By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Nope. I'm done with you and this line of discussion. Your posts are full of worthless criticism and you have not provided us with one bit of proof to back up your statements.
Are you writing a book on how CR and the like are biased and need some filler material or what?
We're all entitled to our views and preferences, but I don't understand the desire to have opinions based upon thin air and imagination. I'd suggest that you actually look at the survey before claiming that it is exceptionally flawed.
But if I got an 80, I knew I just barely eked by in getting that B, and that it would be a bit more hard work to get an A on the next test, or to bring up my average for the quarter/semester/whatever to achieve an A.
Likewise, if CR gave us the actual percentages instead of just their little "grades", we'd know if a car is a good, solid average, so close to better than average that it's irrelevant, or whether the car is just barely into the avverage category.
On the whole, I'd say that the circle or star systems create more benefit than they do problems. But no ranking system is going to please everyone, and the fact that they use them is not indicative of either bias or bad methodology.
When your car had it's first issue at 130K miles did it leave you stranded on the road, in need of a tow truck, and in need of serious cash to fix it?
I would say that its very possible one issue could make a car far more unreliable than one that's had 5 minor issues.
I would rate reliability by some factors including:
-Amount of problems/visits to dealership to deal with warranty issues
- loss of time/gas
- Did you need to pay for a tow truck/have it towed? (HUGE difference here)
- Cost of repair
- Were you stranded w/o much warning due to the issue?
- amount of days in the repair shop
- I'd rather have a few problems during warranty than a lot of problems after warranty expires!
See, when I had an American car.... the compressor went bad on the AC all of a sudden, w/o warning one day when I started it. Not only could I not drive the car safely with the AC on (it was screeching and burning loudly, and then smoking) thereby making the car useless since I couldn't use/drive it, but at the same time it damaged other parts, such as my timing belt (burned it). Now you got unreliable parts that break down harming perfectly good other parts, which make those parts seem unreliable too. Its a net cumulative effect. Its exponential. It cost me a lot of $$$.
Well, straight from the CR FAQ:
Consumer Reports obtains its reliability data from an Annual Questionnaire that is mailed once a year to the magazine's almost 3.5 million subscribers. CR's Annual Questionnaire is one of the largest scientific surveys conducted in the U.S. In the survey, we ask readers to note "any problems with your car in the last year that you considered SERIOUS (because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime."
Lemme highlight that phrase "that you considered serious."
I'm sorry, but that's looking rather subjective to me. See my previous comment regarding posts on Edmunds. What some folks consider serious, others do not. And, heck, what some folks consider problems AT ALL, others do not.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
- Window moldings rippling/wrinkling (multiple times as replacements had same defect)
- Rattles (mainly headliner at front and center dome lights/sunglass holder, one time at center storage console in front dash, but that was fixed with one warranty visit)
- Power Seat got bumpy (but still functioned - worth extra points if you don't have a complete failure reliability wise in my opinion) In my Dodge, I'd expect complete failures as that's usually what happened... ie the AC didn't work at all one day, the car wouldn't start at all one day, the power steering stopped 100%, you get the idea).
After Warranty, but still fixed by Honda at no cost to me:
- Auto Transmission starting to fail/go defective at 42K miles.
Honda stepped up and fixed this major and ONLY real mechanical (and serious) defect in my car (now at 56K miles) without hesitation, and even some appearance of embarrassment. Dodge would of never stepped up like this they would of said (as the dealer once told me, and I quote "Parts just break down."
So... I've really had 1 major problem in 56K miles, major problem being defined by something that affected the driveability of my car. Also, it should be noted the tranny didn't leave me stranded all of a sudden one day.
Scoreboard: American car : 4 tows required in 65K miles
Japanese car: 0 tows required in 56K miles
Also, I didn't forget anything here, I remembered EVERY single problem I've had with my Honda, so there is no recall error.
Perhaps you should post the entirety of the survey question, which goes on to define what constitutes a "serious problem", as well as lists examples of components in each category, instead of a small segment of it.
i left this part off for brevity, but if you want it, here it is. Please tell me where it defines a serious problem. I see nothing but loopholes in their question and explanation. If I were one of the many many posters on Edmunds whose sole purpose in life was to disparage a brand, there is nothing in these "directions" preventing me from doing so.
We ask them to include problems covered by warranty, but not ones resulting from accident damage. We also ask them not to include replacement of normal maintenance items (like brake pads, batteries, and mufflers) unless they were replaced much sooner or more often than expected. Problems are noted in a number of trouble areas, ranging from the engine and transmission to air conditioning, brakes, electrical system, and power accessories. In addition to auto reliability, the survey also covers a variety of other products and services.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Once was when it wouldn't start, once was a sensor that went out the other one or two times I think were for minor issues.
