability myself so I'm assuming we are supposed to use our own definition and hope it jives with theirs?

I tend to agree, but this would apply to both CU and JD Powers, since they both are asking the consumer to rate the product.

baggs32

I don't have a problem with CR one way or the other. It is very hard to create and analyze a survey like that and get meaningful results dealing with all the error that gets introduced along the way. If it is a tool that works well for someone, I think thats great and they should use it and be proud.

I totally agree with all of that. However we do see a lot of people around here who take the information presented by CR and the like as fact which it is most certainly not. They are nothing more than guides (arguably the best we have), and like you said, need to be INTERPRETED.

Sorry for the caps. Just wanted make it clear.

baggs32

I tend to agree, but this would apply to both CU and JD Powers, since they both are asking the consumer to rate the product.

They pose two different questions, or the same question in a different way though right? That makes a huge difference when building the end result.

baggs32

No survey is perfect, and I don't see anyone here arguing that CR data is expected to be perfect. By definition, every survey has a margin of error built into it, and CR should be no exception.

The debate here is whether the CR survey is biased, and I've seen absolutely no proof of that, either here or anywhere else. (Lots of accusations, of course, but no proof.) However, the one conspicuous pattern that I do notice is that those who would buy a GM car, come hell or high water, seem to have a lot of problems with CR, yet can't articulate a good reason why. They aren't offering us sound statistical analysis, just sour grapes.


Wait a minute! Are you arguing with me about bias? I NEVER said they were biased. I was calling you out on a statement you made about their results being facts (Post 1168). If I misled I apologize.

Given what you wrote above in the first paragraph I'd say you agree.

dieselone

They pose two different questions, or the same question in a different way though right? That makes a huge difference when building the end result.

Well, I haven't filled out either survey in a long time. So I don't remember. I tend to think they are fairly similar. But I could be wrong.

My wife took delivery of her 06 Ford 500 company vehicle in February. So far, we haven't received a survey from JD. I don't think we've received a survey on any of her company cars.

socala4

I've never heard of CR actually defining reliability myself so I'm assuming we are supposed to use our own definition and hope it jives with theirs?

Rather than raising another rhetorical question and confusing it with a statement of fact (note: your lack of knowledge about CR's definition of "reliability," which it does include it the survey), list out which specific questions you don't like on the survey, and why you don't like them.

qbrozen

socal, you need to reread what I wrote.

I know you said "not subjective", which is exactly why I was pointing out how the question you gave as an example IS subjective.

And, no, I have NO idea of what the survey questions are like, as I said in my post, which is why I asked you to post some or all of the questions exactly from the survey. I really want to read them.

So I don't know who you are arguing with or what you are responding to, but it doesn't seem like it was my post.

qbrozen

The debate here is whether the CR survey is biased, and I've seen absolutely no proof of that, either here or anywhere else. (Lots of accusations, of course, but no proof.) However, the one conspicuous pattern that I do notice is that those who would buy a GM car, come hell or high water, seem to have a lot of problems with CR, yet can't articulate a good reason why. They aren't offering us sound statistical analysis, just sour grapes.

You are grouping too many people into your generalizations. I'm not a supporter of GM or Ford. What i am doing is giving an objective opinion that CR survey results are biased. I'm not saying biased towards what, but just biased. And my reasoning for this, once again, lies soley in the fact that they only survey subscribers to their magazine. In all fairness, there is nothing wrong with this since only CR subscribers will then see the results, and the results will most likely be very meaningful to them since they are compiled from fellow subscribers. But, taken outside of the CR subscriber circle, they are less meaningful.

socala4

And my reasoning for this, once again, lies soley in the fact that they only survey subscribers to their magazine.

Again, this falsely assumes that CR readers are going to have significantly different reliability experiences with their cars than does the general population.

There's no reason to believe that the pool of Cobalts owned by CR survey respondents is significantly different from the pool owned by the general population. A car with a bad transmission is a car with a bad transmission, no matter who owns it.

I'm going to assume regardless of whether you prefer the World Socialist Worker or Fox for your news source that it won't impact the power steering box on your Civic. The survey isn't so much about the people surveyed as it is about their cars.

qbrozen

that will depend on the questions. I'll let you know when someone posts them for me to read.

dieselone

that will depend on the questions. I'll let you know when someone posts them for me to read.

Here's a sample.

"GM cars tend to break down more than others?" True or Maybe

"What types of problems have you had with your car?" If driving an asian brand please skip question an go to the next.

Just kidding of course. Thought we needed a little chuckle since it was getting a bit to serious.

imidazol97

It would be more interesting to have a discussion rather than a continuum of challenge that posters didn't post a fact to suit some one person! It gets parrotlike and repetitive to hear the same challenge of prove it!

Does anyone have a copy of a the alleged questionnaire sent out for the wording. As some people related to polling know a poll can lead to conclusions by the questions and the phrasing and the order-they call them push polling in the political arena.

Does anyone know the demographics of CR's subscribers? I recall when they began being all bout 'green' and save the world. GM was their enemy because it had the 9th highest GNP among nations. GM represented the military/industrial complex and was to be despised. How much have they grown from that segment of their history?

Yes, I'd like to see the questionnaire

qbrozen

well, in all fairness, you did give an example, and, as I already stated, it is open to a subjective answer. So I'm not sure what you are in a huff about. Was your example not accurate?

i did a quick search, and i found a bunch of articles about the survey, but no survey itself. maybe i'll have time later to go searching all over the place, but I was hoping one of the staunch supporters here might have it tatooed on their arm or something.

socala4

Was your example not accurate?

