General Motors discussions

andre1969

"American cars today are as reliable as "reliable" Japanses cars of a few years back but CR moves the bar up each year so that the same low problem rate that got you a red circle 10 years ago gets your a clear circle now."

Well maybe because the bar keeps on moving up.

Actually, I think that's one reason that a lot of people get confused by CR's ratings. As cars in general get more reliable, the top ranges get pushed closer together, while only one, "Much Worse Than Average" gets larger.

It's been awhile since I've looked at a CR, but I think their ratings not too long ago were something like this:

Much Better than average: 0-3% of correspondents had problems
Better than average: 3-5%
Average: 5-9%
Worse than average: 9-15%
Much worse than average: 15% or more.

So it's quite possible to have one car rate Much better than average, with, say, 97.1% of them not having a problem, while a second car gets worse than average with 90.9% of them not having a problem.

The big wild card is "Much Worse than Average". If a car scores that, well, did 15% of them have a problem, or did 100%. Pretty big difference there. I wish that, in addition to, or maybe instead of, the little dots, that CR would actually publish the percentage. That way it would be easy to tell if there really is a huge difference between a car with a bunch of red dots and one that has a wider variety of colors.

andre1969

The 04 Intrepid got an average reliability rating in CR.

Just out of curiosity, does the '00 Intrepid still show up in CR's reliability ratings, or is it too old now? I have an old CR from a few years back, and at the time I think it was showing up as average overall. I wonder if it's slipped in reliability over the years or, like a fine wine, got better with age? :P

62vetteefp

The big wild card is "Much Worse than Average". If a car scores that, well, did 15% of them have a problem, or did 100%. Pretty big difference there. I wish that, in addition to, or maybe instead of, the little dots, that CR would actually publish the percentage. That way it would be easy to tell if there really is a huge difference between a car with a bunch of red dots and one that has a wider variety of colors.

Ahh, now you know why they do not put actual numbers down. If they did buyers of the magazine would see little difference and they would not buy the magazine. Why by the mag if every product is the same? gotta sell mags so, like all media, you need to rile up the public.

carguy58

"Actually, I think that's one reason that a lot of people get confused by CR's ratings. As cars in general get more reliable, the top ranges get pushed closer together, while only one, "Much Worse Than Average" gets larger."

Yeah thats true because I give you an example a few years ago I was looking at the Mazda 6's(V6 trim) reliability rating and CR ranked the Mazda 6(V6) for reliability under average for reliability but it was just a squeak under average reliability and barely missing the average reliability mark by just looking at CR;s reliability chart with the Mazda 6(V6) vs other mid-size competing sedans in reliability.

carguy58

"Ahh, now you know why they do not put actual numbers down. If they did buyers of the magazine would see little difference and they would not buy the magazine. Why by the mag if every product is the same? gotta sell mags so, like all media, you need to rile up the public."

Well CR does show graphs in their book issues(that come out in the fall/autumn on how reliable a car is vs other cars in the same class/category so its not like CR is hiding anything. I used the Mazda 6(V6) as an example of this a few years ago in my last posting.

chetj

mercedes had some quality problems before dodge believe it or not...they were losing money w/chrysler, that is why they got rid of them..i thought dcx made some decent cars since the takeover, even the neon was good the last 5 years of its inception...my neighbor has bought 3 neons in last 8 years, and all have run good..he didnt want to throw his money away paying xtra for a corolla or civic

62vetteefp

So the new RX in '04 did Lexus in. I am always amazed how trucks pull down the corporate scores throughout the industry.

General Motors Corp.'s Buick jumped into a tie with Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus as the most-dependable auto brand in a study that showed a narrowing gap between the biggest U.S. and Japanese carmakers.

Lexus's showing marked its 13th straight year atop J.D. Power & Associates' annual Vehicle Dependability Study, which tracks consumer complaints for three-year-old cars and trucks. Buick's leap from third place in 2006 gave GM three top-10 brands, along with Cadillac and the discontinued Oldsmobile.

“Buick has continued to improve every year,” said Neal Oddes, J.D. Power's director of product research and vehicle quality studies. “From what I recall this is the best performance for General Motors' brands.”