When your car had it's first issue at 130K miles did it leave you stranded on the road, in need of a tow truck, and in need of serious cash to fix it?
Two things happened, first the exhaust manifold cracked which was fixed under warrantee, second was a sensor that needed replacing and cost me about $200. It stayed drivable and was fixed in under a day.
I would say that its very possible one issue could make a car far more unreliable than one that's had 5 minor issues.
I would say that one major issue after 130,000 miles, if it is the only issue, makes a more reliable car than one that has 5 minor issues in under 50,000 miles. I don't care how reliable a car is sooner or later its going to have something go wrong. Some leeway has to be given to any car once the odometer is showing 6 digits.
I would say that any car that gets over 100,000 miles with nothing done to it except normal expected routine maintence to be reliable.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Did it ever occur to you that every poster on Edmunds who disparages a brand they have owned in the past is probably doing so for good reason? People do things out of motivation. A company that sells you a lemon and never offers to pay you for repairs or give you your money back is definitely motivating people to disparage them.
Also, they might be doing it so as to help other people avoid being ripped off like they were. No one wants to spend all their time dealing with repairing a non-functioning vehicle.
I was warned about American vehicles before I bought one, and I should of heeded the warnings. I was sold on the 90's advertising allegedly selling the "NEW" Dodge.... all new, all improved, all different that before. Same old same old!
Exactly my feeling on it.
Rocky
Rocky
I had a dodge a while back that was suffering some serious tranny issues and it was about 1,000 miles out of warranty. Dodge came up to the plate and hit a home run. Fixed it no questions asked.
Scoreboard: American car : 4 tows required in 65K miles
Japanese car: 0 tows required in 56K miles
I have owned 4 American cars and only one had to be towed and that was after some lady made a left turn right in front of me (that car was never right after that). The other three each went over 175K. Of the three the only issues were the transmission issue above and a Chevy that blew a gasket at 115K miles (that car went about 325K miles before the tranny went).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It defines "serious" as being based upon "cost, failure, safety or downtime." It goes on to list at least over 100 examples of items that constitute "seriousness" under seventeen categories.
It's pretty obvious that a minor rattle in the dash would not be considered "serious", while a problem with the starter, radiator or fuel injectors would be. A failed A/C compressor is going to weigh just as heavily against a Honda as it would against a Buick.
They'd either acidentally rip that survey up and not report it on the Honda, or they would cross out it's name with white-out and put Buick at the top of the survey.
Rocky :P
Rocky
That is right, I have sworn off american vehicles for the rest of my life.
Although.... Dodge/Chrysler (and the rest of american auto manufacturers) could buy me back as a customer. What would that take... a couple of settlement options I'd accept.
Option 1: Give me a brand new Dodge Caliber, free of charge, taxes, license, fees all included and paid for.
Option 2:Give me my purchase price back on the 95 Neon. I wouldn't charge Dodge for all of the bogus repairs I had to pay for (which is thousands and thousands of dollars), but I would want my original purchase price back, every cent.
Option 3: offer me a special warranty whereby each and every problem my vehicle has equals a progressively bigger cash rebate (for example, warranty visit/problem #1 equals $100 back, problem #2 means I get paid $200, problem #3 means $300, and so forth. Also, pay for rentals during repair time.
Mandatory Condition with either of the options above: Start offering much longer comprehensive bumper to bumper warranties, and Hyndai-like powertrain warranties.
If they did either of the above options, and met that mandatory condition, then I'd consider an american vehicle again in my life. I was a made a sucker the first time around, and the only way for me to be "unsuckered" is to be paid! I won't take another chance being fooled and cheated twice.
BTW- Since when did the Asian car manufactors start doing such a program, and how do I get one of these programs on a Honda, Hyundai or Toyota ?
If you have to take your current car in for repair, are you going to hold a grudge against that brand ? Or does that brand because it's a "inferior product" and gets a couple of free pass's since it could not be the vehicle's fault and the problem had to be driver enduced ?
Rocky
- They all have poor reliability and dependability from numerous sources including Consumer Reports.
- when I was warned back in 94 to avoid American cars, it was all american cars, not just Dodge - I should of listened!
