Suzuki Grand Vitara vs Subaru Forester vs Hyundai Santa Fe vs Jeep Liberty vs Ford Escape vs Saturn

mtngal

"while a V6 Escape, which to me is a more fun to drive vehicle..." just summed up CR's problem. For one person it is more fun, but I found the Forester more fun for me - I just totally understood how it handled after only a couple of minutes behind the wheel, something I didn't feel for the Escape.

So what is right for one person is all wrong for someone else, and why everyone will never agree on CR or any other reviewer!

stever

Before we get in too much deeper, I feel obliged to mention that we do have a pretty active Consumer Reports? discussion over in News & Views.

Actually we're in pretty deep as it is (hint - you may find some more good arguments there to use in here, LOL).



Steve

Host

SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

tidester

This is interesting enough to draw me in--and maybe offer a somewhat different perspective.

If we had known this would draw you in, we'd have brought up the subject long ago!

You do make an interesting point and that gets to the essence of "quality" (remember Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?)

The pragmatic corporate view of "quality" is "conforming to customer requirements" which, in essence, relies on the tangibles or measurables. It does leave a bit to be desired.

Glad to have you aboard.

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

azeal

Well... I have tried VERY hard not to share my personal bias on vehicles and vehicle manufacturers, just debate the point on whether or not CR and their approach of customer reviews. When you admit your dislike for them is based on the fact that they have given low ratings to the cars you like, then I will agree, we have nothing to disagree on

And yes, I think a survey of owners with a decent sample size is vastly more useful than individual reports from enthusiasts for a particular make or model. You automatically assume that CR readers have a bias against certain makes and models... if this is true, why did they bother to buy that make and model?

The question of "feel" is what I mean by relevance in their testing. Some people want a car that is roomy and reliable. For them CR is a great source of info. Some people want a car with neck-jerking acceleration, and for them CR is a bad source of info. Does the fact that CR reviews focus on quantifiable things make them biased? I don't think so. Of course the guy who buys the car with the 6 second 0-60 time will lambast CR, just as the guy who buys the car with the stellar reliability record will praise them.

I'd love to see some other source of this kind of info. But as was mentioned above, automakers will never do it (at least not voluntarily). Maybe what we need is some sort of consumer protection law that requires automakers to report the reliability history of their products year-to-year, so that consumers can be protected from buying lemons. They track this data internally already. I'd certainly vote it should be shared with the public just like MPG ratings and crash test scores.

clever1

According to Consumer Reports own website, although they do not accept advertising and purportedly do not have ties to manufacturers, they do except GRANTS. For example, they reported in July 2001 that they accepted a $500,000 GRANT from Ford Motors to assist in some research. (How did the newest Explorer fare, by the way? Didn't it get very high marks?)

It's sheer fantasy to believe that Consumer Reports is somehow not capable of "biting the hand that feeds it", unlike other organizations.

Effectively, they use the same business model for funding as PBS television -- e.g., when Mobil Oil buys "public service announcements" instead of advertising. The difference is that consumers are made aware of these connections on PBS whenever they view a PSA, while Consumer Reports has made part of its tagline "unbiased reviews", consistently selling the "no advertising dollars" bit, while taking big money from key influencers.

Does anyone have an older copy of CR with original reviews of Firestone tires? Are they consistent with the safety problems that later emerged, or not? I'd be willing to bet that CR recommended them, and then had to jump on the "outraged" bandwagon to cover their own hindquarters. Meanwhile, haven't they been a staunch supporter of Ford through that controversy? How did they review the pertinent Explorers? And, how many magazines have they sold because of the controversy?

It will be interesting to see what happens in the legal proceedings of Suzuki against CR. Apparently, CR intends to use the fifth amendment (freedom to express their *opinion*, not just fact) as their main defense since Suzuki has managed to blow holes in their "systematic" testing methodology.

http://www.rcfp.org/news/2002/0627suzuki.html

Assoc. Press, June 25, 2002: "The National Highway Traffic Safety Agency declined to declare the vehicle defective and said the magazine's test procedures for the Suzuki "do not have a scientific basis," Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote. Tashima also said a federal jury should consider whether the magazine's motives were profit-driven, given that it reprinted its original 1988 story in fund-raising solicitations while it was in "substantial debt."