The study released today by Westlake Village, California-based J.D. Power focused on 2004 models. It found the number of complaints per 100 vehicles dropped to an average of 216 in the latest survey, from 227 last year. Buick and Lexus each had 145 problems per 100 vehicles. Buick's complaints slid from 153 in 2006, when it finished No. 3, while Lexus's rose from 136.
Oddes said the increase in complaints for Lexus was due mainly to the 2004-model RX 330 sport-utility vehicle.

“Generally, new models don't perform as well in the initial year,” he said in an interview. “I don't think we can say it's a slippage for Lexus. Lexus and Toyota have a wide variety of vehicles in the marketplace, and they are sustaining a very high level of quality.”

carguy58

"Just out of curiosity, does the '00 Intrepid still show up in CR's reliability ratings, or is it too old now? I have an old CR from a few years back, and at the time I think it was showing up as average overall. I wonder if it's slipped in reliability over the years or, like a fine wine, got better with age?"

CR didn't list the 00 model year Intreopid in their charts but they did list the 01, and 02 Intrepid average for reliability and the 03 under average for reliability.

For the 01 model year which is obviously the cloeset model year Intrepid in relation to your Intrepid they list the Paint/Trim and Transmission as problem area's for the 01 Intrepid(under average reliability in both of those category's) For every other category of the Intrepid in terms of trouble spots they listed average reliability or above average for every other trouble spot for the 01 Intrepid.

carguy58

"Generally, new models don't perform as well in the initial year,” he said in an interview. “I don't think we can say it's a slippage for Lexus. Lexus and Toyota have a wide variety of vehicles in the marketplace, and they are sustaining a very high level of quality."

Well the 04 RX was being was in its first year model of bodystyle and had a switch over in terms of what plant it was being made in: the 04+ RX is being made in Canada I think while the 99-03 RX 300 was built in Japan.

chetj

i dont need a car to do backflips, i just want a reliable car...i want to see the big 3 do well because i think it is important for our economy...dont we send enough money to asia?...my domestics have gone 450,000 miles over last 23 years and always get me 30 miles to work in NH winters

62vetteefp

Well CR does show graphs in their book issues(that come out in the fall/autumn on how reliable a car is vs other cars in the same class/category so its not like CR is hiding anything. I used the Mazda 6(V6) as an example of this a few years ago in my last posting.

I have that book and it reaaly shows nothing on what I am talking about. They show a ranking from P to E. Is P 100 defects?, 90?, 99?, 5? Is E 0, 1, 10??

i.e. the Acura TL scored a mid E while the Saab 9-3 scored a mid VG. The TL could have been 1 defect while the 9-3 1.1. Or the TL could be 0 and the 9-3 15.

Big difference. Am I missing something?

I do see an overall reliability ranking up front but again it is percentages. This gives a little ranking but again is 80% better than average 1 defect and 80% below average 2 defects with a 1.5 defect average? Or is it 0 defects and 10 defects with the average at 5 defects for the segment???

carguy58

"my neighbor has bought 3 neons in last 8 years, and all have run good..he didnt want to throw his money away paying xtra for a corolla or civic"

What comparo did the 00-05 Neon win vs the Civic or Corolla? Tell me. I thought Dodge did have something going good with the SR-T trim Neon though but the base versions of the Neon I wouldn't take them. I thought Dodge had something good going for them with the 95-99 Neon as well because it looked different than any other compact car that was out there at the time but the quality/reliability just wasn;t good on that generation of Neon though. One of my co-workers had one at the time(the 95-99 model) where I was working at my co-op job in High School the 95-99 Neon had a good amount of headroom I thought to it too that was another plus about the car.

andre1969

For the 01 model year which is obviously the cloeset model year Intrepid in relation to your Intrepid they list the Paint/Trim and Transmission as problem area's for the 01 Intrepid(under average reliability in both of those category's) For every other category of the Intrepid in terms of trouble spots they listed average reliability or above average for every other trouble spot for the 01 Intrepid.

Interestingly, that jives up pretty close to what I've experienced lately with my '00 Intrepid. I had to have the cooling lines to my transmission replaced in April because they were leaking. It was a slow enough leak that I probably could have let it go, but I'd rather not risk chewing up a transmission and totalling the car!