- I have driven a few American Car rentals (including when that darn Honda's window moldings kept rippling). The Cavalier, the Malibu, OH MY GOODNESS. These are pathetic excuses for cars! Compared to my Accord, they drove horribly, accelerated slowly, and guzzled gas just as fast if not faster. The handling was slouchy, the fit and finish subpar. Had odd noises and creaks and squeaks. So to be honest, my experience with American rental cars has contributed and reinforced my beliefs about american vehicles. Oh yeah, I had a Buick LeSabre too as a rental.... better, for a ninety year old! At least that one had SOME power, but guzzled gas like crazy! Also, the ride was nice and floaty (which can be a good thing for some people). The rental that impressed me the most... the Toyota Corolla.. best fit and finish/build quality, best tranny, and best engine (surprisingly powerful for a small 4 banger getting over 30 MPG)
BTW - Asian manufacturers don't even have to give me a warranty because A) They don't need them, and
Had Honda not stepped up and fixed my tranny at 42K miles, I'd be swearing off against them right now. I'd of banned and boycotted Honda, and I'd also probably be suing them. Should I of sued Chrysler/Dodge way back when? probably!!! but I was too young and inexperienced to realize I was being taken advantage of. After all, as the Dodge dealer told me, "parts just break down."
But why didn't parts just break down on my other family members' Toyotas?
I don't believe reliability is affected much by the driver's driving habits. Thats my personal belief, and I can't back it up with proof or Science, just a personal experience and observation.
If driving habits and maintenance care affected reliability greatly, then my 95 Neon should of been rock solidly dependable, and my friends 94 GeoPrizm/Toyota Corolla clone should of been a big fat lemon, but it was the other way around.
All domestic cars do not have bad reliability and if you think the JD and CR surveys say that then you aren't reading them correctly at all. You cannot generalize all american cars because there are too many and they share little in terms of design and execution. Each of the Big 3 operate independently and they all take different approaches. The thought that you could group all American vehicles int one category is stupid. Almost as stupid as acting like Japanese cars dont need warranties because they never break down. I guess you didnt read about C&D's Acura RL a few months back.
Your assertion that Big 3 dealers wont solve problems is also ridiculous. Any make can have a good or bad dealer. Dealers are reimbursed for warranty repairs so they have no reason to try and dismiss your complaint if it is legitimate. Honda/Toyota dealers are famous for being arrogant and dismissive of consumer complaints because they feel their products are so good customers shouldn't have any complaints.
If you cant figure out that a V6 powered midsize rental car isnt going to match the mileage of the 4 banger accord then you shouldnt be posting on here. It's obvious to me that you haven't driven many late model American cars and as with most import obsessors you are basing your opinion on old beat up rentals and acting like they are representative of all domestic models. Have you driven the cobalt, '06 Impala, Lacrosse, Lucerne, GTO, CTS, G6, STS, 300C or Fusion/Milan? I would assume you haven't based on your post. You are still talking about the Cavalier which went out of production in 2004 so I'm pretty sure you are behind the times. Drive a current vehicle and then come back with some opinions that we might be able to take seriously.
My point is that if we could actually see the ppv numbers for each model we would see that there arent too many unreliable new cars on the market. For whatever reason CR wont give us that data and feels that we should look at bar graphs and circles to figure out each model's worth. I believe that they are afraid their opinion would be marginalized if people thought all new cars were generally reliable. CR has to make it's readers (and other import lovers) happy by showing them over and over that they are buying the best vehicles available.
I would also like for CR suporters to explain to me how CR can issue two reliability ratings for the same car based on engine. That makes absolutely no sense because in most cars with multiple engines the tranny and other systems are UNAFFECTED. Why for example do they recommend the Grand Prix GT but not the GTP/GXP? Why do they recommend the 300 Touring but not the 300C? The cars are the same! Engines rarely break down so what could explain the difference in scores? Something is fishy about CR's results. I have a feeling that personal preferences work their way into the reliability ratings. For example, if someone gets poor mileage in a 340hp 300C I believe that is reflected in the survey results and sinks the car's ratings,
"fair and balanced" as Fox News, which includes the yellow journalist magazine called Consumer Reports. :mad: I am not one bit suprised by what you wrote and actually I'm familiar with your personality. My friends believe everything Consumer Reports says and look at it as the "Bible" for getting objective information on consumer products. :confuse: I've watched my friends flat out lie about their camcords going into the shop for repairs, because of their ego. "I'm not going to buy an american vehicle, because they break down all the time". Rocky, why don't you look at this consumer reports" ? "I'm like what....the bible of Joseph Goebels" ? That's when a small friendly fight broke out.
Rocky
Rocky
-Reliability should not vary between the cars of CR readers and those of other people. If the water pump fails on a Cobalt, it won't matter who owns it.