Oh, by the way, my latest vehicle hasn't been reviewed by CR, and my older second car was purchased without checking CR -- it now has over 250,000 miles on it and is still running okay. In fact, my main resource has been the opinion of owners and independant mechanics, and guides like Edmunds.

lumbar

I appreciate the welcome.

Having just spent part of Friday visting with the Forester, the Vue and the Escape, it was great to find a board exactly on the subject.

bess

From the previous couple of posts, I think it was pretty much established that CR does ok at reviewing items that are quantifiable. (trunk space, 0-60 times, etc). However the 'reliablity' rating is not one of these quantifable categories. I've seen many occasions where what one person considers a problem, another person does not.

There is something about the human brain that if you 'expect' to see a certain result, you will. Take for example some of the gimick products that claim to increase a vehicles MPG. It turns out that most really don't, however because the driver 'wants' to see an increase, they unknowingly alter their driving habits (being lighter on the gas pedal etc), which does indeed produce an MPG gain..
I think similar psychology is in play if you buy a certain brand of vehicle with the 'expectation' that it will have higher reliability than all the others. How does that person fill out the survey?

I have no idea how much this skews the numbers but I do believe it has some affect..

clever1

azeal: I wholeheartedly agree with your idea about bumping up consumer protection laws. I wonder if that would put CR out of business, or simply make them a better publication?

bess

You say:
"Maybe what we need is some sort of consumer protection law that requires automakers to report the reliability history of their products year-to-year, so that consumers can be protected from buying lemons. "

How would the 'reliability history' as you put it 'protect customers'? Would you recommend that if you bought a vehicle that was rated 'lower' then you knowingly bought a substandard vehicle, so its your fault for not listening to the govt?

Most states (if not all) already have lemon law's in place that protect the customer. These are effective.

The type of law your proposing is not implementable, would not offer any more or less protection that current laws, and would probably just encourage the manufactures to tell you 'thats not a problem' in order to keep that number low..

Not implementable: what would you count as a problem? Only problems covered under warranty? If you try to count more than that, what about problems that independant garages fix, do they have to now report all of their fixes to the manufacturer?

As in most cases (in my opinion), more laws are a bad idea.. Take advantage or enforce the ones we already have.

tidester

CR intends to use the fifth amendment (freedom to express their *opinion*, not just fact) as their main defense

I haven't read about what defense they intend to use but you're probably thinking of the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution (freedom of press/speech). The fifth has to do with warrants and self-incrimination.

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

shado4

Hmmm, I'm sorry. I thought this was a discussion about compact SUVs. Instead it's all about CR and their testing procedures.

Am I in the wrong forum?

tidester

I thought this was a discussion about compact SUVs.

It is. We seem to have gotten off on a bit of a tangent discussing published evaluations of compact SUVs. This is the nature of message boards!

tidester
Host
SUVs; Aftermarket & Accessories

scape2

over in the other CR chat room here at Edmunds that CR targets a certain reader group..

mtngal

Since you have been testing the Vue, Forester and Escape - what are your opinions? What are you looking at and why?

I've been doing the same thing and debating all of them. I know I have extreme requirements for my commute, so I'm really interested in what others think about this group (since my next vehicle will more than likely be from this batch, unless it is a different Subaru).

clever1

tidester: Yeah, you're right. I was off by a few amendments there -- so much about the fifth amendment being used these days, it seems to have thrown my count off. Thanks for pointing that out.

mtngal: I've recently tested everthing on this board except the Vue, plus a few others. I liked them all for different reasons. I was sorely tempted by the '03 Forester, since it seemed to offer the best all-around performance, decent ground clearance, good mileage, comfortable interior for humans and pets, etc. I compromised its strengths in favor of the Liberty's solely based on towing capacity, and low gears for rough (uninhabited and unpredictable, not necessarily extreme) terrain. I was impressed by Hyundai's customer focused, "can do" attitude, but felt the Santa Fe was not going to handle anything resembling off road as well as the others. Also, their dealer network is not as strong in some parts of the country, and I travel frequently. If the '03s were available, I may have reconsidered the Escape -- good power, but it otherwise just didn't grab me. If I had a Wrangler as a second vehicle, I most likely would have chosen the Subaru.