Otherwise, for the most part, it's minor "typically Chrysler" stuff that's gone bad on the car. Rubber door seals shrinking up, driver's side door not always unlocking correctly (sometimes I have to reach in through the back door and release the handle), loose center console, etc. Although I guess stuff like that might be more "body hardware" than "trim". The paint has actually held up wonderfully, especially considering that it's silver metallic, never garaged, and I'm not that religious about washing/waxing it.

Oh, and air conditioning is starting to fail, so I guess I'm in the unlucky 5-9% range there (or 3-5%, if it was rated "better than average" for a/c! :sick: )

gsemike

With the depreciation, he probably ended up paying more for those Neons than he would have for Corollas or Civics

andre1969

And if the Neon is such a great car, why did they go through THREE of 'em in 8 years? :P

robbieg

I have always thought that the Taurus and Sable were the same car but with different badges. I think they are more like the original Cavelier and Cimarron, than the LaCrosse and Grandprix.

I agree that the life cycle for Honda is five years. However, GM seems to use a longer life cycle more often than Honda. For example, I heard that the next generation G6 is due in 2012?

62vetteefp

I heard that the next generation G6 is due in 2012?

It actually was 2009 but the rumor is that it will be going RWD so that revision delayed the timing.

LaCrosse came out in 2005 and the new one is supposedely 2009 or 2010. 4-5 years is the standard at GM now and the imports have started to go that way too.

lemko

I remember looking at the rating for my 1994 Cadillac DeVille back in the day and it had mostly red or half red circles with a few clear ones. I felt like CR must think I made a pretty good purchase. I looked a few years later and the red circles mostly disappeared or were replaced by a few black or half black circles. How can I trust a publication whose opinion varies from year to year? Personally, I never experienced any trouble on the car where their circles indicated, so they're full of hot air.

andres3

I'm sure there were CR readers with a bad Camry, but for everyone of those, there might have been 100,000 that had no issues. It's the opposite for the domestics, unfortunately. It's hard to find someone that has had a good experience with every domestic car they have owned (unless they have only gotten trucks or Buick/Cadillacs).

andres3

Oh come on... you know domestics deteriorate like rocks, just like the resale. It's exponential as the years go on, so the dots will get worse and worse as the vehicle gets older and more and more problems arise.

You got the "one" good one. Lucky you!

andres3

didnt know they had been sued so many times for misrepresenting products. I wish GM would sue them.

If you read the fine print, you will see that CU/CR won all of the lawsuits, some of which got thrown out as frivolous and the company (Sharper Image) for one had to pay over a half million in legal costs to CR.

NICE! maybe GM will raise the price of their vehicles (already overpriced in my opinion) even more to cover the legal fees of suing CR.

andres3

One of the links your provided outlined such ridiculously laughable anti-CR arguments that is was pathetic. So it comes down to sampling error.... sort of like rounding error, which compounds and makes things in CR inaccurate.

So this random sampling error that occurs always rounds up for Honda and Toyota for over 30 years while it always rounds down for the US makes? Give me a break!

lemko

They deteriorate like rocks if the rocks are diamonds. Mine still look and run well after nearly 20 years. How can I be so darn lucky? I guess GM likes me so much it sells me all their good cars and the other chumps get the rest.

andres3

If you hate something you can find all kinds of dirt to kick up.

Wrong. I actually don't like my parents' Camry and former 4Runner purchases. They really were not the "best" choices in terms of interior room, power/speed/quickness, nor handling. They did however, get pretty good gas mileage, and were bulletproof in reliability.

So a lot of people don't go bananas for mid 90's Camry's and 4Runners, but they do go bananas for the reliability factor.

andre1969

How can I trust a publication whose opinion varies from year to year? Personally, I never experienced any trouble on the car where their circles indicated, so they're full of hot air.

Lemko, those circles will often vary from year to year, because they're re-evaluating the car every year. For example, the 1994 DeVille might have been an above average car in 1995, when it was a 1-year old used car. But then, a few years later, say, in 1998, when they were 4-year old used cars, on average they might have been more troublesome than other 1994 model year used cars.