I gave you an example of a question that was not on the survey in order to prove a point, namely that the foes of CR on this thread who claim bias don't seem to have a clue about this allegedly "biased" survey. It's odd that some of you are so heated by the CR survey when you don't actually know anything about it.

I'll post the reliability survey later, if my theory proves correct and it becomes evident that noone in the anti-CR survey crowd has actually ever seen the survey. But here's a hint: The owners are NOT asked to fill in red or black circles for the reliability categories.

snakeweasel

I gave you an example of a question that was not on the survey in order to prove a point, namely that the foes of CR on this thread who claim bias don't seem to have a clue about this allegedly "biased" survey. It's odd that some of you are so heated by the CR survey when you don't actually know anything about it.

Its not the questions but the results. Like when a German made product with a German brand stamped on it gets high marks but that same German made product with an American name stamped on it gets low marks. Something just ain't right with that.

andre1969

but did find this FAQ page, which might be helpful.

And always good for a few laughs, and a bit of insight, is their little rating scale. If nothing else, this scale does show how a car that's rated average or even worse than average might still be a good car, because as a percentage, the ranges for the top four categories are actually quite close together. It's only the bottom category, much worse than average, which could be a real wild card.

This is why I really wish CR would show the actual percentages, instead of their little colored squares. It's much more important to me whether 15% versus 100% of respondents had a particular problem (both would fall under much worse than average), compared to 2% versus 5% (the difference between much better than average and just average)

socala4

Like when a German made product with a German brand stamped on it gets high marks but that same German made product with an American name stamped on it gets low marks.

The European cars are generally getting lower reliability scores than are the American ones. (And as an owner of a European car, it pains me to admit this, but facts are facts.)

And again, we should seperate the reviews from the reliability survey.

-- The reviews are based upon the opinions of CR testers, filtered for crash test results and reliability scores, i.e. a car that the testers like need to also get good crash test results and reliability scores of "average" or better in order to make the recommendation list.

-- The reliability survey is based strictly upon a tabulation of survey respondents' experiences with their cars. The reliability scores are not impacted by whether the readers liked or hated their cars, but whether there were instances when "serious" repairs (as defined by CR) were required.

In the case of the reviews, you can take or leave them, just as you would the opinions of a film or food critic. Different reviewers have different opinions, and you can decide for yourself whether you like the handling, ergonomics, seating position, utility, etc.

In the case of the survey, it is simply a tabulation of incidents in a variety of categories. Within a given category, users are asked whether or not they experienced a "serious problem", as defined by CR, including examples of specific problem items that constitute a "serious problem". Routine maintenance items are excluded. The questions are exactly the same for every car and for every respondent.

The survey provides a useful measure if you consider it as a sort of ranking, i.e. cars that have reliability "worse than average" have more reported incidents than do cars with reliability "better than average." It's just a math exercise that counts problems, and then converts that result into a red or black circle that represents a range of percentages that compares individual categories to the total pool. Nothing sinister or biased about that.

snakeweasel

And again, we should seperate the reviews from the reliability survey.

It was a reliability survey, not a review.

socala4

This is why I really wish CR would show the actual percentages, instead of their little colored squares.

They don't include it because (a) it doesn't matter and (b) the survey is a relative ranking of reliability, not an absolute measure.

It's akin to being a student who is graded on a curve. The difference between an "A" student who gets a 99 and one who gets a 98 is not statistically significant (and likely within the window of error, anyway), so an "A" grade conveys enough information to tell you how well the two compare. To focus on a 99 versus a 98 in this instance would just be nitpicking over something that isn't even statistically relevant.

And it's on a curve, given that the ranking is a comparison of averages, not absolutes. It's up to the reader to decide whether getting an "average" car is good enough, if they require something that performs above the norm, or if they just don't care. What constitutes "average" has changed over time as quality improvements are implemented throughout the industry, so perhaps "below average" is acceptable to some. It's up to you to decide whether you are comfortable with a car for which 15% of owners surveyed reported as having the same problem area.

andre1969

They don't include it because (a) it doesn't matter

Well, considering how many people like to nitpick over how car A gets a much better than average rating while car B is only average, or car C gets called a piece of junk because it gets a below average rating, I'd say that it DOES matter.

The difference between say, a 98.1% and 97.9% is statistically insignificant, but CR makes it appear to BE significant by putting the two into completely different categories.

My attitude about Consumer Reports has always been don't totally dismiss their reports and surveys, but like anything else, take it with a grain of salt.

And yeah, I might be willing to take a chance on a car where 15% of the owners report a certain problem area. Which also means that 85% of them did NOT report a certain problem area. However, I'd consider such a car to be a much better bet than a car where, say, it's the reverse and 85% of them have a problem. But by lumping that whole broad range under one category, without showing an actual percentage, I am unable to discern between the two.

socala4

The difference between say, a 98.1% and 97.9% is statistically insignificant, but CR makes it appear to BE significant by putting the two into completely different categories.

No, that's your interpretation of it. There isn't a single cut-off point that everyone is going to be pleased with, so a choice needs to be made at some point. Just as a school might decide that a 90 is an "A", while an 89 is a "B".

The only issue should be whether the methodology used to choose the cut-off points is consistent. If "much better than average" represents a given quantity of standard deviation from the mean or something similar, i.e. if a bell curve is being used, then it offers a meaningful chance to rank products in comparison to one another.

There might be specific instances in which the difference between "much better than average" and "better than average" doesn't mean much or when an outcome might be misleading, similar to the student with the 89 score who ends up getting lumped together with those who got 80's. But it's up to you, the reader, to decide whether or not you should weigh that heavily.