jimbob17

I have used CR for evaluations for major purchases for years. I walk into a bookstore and pick up a guide for a small price that will probably be recouped in the shopping process. I have found out that I rarely can find or buy best buys but the wealth of information for a consumer is valuable to me.
I may not buy a best buy but I wont buy a problem area car or appliance.
I try not to get into a "WARGAMES" mentality. If you crawl out of the bunker and see the sun shining and the birds singing when the computer has been overwhelmed with chaos maybe a reality check is in order.
For me the reality check with cars is workaday chit chat comparisons and a call to my insurance company for rate comparisons. Typically they coincide with CR evaluations. Beyond that what else is there?

mtngal

For your thoughts. We seem to be thinking along the same lines. My concern for the Santa Fe was strictly for the tranny - I thought that was its weakest part. If I weren't going to be driving mountains every day, it wouldn't matter so much to me. And I keep thinking about the Liberty for a couple of reasons - one, I like it and 2, it could handle off-roading. I keep having to remind myself that I'm buying a car to deal with snow and freeways, not all those lovely dirt roads and trails around here...

scape2

This offroad ability stuff cracks me up!
I do drive a "car based" mini-ute and it does just fine on any logging road/access road to reach my favorite fishing/hiking spots in the Cascade range of Oregon. Granted the Liberty/Xterra have the advantage of solid axles and stronger frames. But, you really need to ask yourself. How severe am I going to "offroad". The facts show over 90 percent of 4x4 vehicles barely even see a gravel road and most of them purchased are for pure looks/image. I guess one needs to ask themselves. How severe am I going to offroad? Would I take a 23K vehicle into these places? How often? ect...

paisan

Mostly people buy them for the pousser image. Those 90% could go everywhere they go in their "suv" in a std car. The new generation of SUVs is great for what the general population wants, image.

-mike

dindak

If you are buying an appliance, CR is great. Unfortunately CR reviewers are not car guys and hence look at all the practical aspects rather than "fun to drive" or less tangible aspects. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you know anything about statistics you will realize that you should read as large a cross section of reports and data as possible to get the best feeling about how a car functions and performs.

paisan

Are their stats soley from their readers or is it a cros section?

-mike

baggs32

"For me the reality check with cars is workaday chit chat comparisons and a call to my insurance company for rate comparisons. Typically they coincide with CR evaluations. Beyond that what else is there?"

How about a test drive or two? You might want to try deciding for yourself, you'll have more fun that way.

baggs32

The thing that really caught my attention in that USA Today article was how CR does not make any effort to ensure equal sized samples for vehicles that are being compared to one another. Since they also don't publish how many surveys were received and tallied for each vehicle, how do we know that we are comparing apples to apples here.

If two vehicles are being compared and one gets 5000 responses while the other only gets a little more than the required 100 (which is rather low by the way) you're going to have a mismatch one way or the other. Listing a "margin of error" would help too.

mtngal

I agree that most SUV drivers don't off-road, but some do. I found the reviews I read in many car magazines didn't cover what I wanted to know when I was looking in '98. If I had bought what they were recommending I would have been stuck many times. As it was, I considered what they were telling me and bought a Wrangler in spite of them - it scrambles out of all that I've been throwing at it. My only problem now is that I'm not replacing the Wrangler, so now other things are important - comfort, road worthiness, and ability to handle snow and ice.

As far as vehicles that can handle graded forest service roads - my first car did very well on them. It was a '69 Opel Kadet. So for that type of stuff 4WD is over-rated - anything with decent ground clearance will work. If it is steep, it helps to have weight over the drive wheels - pickups (like a 2WD Taco) are too light if empty. The Taco is poor even with a fiberglass shell on it!

vin_weasel

I agree with mtngal that the reviews in most major media only cover what the majority want to hear. How well does it handle on the road, how many grocery bags can you fit in the back, etc, etc. This isn't what everyone wants to hear and you really have to hunt to find out what your criteria are. Personally, I found edmunds along with many other sites to be a great way to get some basic information about the vehicles I was interested in and then I went out and examined them on a first-hand basis before I made my decision to buy.