And sometimes, those used car ratings can show a car getting better with age. This used to be common with GM's RWD V-8 models in the 80's. They'd often be pretty troublesome in the first few years, but would seem to smooth out with age. I remember one year, around 1989 or so, GM recommended the 1985 Pontiac Bonneville 305 as a used car. However, there's no way that car would have scored very high in their rankings when it was a brand-new car.

dieselone

Yep they do reevaluate. Some cars are great once the teething issues are resolved. Others will be great for a few years then everything starts to go wrong.

I know very few people who have owned several GM vehicles and not had any issues. My experience with the cars I've owned (mainly domestics)is the vehicles are either very reliable or very troublesome.

fezo

Just look at the 2000 Passat. That is a car that was at the top of its class when CR tested it new. it slowly but surely slid down as it became evident that for all of the praiseworthy things about it it was still a Volkswagen underneath it all which meant glitches all over and pricey repairs.

andres3

The Neon did have a lot of pluses going for it, it was a light year ahead of the Cavalier.

Unfortunately, reliability and the ability to run/work was not one of them.

The gas mileage was probably overrated by the EPA, and the HP and torque was probably slightly overrated by Dodge. Headroom and legroom were excellent for a compact car. The AC (when it worked; and didn't need replacment) actually worked well, fast, and was strong ICE cold! The stock stereo was very good for stock.

The only SERIOUSLY BAD weaknesses in the Neon were the following:

Terrible build quality (squeaks and rattles galore)
Terrible parts quality (everything broke and was cheap)
Terrible engineering (everything deteriorated quickly)
Terrible reliability (always in the shop)
Terrible dependability (always needed to be towed to the shop, and rattles got worse with age)

carguy58

How many years did you have the Neon for and how many miles did you rack up on the Neon before you got rid of it? Did you sell it or did you were able to get the car taken back because of the lemon law?

andres3

I have to search my memory banks hard for exact time frames, but more or less....

We got the car in or around September of 1994. We got rid of the car in or around the fall of 2000. What I do know (with more certainty) is that we bought the car brand new.
We (my parents) sold it at trade in for a new Camry. The car broke down (for the final time we'd allow it to under our care) and required it's final tow truck lift (4th time under our ownership) at about 65,000 miles.

80% of the problems occurred after year 3 and/or 36,000 miles, although it was only being driven about 10-11,000 miles a year apparently (based on my estimates). So age weared on it harder than miles did (maybe). The AC didn't die until literally year 3 and like 1 month at 30K miles or so. The auto tranny was dying at 60K, and was rebuilt. The head gaskets leaked coolant around 40-45K. The only thing I ever got out of Dodge beyond warranty was a new battery because I blamed them for poor maintenance given the fact that they did the oil changes and allowed the starter cables from the battery terminals to corrode through and through.

At no time did Dodge offer up to cover anything or pay for anything, or extend a warranty (except when we took it in at 2 years and 11 months old and they said do you wanna buy an extended warranty?) Looking back, I should have, but I didn't know all was suddenly going to go to hell. I was well past the allowed time frame to make a lemon claim with California's strict and short-timeframe laws.

I'd rate the reliablity a lousy, but still marginally acceptable 4 out of 10 the first 3 years.
I'd rate the reliability a negative 300 out of 10 the next 3 years; completely utterly unacceptable.

I changed the oil every 3K miles. I changed the auto tranny fluid every 15K miles. I kept the car clean, shiney, and well maintained (to the point of being babied). Whenever something went wrong or showed any sign of going wrong, we got it immediately repaired (mostly at Dodge dealerships). After it's final breakdown I had to go to college out of town again and took my parents old 1995 Camry. They took the Neon, back from repairs, and immediately went to Toyota to trade it in for a replacement before giving it a chance to break down for a potential 5th tow truck run.

The first offer from Toyota was $800, I think my parents ended up getting more for it on trade-in, but only by paying more for the new Camry.

pmusce

One of the links your provided outlined such ridiculously laughable anti-CR arguments that is was pathetic. So it comes down to sampling error.... sort of like rounding error, which compounds and makes things in CR inaccurate.