-As long as the sample size is large enough, it is enough to draw a conclusion. CR excludes certain cars due to a lack of data (i.e. insufficient responses), which is exactly what they should do. Whether CR readers purchase a given nameplate at the same rate as the regular population is wholly irrelevant to determining whether the sample size is adequate.
-The survey asks respondents to itemize their repair needs based upon different categories; the circles are the result of the percentage of people who indicated problems in those areas. Simple -- the more problems reported, the more likely that the circle will be black. No conspiracy involved.
Like your counterparts, you still haven't provided any reason to believe that your argument is credible. It's clear that you just don't like the data, so your impulse is to shoot the messenger. With only speculation and no facts to support you, there's no reason to indulge your line of argument.
Yes this is a rant.
Rocky
I don't know how you could possibly believe that. The water pump is specifically listed on the "serious problem" list.
What he would have us believe that of the one million CR respondents that they consistently lie or forget about problems, but only if they affect specific nameplates. Why should anyone with any semblance of logic possibly believe such conspiracy claptrap?
I also find it amusing that their (Acura) dealership salesman say they won't get paid their commission unless you give em' a perfect score. I was constantly remeinded of this and my gawd they make you feel guilty for them if they were telling the truth ? Well when I gave them a bad score after a few months of problems, did I get a follow-up call from a manager from Acura that wanted to investigate my problem. NOPE :mad:
The guess the bad problems don't count ? If your not going to give em' a perfect score, they don't want to hear from you. :mad:
This is just another example why there is a conspiracy. They make good cars though and I'll agree with that. However not everything is rosy and no cars are built without flaws and failures and I'm saying that Toyota and Honda owners are the college educated and I know better than you types that if lieing comes down to make them appear smarter than you, they will do it in a CU/CR Magazine. :sick:
Rocky
This would require a conspiracy among one million survey takers for this to be the case. Those survey takers would also have to be polluting the JD Power survey (which incidentally surveys far fewer people than does CR, yet seems to generally get similar results.)
I also find it amusing that their (Acura) dealership salesman say they won't get paid their commission unless you give em' a perfect score.
The CSI is an entirely different matter. For one, it doesn't survey reliability, but the treatment received at time of sale or service.
CR is not rating dealerships or CSI scores, but vehicle problems reported by those surveyed. Again, you would have to believe some fantastic theory that involves hundreds of thousands of people lying each year in the same fashion in order to acheive certain results. I've never heard of a successful conspiracy that could be maintained for very long by one million people.
1. Trunk space- we took the exact same suitcases (2 large, 2 carry-on, 2 backpacks) from the trunk of the Taurus directly to the trunk of the Impala. Although the Impala has bigger cubic inch numbers, the luggage did not fit nearly as well due to the SHAPE of the trunk- I had to re-load twice to get them to fit. Seemed to be a lot of wasted space at the top, which is usless for suitcases.
2. The interior- you don't sound like you've actually seen the Impala interior; and my standards are very mainstream- but it was several notches down from both my current Mazda 6 and especially my previous Accord. The Impala has cheap, hard plastic everywhere, old-sportcoat-type seat fabric, and awful looking faux-wood on the dash. No soft-texture anything, anywhere- nothing that had a hint of quality about it.
3. Controls- the layout in terms of reach/placement was fine; what was deficient was that way the steering controls (cruise and radio) were labeled, almost impossible to figure out without the owners manual; and the radio/heat/AC- same issue, totally illogical and not intuitive. In fairness, Mazda doesn't do a great job with controls, either- but still better overall than the Chevy.
4. Ride and handling- as one other poster said, a '90's feeling drive in 2006- it's not sub-standard, but not up to the competition (especially Accord) either.
I'm not trying to slam the Impala- it did give good gas mileage and ran flawlessly, but in this market segment that just ain't good enough. You mentioned the Lucerne, I think that's one of the best looking sedans GM has come out with in a long time; I haven't driven one but cetainly would next go-around. If I got in one and saw the same type of flaws the Impala has, though, that would end the test right there.
As has been argued so many times on this forum, American car makers have the ability to build a sedan that the more critical buying public really wants, they are nearly there in terms of reliabilty, but the "driving experience" as relates to handling and the fit/finish issues still need work. I'm sure there are a lot of import owners out there that would really like to own American for their next vehicle- but we just won't compromise our hard-earned money to do it. I'm still optimistic, mostly.
Rocky
Do you honestly think that the CR owners who buy Cobalts are praying to have problems that they can report to Consumer Reports? This is a crazy theory, take a step back and think about the impossible degree of lying and self-delusion that would be needed for your theory to be true.