I think that by actually going and driving these things you'll find what you're really looking for, whether it be an on or off-road vehicle, what kind of handling you like, etc.

For the record, I don't trust CR and having a bit of a statistical background myself, you must have an unbiased sample size large enough to make any survey valid. If it's not there in the beginning, no numbers generated can be realistically used or trusted.

clever1

I've had various front-wheel drive and rear-wheel drive sedans that handled blizzards, unpaved paths, etc. just fine. Mostly, the tires and driving skill made the difference if ground clearance wasn't an issue (rarely was). The problem comes with going into unknown, undeveloped terrain where loose ground, larger obstacles and shallow waterways might intervene. I can't imagine taking some of the sedan based SUVs into desert terrain or pathless backwoods without presuming significantly higher risk than something designed to handle the possiblity.

Regardless, if even as much as 99% of a driver's time is spent in easily managed conditions, but that 1% means getting stuck or turning back from a destination, who wouldn't want the option to persevere? The "percentage of use" argument against SUVs isn't any more persuasive or dissuasive than the logic behind purchasing a high-performance sedan or coupe for a high-traffic (i.e., relatively low speed) area. Where are these "street racers" going to go? This is just another area where "want" often wins over "need" (significant criteria not even on CR's view screen).

rsholland

<< Regardless, if even as much as 99% of a driver's time is spent in easily managed conditions, but that 1% means getting stuck or turning back from a destination, who wouldn't want the option to persevere? The "percentage of use" argument against SUVs isn't any more persuasive or dissuasive than the logic behind purchasing a high-performance sedan or coupe for a high-traffic (i.e., relatively low speed) area. Where are these "street racers" going to go? This is just another area where "want" often wins over "need" >>

I couldn't agree more...

Bob

mtngal

"want often wins over need" - How true, how true. So much so that I'll look at the Rubicon with great longing, even while I'm shopping for a road vehicle. But just think where I could go with lockers and all that extra ground clearance...

I hope I am sensible enough to buy one of these vehicles or a WRX. What I really need is to be able to get through the occasional winter roadblocks without having to put on chains. Around my home they require either 4x4 or chains when the roads get bad, and I don't like chains and snow shovels at 4am.

ateixeira

If CR doesn't have a statistically significant sample size, they simply don't publish the results.

It's much harder to have a large sample of, say, Vipers, because there aren't that many on the road. So they do what you'd expect them to do - state that the sample was too small.

They can't forecast a margin of error, because cars purchased in the future may be different, so they can only forecast reliability. This is scape's argument, that the Escape has improved, and the data will not reflect that until a year or two from now. I'm not saying I agree, but it'll sure be interesting to see if it improves at all.

And they rate the PT Cruiser with a big red dot, and the VW New Beetle with a big black one, so I don't agree with the bias towards imports.

It cracks me up when a person owns one car that does not match their forecasts and uses that to say they are wrong. One car is not a significant sample. All the cars you own in a lifetime probably aren't.

The surveys are filled out by subscribers, but those people that own Jeep Grand Cherokees and rate them poorly are supposed to be biased against the truck they bought? I don't agree with that logic.

They are gathering data and basically publish it for you to interpret. You may not agree with their opinions, but there is plenty of fact for you to draw your own conclusions from.

Another point - maybe reliability isn't a top criteria for you. Heck, maybe you love your dealer. Say you own a Jag X-Type and get free service, free coffee and red carpet treatment, would it be so horrible to have to go there maybe one more visit per year to have something fixed for free? That might not bother some folks.

-juice

clever1

juice: When CR is reviewing a particular vehicle, how many do they purchase for their tests? I could be wrong, but don't they only use one?

If that's the case, their "scientific" results are each based on a sample size of one. Combining that with a returned batch of subscribers' opinons isn't what I'd call "statisticaly significant findings" by any stretch.