So this random sampling error that occurs always rounds up for Honda and Toyota for over 30 years while it always rounds down for the US makes? Give me a break!

I never said CR's methods result in US makes being ranked lower. I don't care if CR announced tomorrow that their rankings show GM is twice as reliable as Toyota. Their methods for gathering their data is inaccurate and worthless in my opinion and anyone else who knows how to take an accurate survey would agree with me. I tried to explain what random sampling is to you but you seem to refuse to understand the concept.

link title

townhome

I have finally figured out why I really, honestly bought my '04 Malibu Maxx. It's because, here in Los Angeles, no one has domestic sedans. They are unusual to spot, unless they are a rental. I really did not want to drive the same car as everyone else. Out of all my friends and family, I am the only one with a Chevy of any kind and and the only one with an American sedan. They all have Hondas, Toyotas, Mercedes, BMW's, or a few domestic SUV's. It's sad that buying a Chevy makes me unique among my friends and family, but that's how it is and that's GM's problem.

It gives me great satisfaction when my friends drive my car. They are always surprised. I have heard: "Huh, I didn't expect it to be so quick." and "Wow, your car drives really well." and "No, I don't want to switch, I like driving your car." Then I usually remind them of how little it cost and that it has not broken in 33,000 miles, and sometimes I throw in that Toyota recalled more cars than they sold in 2006 or that CR rates my Malibu as reliable as a Camry V6.

I think if GM could just get more people to actually consider their cars as worthy of shopping, many more people would wind up buying them.

townhome

Based on personal experience, CR ratings are only worthwhile because I can look at them and then believe the opposite. For the 6 cars I have bought and compared to CR's reliability data, I have experienced the exact opposite to be true. My Toyota truck left me stranded many times, yet my Ford Ranger has never had anything break on it. My Saturn was horrific, but my Malibu has been great. And so on and so on......

It seems to me that if people believe their vehicle is going to be reliable, they are less likely to mark on the CR survey that they have experienced a problem with that vehicle. Most people think Toyotas are better than Chevy's. They expect fewer problems with them so they are less likely to freak out when a problem does come up.
When my wife's Highlander needed a new $1500 HVAC control after 4 years, she didn't think it was a big deal. But what if that had been an Explorer? I could just hear it now.....

m1miata

I too do not want a car to do back flips. A few zigzags are fun though. :shades:

Loren

cooterbfd

Lem I think Andres ought to go out and buy a lottery ticket. He's surrounded by people who just happened to "GET LUCKY" w/ their GM cars and trucks.

m1miata

The Maxx was the most interesting looking of the Malibu designs of its time. As I recall the price was pretty high though. And total cost to own is pretty high. Guess the hatch to replace it will be the Opel Astra Saturn, though it is smaller, I think. It is so hard in USA to sell hatchbacks compared to Europe.

You mentioned living in California. Did you notice that some dealerships had almost zero cars, and mostly SUV and trucks on the lots when looking back three years ago? It was like they did not expect anyone to buy one here on the left coast. The SUV or a truck was pretty much the big sales dollar wise, which is easy enough to see, and they could sell them not only to farms, ranchers and business people, soccer moms and dads wanted to be macho in their SUV, and trade in that sissy van. They made little to no attempt to sell cars, other than a Corvette here or there.
Loren

m1miata

quote: "Lem I think Andres ought to go out and buy a lottery ticket. He's surrounded by people who just happened to "GET LUCKY" w/ their GM cars and trucks. " end quote.

Statistical flukes happen. Lots of things happen!