Its called perception creating its own reality. Like my sister who keeps saying her Toyota has been problem free even though its been in the shop at least three times for warranty work. Or my neighbor who just recently told me about how trouble free his Honda has been even though he dropped the exhaust system after 4 miles of ownership.
If my neighbor would tell me, someone who saw him with his new Honda making more noise than a jackhammer as he drove it home, that his car was trouble free then he wouldn't be above saying so on a survey.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Rocky
Rocky
Rocky
If my neighbor would tell me, someone who saw him with his new Honda making more noise than a jackhammer as he drove it home, that his car was trouble free then he wouldn't be above saying so on a survey.
In a survey of 100-500 people, which I would guess covers a typical nameplate and model year for a given pool, there will be a few outliers, but there is no reason to believe that they dominate the pool.
Nor is there any reason to believe that one pool is so much more predisposed to lying than the other. For this to work, the owners of domestic vehicles would have to be consistently more honest or have better comprehension than transplant/ import owners, which really makes no sense.
And again, the data from CR tends to correlate with other data. For this to happen would require consistent lying not just from CR respondents, but from others as well. This would require something very serious to be in the water table, or a grand conspiracy along the lines of something that the world has never seen before.
I know some too - but also, my Lexus and my prior Honda and were so dependable, it's hard not to use the perfection label. I like Fords too, but they're not quite as well put together. Yet, they're all better looking and more fun - well, 500 excepted.
I find if funny (sad really) that many on this board find import buyers to be liars, cheats, and vain.
If you guys don't trust CU, then JD Powers is biased too. God knows these imports snobs aren't reporting correctly on that survey as well.
I guess it's all a great conspiracy against domestic cars. I guess I've just been brainwashed over the years. It had nothing to do with the product itself.
I would also like for CR supporters to explain to me how CR can issue two reliability ratings for the same car based on engine. That makes absolutely no sense because in most cars with multiple engines the tranny and other systems are UNAFFECTED. Why for example do they recommend the Grand Prix GT but not the GTP/GXP?
OK genius, since when has a Grandprix GT have the same engine as a GTP. Do you have any evidence that a supercharged 3800 is every bit as reliable as the nonsupercharged model?
I checked to cross reference in JD Power and they rate the 2005 GT & GTP the same. They even rate the performance the same (average), so apparently, the supercharger adds zero performance gain accord to JD. I even selected a 2006 GXP and guess what. It's performance is rated the same as a well.
Or what about a VW Jetta 4cyl turbo vs. a diesel. The gas turbo models had issues where as the TDI's are fairly reliable. I would hope they rate them different and they do. JD rates them the same across the board, even performance, which is funny.
Maybe we should be talking about issues with JD power.
Rocky
I would also like for CR supporters to explain to me how CR can issue two reliability ratings for the same car based on engine.
I'm surprised that anyone with a knowledge of cars wouldn't understand this:
-Different engines are different engines. Of course, some may be reliable, while others may not.
-Cars equipped with different engines often have different transmissions
-Cars with upgraded engines may also include different option packages or a different level of standard equipment, which may be more fussy or failure prone
Honestly, I don't know where some of this stuff comes from. But let's compare reliability ratings from CR and JD Power for this car:
-Consumer Reports: Base engine -- better than average; Supercharged engine -- average
-JD Power: Base engine -- average; Supercharged engine -- average
That's pretty much the same rating, they correlate perfectly for the supercharged model, and are one grade apart for the regular model. Perhaps there was a conspiracy among the survey takers, but they were a bit better coordinated for the supercharged cars...
(Funny enough, the only one to complain has been Mercedes, and those complaints began only when its ranking started to fall. Perhaps that was a coincidence?)
Rocky
Hey that sounds like it could have come right from Rick Wagoner. Blame everything and everyone besides the product;)
Rocky
Rocky
I do NOT feel Toyota, Honda, etc. have any better quality than GM or DaimlerChrysler.
When Consumer Reports includes the number of vehicles in each response and the actual cost of repairs and maintenance, they might have some credibility. :lemon:
Rocky
-- The Sienna was ranked by CR as only better than average among a pool of poor performers. Even the Odyssey gets a below-average score.
-- JD Power ranks the Siennas' body / interior dependability as only average.
If you read the surveys, then you have to conclude the most of the minivans aren't terribly good, with Toyotas being the best among a pretty poor lot. You can expect a Sienna to have a reliable drivetrain and good fit-and-finish, but not all of the interior bits are necessarily going to go the distance or are put together properly.
(I almost hate to say this, but if you need a peoplemover, you might be better off with an SUV instead...)