I agree with you that it's helpful for shoppers to review their findings, but Consumer Reports should be forced to remove "unbiased" from their tagline. (If you haven't already, check out the link from my previous post #2607 -- good for a chuckle, if nothing more.)

jimbob17

True. Test drives are useful and fun but test drives would be an option whether or not CR existed.
If the average user wants to research a car for reliability, history and predictable future repairs what alternatives are there to CR?

carseeker4

....I agree CR has some biases. But its still a useful reference. Like anything else, it helps to check other references. The internet has provided us with many resources. The NHTSA Consumer Complaints and Recall Investigations. Chat rooms at Edmunds and other places provide a lot of input. I actually trust CRs reliability references more than some of their other statistical data (like ground clearances, MPG, cargo room, etc), mainly because I can back up their reliability data with the use of other references.

mtngal

All research is good, whether it is biased or not. One should just take it for what it is, then compare it with other resources. I'm the first one to admit to having a bias - I strongly dislike my Taco, and I'll be happy to tell you both its good and bad points. Everyone else on this board has a bias too. And that's a "good thing." It makes life much more interesting to have choices and differences.

paisan

And have a shootout in NJ! Trailride in the Pine Barrens of NJ. Check out http://isuzu-suvs.com/events/pb-09-21-02/index.html for details. It's a very tame/beginner trailride. All are welcome to come on down and join the fun and get your SUVs dirty!

-mike

baggs32

"If CR doesn't have a statistically significant sample size, they simply don't publish the results."

100 is their minimum on returned surveys. That would be a good sample size for, and I'll use your example, the Viper but not for the F150. That USA Today article showed us that they didn't even get enough responses to publish data for the Grand Am which is a pretty strong seller from year to year. One thing that shows me is that people are not taking these surveys seriously and/or not taking the time to fill them out correctly.

You did make some other good points up there though.

"If the average user wants to research a car for reliability, history and predictable future repairs what alternatives are there to CR?"

It's true that I don't like CR, period. But they probably are the best source for this type of data out there right now.

You asked what else there was, besides CR, to help one choose a vehicle and I was just commenting on that.

mtngal

I don't suppose you could move that trailride out to the west coast, could you? It sounds like fun!

paisan

I actually tried to make it to Moab, UT last year for the Isuzu Zu event which is a national event for Isuzus, but just couldn't work it into the mix

It's not too hard to organize, you should set one up in your area! Heck in the NE corridor it is very hard to find off-road trails, unlike in the West.

Hopefully we'll see some Santa Fes, Escapes or Vues out there this time. Usually we get Mitsus, Isuzus, and Subies.

-mike

clever1

People bother to return surveys for lots of different reasons, and there are usually a few patterns in that.

For one, if someone is personally invested in feeling good about an ultimately bad choice, or if they are more interested in supporting a presumed or established consensus of peers than otherwise (the ever powerful desire for approval), they will be unlikely to share (respectively) negative or contradictory feedback. Perhaps you've all read about a psychological phenomenon called "cognitive dissonance" -- a big factor in bias.

On the other hand, if someone is satisfied with a choice -- maybe even ecstatic about it -- they are less likely to share their experience than someone who has a negative experience (call it social Darwinism, but humans are generally more motivated to learn how to better "survive" the prospect of another error than to share information about how to "win").

And then, there's just plain busy-ness and laziness -- how often have any of us not bothered to take or return a survey related to our own experience?

That's partly where the randomness and bias come in. If reliability data is based upon relatively small samples and/or randomly returned surveys, the results are "biased", "not generalizable" and "statistically invalid" by definition. (Ask anyone who develops truly scientific assessments.)

For many, many reasons, Consumer Reports is not any better than information available from Edmunds, Carpoint, Consumer Guide (not affilated with CR), Cars.com, or a vast array of alternatives, including other forums like this. In fact, resources like Edmunds (my favorite) are better than CR in that you get to read directly from contributors and decide their bias, rather than having it masked by "scientific" censors.

One thing that's intriguing to me with regard to Consumer Reports is their "not for profit" business status. Do we trust them more simply because they resemble a charity?

ateixeira

For reliability, they use a large sample. I called that scientific. I was quoted out of context.

For testing, they use one, but it's fair to expect two identical cars to perform similarly. If not, that manufacturer has a serious quality problem, not CR! ;-)

CR has a different perspective than most mags (non-enthusiast, consumer oriented), but I find they are more consistent and complete than, say, Car & Driver or Autoweek. Who else tells you whether a car has a donut or a full size spare, the type of hinges on the trunk, the payload, the tow ratings, the number and type of seatbelts and whether they are adjustable, the presence or lack of LATCH mechnisms, summaries of crash test and bumper basher results, etc?