GM may want to believe in lady luck......
I do think GM future will be tied more to sound business practice and products, or lack thereof, than simple luck. They are now within the critical years now, with no wiggle room for error. It is show and tell time. No more, it is just around the corner, this is the corner. The economy is a curve ball, but all the batters will get the same ball thrown to them. Let's see how this plays out. Problem could be some of the players are going to be afford more strikes before being called out. Now we get to see those million dollar players do their magic. Hope they can.
Loren

cooterbfd

I wonder if an AWD sedan can be made off the Lambda archetecture??? One would think that would make for an excellent Flagship sedan for both Buick and Cadillac.

m1miata

Yes, an AWD Crossover.

mrbizness1

Townhome you make an interesting observation about peoples expectations. In the 90's I worked for a multicar dealership. I saw firsthand many times where customers would get very angry if they had a small problem with their Olds or Buick. The first thing they would say was " I should have bought a Toyota" When I pointed out to them the Toyotas and Hondas also in the shop most had no response. I had to show one customer her Geo with bad valve seals had a Toyota motor. People look at those red circles in Consumers and think they will never have a problem. If they read the actual numbers they would find that their are only a few percentage points between them. I have subscribed to Consumers for many years but lately I have my doubts about them, ecpecially after the car seat fiasco. I get good customer service from my cell phone company, (Sprint), Cablevision has excellent VOIP for the home, my GM cars have been excellent and my Dodge minivan has been nearly flawless for $125k

xrunner2

I don't care if CR announced tomorrow that their rankings show GM is twice as reliable as Toyota. Their methods for gathering their data is inaccurate and worthless in my opinion and anyone else who knows how to take an accurate survey would agree with me.

Give some details on why CR data gathering is inaccurate especially as relates to GM.

m1miata

Consumer Reports reality check again, do I see! Well if we are trading stories here, how about my Dad's '91 Camry driven for 9 years with only oil and filter changes, and some tires. Oh yeah, there was gas -- very little gas required. Never had to go back for repairs once in all those years. Perhaps a set of brake pads. Now when I traded my used Datsun 510 in for a Mustang, and ended up at the repair station, I did use the line of, " why did I trade in a perfectly good Japanese car for this one already in for repairs?" And they cracked the bell housing trying to fix an oil leak which left me without a car for ten days, and they did not give me a car to drive. I got all but $800 back from the used Datsun I bought. Come time to trade in the Mustang, it was pretty good in that repect. And over all not the most trouble a life for a car. Now the downside to the Datsun was the thin steel, as in not so safe, and it was not much HP. The seats are a bit flat too. If it was beefier, I would have kept her longer.

Anyway, all three of those cars likely followed the dots pattern at Consumer Reports. No, it is not telling you the extent of the damage to the pocket book. I like to go to MSN Auto and see what they list for problem areas, with some things listed for cost to repair. Same with Consumer Guide, which has the reliability issues noted -- also typical repair costs, which don't always seem believable, but who am I to say. They use $65 an hour for labor and it is really $85 an hour here, so that explains some, if it is labor time consuming fixes.

Loren

pmusce

Give some details on why CR data gathering is inaccurate especially as relates to GM.

I never said it was inaccurate for GM vehicles only. It is inaccurate period. It is a survey based on a group of subscribers that may or may not represent the general population. In order for a survey to accurately represent the general population, the sampling must be random (i.e. a random sampling of the general population) and it must be large enough to minimize the chance for error. CR does not meet neither criteria.

If I go to yankee stadium and do a survey to find out what everyone's favorite team is, can I conclude that my survey represents the entire US populations opinion? No, I cannot because my audience is a random sampling of a group of people that tend to favor the yankees which will greatly skew my results. CR's subscriber base is not representative of the general car buying public.

carguy58

"Townhome you make an interesting observation about peoples expectations. In the 90's I worked for a multicar dealership. I saw firsthand many times where customers would get very angry if they had a small problem with their Olds or Buick. The first thing they would say was " I should have bought a Toyota" When I pointed out to them the Toyotas and Hondas also in the shop most had no response."

Well I did own a Mazda from 1998-2001 and it was pretty reliable but I was upset that there was a recall on my Mazda in late 1998 and when I got the recall notice I second guessed my purchase on my Mazda and I thought I should have bought a 1998 or 1999 Nissan Altima or 98 or 99 Honda Accord(4cyl) but now I know that every car company has recalls.

m1miata

Well they are not asking people that own a Toyota how they like their new Impala? Are you suggesting that people which hate the domestics go out to buy them, buy a subscription to Consumer Reports, then blast GM? People may buy the magazine to see how good toasters, air conditioners, or TVs are. What ever the reason, so what. They sample from owners of all makes of cars, as their subscribers own all makes of cars. We may assume there are some Volvos and Minivan owners in larger numbers, but who cars. They are asked specific questions about the car which they own. They get the data back and publish it. If you do not believe the data, then don't by the magazine.

If you want a dose of bias, why not do a comparison test of three cars from a dealership which sells the one make. Yea, they are going to tell you the total scoop on how good the other two products are.

Judging by the eyeball method, while driving down the highway, I do see very few cars being towed which look newer. Most look to be over a decade old. Actually, after my years with my current car come to an end, or I just want to drive something different, I may consider a nice clean used car -- perhaps a near luxury, as they say. My pocket book would say too much luxury At which time I will consider data from CR, MSN Auto, and Consumer Guide, and perhaps a little advice from a mechanic or two, I would trust. In the end no one can be sure any one car is not going to be a lemon, or spot on perfect. If buying a GM car, there are about four or five here on this board I could take with me when I go to buy the perfect GM, as they are batting a thousand! Seriously, I may get a Vette, as it is on a wish list for future cars along with some other sports cars. Have not tested the C5 yet.
Loren

makigrl

They come out with some JD Power and Associates study and Buick ties with Lexus for first. Then you have Toyota, Cadillac, mercury, Honda, Acura, etc. They rate Mercury higher than Lincoln. They rate Buick so high. The highest of the luxury cars is BMW but I remember on the report that how they told it making it sound like Lexus isn't Luxury.

You have to figure there is some flaw or something strange about it when they give an American company the top prize in something. Just a couple of years ago around 2003 or 2004 both the Buick Centruy and Lesabre won the top awards from JD Power and Associates for quality. I know they make fairly reliable cars but those weren't very high quality and built with a lot cheap plastic parts.

u045777

While the value of the dollar is hitting new lows, lenders closing their doors, mortgage loans difficult to obtain, forclosures skyrocketing, home prices falling, thousand of people getting laid off, it's not the time to buy yet! Dealers and manufacterers will soon be offering big discounts in the coming months. Hold off for 3 to 6 months and save thousands off the price of your next auto.

The sales people will not like hearing this but it is the TRUTH!

cooterbfd

I know they make fairly reliable cars but those weren't very high quality and built with a lot cheap plastic parts.

So were the Japanese cars of the late '60'sand '70's; fairly reliable and built w/ cheap plastic parts, and look what happened.....

cooterbfd

Quotes from an AP article on the JD Power survey:

(Neal, director of JD's product research) Oddes said the most frequent problem cited is wind noise, followed by noisy brakes, seat belts that fail to retract, poor ride handling and uneven wear on tires. Oddes said complaints about seats and interiors rose slightly this time around, but in most categories, complaints were down.

Isn't that amazing, NO CIRCLES, JUST ROTE FACTS ABOUT SPECIFIC PROBLEMS.

The survey found that 65% of owners experienced one or more problems that required components to be replaced. Oddes said owners understand that some parts, such as brake pads, need to be replaced, but if they have to replace expensive items such as transmissions or if they have to replace smaller parts more often than they expect, they will keep their vehicle an average of one year less and will be less likely to consider that brand in the future.

Well, DUH, I suppose.

J.D. Power's results are watched closely by automakers and are often used in advertising.
Something often aruged here, but nevertheless, the results are watched closely by auto mfrs.

anotherguy

CR's reliability numbers do have the flaw of being a self-selected sample rather than a random sample. I've never studied the technical details of self-selected samples, by my own experience with customer review websites is that self-selected samples exaggerate the extremes. 5 stars are the most common score followed by 1 star, while 3 stars are very rare. This effect could exaggerate the the differences between highly reliable cars and semi-reliable cars.

On the other hand, the only mechanism I see where CR's survey method will always favor imports / hurt domestics (beyond the exaggeration of real quality differences) is if large numbers of people systematically LIE on the surveys. I see no evidence of that.

On the topic of CR being biased in general, the word bias can have two meanings. One is systematic error, where the method you use to evaluate something has a design flaw that gives results different than reality. Every test has some element of that, including CR and its competition. The other meaning is deliberate manipulation of the data. While this is often claimed about CR, I don't see the evidence.