I like C&D and Autoweek, but they serve a totally different purpose IMO.

I'm not saying it's flawless, just that it remains useful.

-juice

ateixeira

Well, we always thought the Santa Fe's V6 didn't seem to be making much power, now Hyundai admits it:

http://www.autonet.ca/AutonetStories/stories.cfm?storyID=6526

Their V6 hasn't been making 181hp all along, in fact the real output is 173hp. No wonder the Forester outruns it, that's just +8hp with a lot more weight to pull.

At least they're talking about offering longer warranties in some cases.

The 4 cylinder Santa Fe makes 11 hp less than stated, or 138 instead of the previously stated 149.

-juice

clever1

Somewhat off topic: Manufacturers are fairly reliable in providing the technical specs that one needs while shopping for a vehicle. Many reviewers merely reiterate these specs, while the various better ones double-check them for accuracy. There are plenty of folks who love to capitalize upon verifiable errors, not just self-appointed watchdog groups. Manufacturers that mistate technical specifications for production models face legal challenges that usually keep them in line (ahem... see below).

On topic: Very interesting situation for Hyundai. Were the erroneous materials only distributed in the Canadian market? (www.hyundaiupdate.ca indicates that is the case) They seem to be handling the issue very proactively.

nippononly

that are capable of doing rugged offroading are far from the best choice for commute and round-town driving. It is just a fact. Jeep Wrangler is really the number one vehicle to own for serious offroading, and I recently read a review in one of the car mags that really blasted it for noise, ride, comfort, accomodations, options, power, acceleration, handling...there wasn't a category they missed.

But for most of the car mags, unless it goes 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, it is pointless to own. For consumer mags, how many airbags it has and how well the child seats attach are the only real priorities.

If you want to research SUVs for actual offroading, you need to look at offroading mags, or 4x4 mags.

I have been pretty satisfied with my 4Runner for offroading - I have never gotten stuck, and have been through some pretty rugged terrain (haven't attempted the Rubicon yet though!). OTOH, it is slower than heck for town driving, particularly freeway, and I have to go slow around corners and stuff. Gas mileage sucks.

Gotta have the solid rear axle - I CAN'T BELIEVE Explorer went to IRS...

nippononly

You have to look long and hard to find breakover angles or approach and departure angles for any of the SUVs, and especially the ones listed in this forum. These are not really intended for anything more offroad than dirt roads.

baggs32

"But for most of the car mags, unless it goes 0-60 in 2.6 seconds, it is pointless to own. For consumer mags, how many airbags it has and how well the child seats attach are the only real priorities."

Sometimes yes, but not all the time. MT compared the Escape, CR-V and VUE a month or two ago. The CR-V (5M tranny) won most of the performance tests, but the Escape ended up winning the comparison mostly based on, according to them, it's utility factor. As we all know, these smaller SUV's are built for utility and not off-roading so it seems that MT was looking for the right thing in that one.

paisan

Personally a stock wrangler (except rubicon) is not that well equipped for offroading in it's stock format. You need to do significant upgrades to both that and Cherokee to make it offroad worthy. I'd choose a 4-runner over them anyday. As proof, we were at Uwharrie Off-road Area in NC recently, and a boatload of wranglers needed to be winched up or towed up the Rocky Mount trail due to either incapability or driveshafts breaking. A stock '96 Trooper with OEM tires went right up the same slope.

-mike

daveghh

Not sure why the Escape is considered to have "better utility". Somebody want to explain that to me?

suvshopper4

What time do you guys figure to begin and end your upcoming day in the Pines?

-ss4

baggs32

"Not sure why the Escape is considered to have "better utility". Somebody want to explain that to me?"

davegh,
Obviously you thought the CR-V had better utility because you bought one. MT's opinion was that the Escape was better. They are no different from any other publication in that they only offer their opinions. You have to decide the rest with or without their help.

There are no trophies for which vehicle wins the most comparisons.

lumbar

Maximum tow capacity:

Escape 6-3500 lbs
Vue 6-2500 lbs
CR-V-1500lbs

For some, not all, this defines utility.

daveghh

better utility....

CRV: Picnic table
Escape: NO picnic table!

Lol!