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

zukimock

Hi Guys,

Just wondering if anyone knows how much of Suzuki is owned by GM?

I heard it was 10%, is this correct?

Danx in advance.

stever

20.2% at June 30, 2005. (Edgar)

It had been ten percent and they doubled their stake in it; I think back in '00 or '01.

Steve, Host

ateixeira

It never ceases to amaze me how people over-rate this type of information.

I'm sure you could find a Lexus lemon, that doesn't mean they tend to be unreliable. You just found an exception.

Conversely, I've seen owners of Audi 4000S sedans swear up and down that they own the most reliable cars on the road, with 200k miles on them and still running strong. Again, that certainly doesn't mean Audis tend to be reliable.

If you manage a fleet of maybe 12 or more cars, simultaneously, and they all give you problems in the same trouble areas, then I think it might be fair to draw the conclusion that a certain trouble area is common. You have a more significant sample.

1-2 cars is just not a significant sample, not ever.

-juice

p0926

While first hand experience is very important to the individual concerned and a major factor in his or her buying decision, it is merely anecdotal evidence to someone else.

Ford earned its reputation for poor reliability over a span of many years. In fact all three members of the "Big Three" developed reputations for shoddy quality during the 70s and 80s. Truth be told, quality might not have gotten any worse during that time frame but that's when Japanese imports started showing up in large quantities, giving the American car buyer something to compare Detroit products to.

Quality control has indeed improved (and continues to improve) throughout the auto industry and Ford is certainly part of that trend but just as it takes many years to develop a reputation for poor quality, it can take just as long to change public perception. Take Hyundai for example, they developed a terrible reputation back in the late 80s when they introduced the Excel (an automotive disaster on par with the Yugo). However, Hyundai must have taken the criticism to heart since now their models consistently get good scores for reliability and have for several years. But there are still plenty of people who won't even consider a Hyundai because they still associate the brand name with poor quality.

I think Ford has a similar problem. There is good base of loyal owners but many potential new buyers are hesitant to consider a Ford because of their less than stellar reputation. Conversely, these same people will give the benefit of the doubt to Honda or Toyota when they hear a news report of a recall because of these manufacturers’ hard earned reputations for bulletproof reliability. While this may not strike the Ford owner as "fair" its just part of human nature.

Were I a satisfied Escape owner trying to champion the car I drove, I would focus on the positive improvements in quality and reliability and quote statistics from sources like CR and JD Powers. Anecdotal evidence is okay, just realize that it will do little to change someone else’s preconceived notions of reliability. I wouldn’t bash other brands since that only looks like an attempt to change the subject and divert attention. I also wouldn’t try and start a discussion about which model has the most recalls. In fact, I would freely acknowledge the fact that Ford was too hasty in bringing the Escape to market but then point out that since that admittedly rotten first year, the Escape’s reliability ratings have gone way up. Of course that’s just what I’d do :-)

-Frank

njswamplands

'95 contour se, great fun car to drive when it wasnt being recalled or having the engine poof or the transmission problems or the electrical problems..

'00 windstar se, so many fit and finish problems, recalls that i was so glad when the lease was over...

^^^^^ so referring to your preceived reliability feelings... i would have to wait to see severals years of stellar consumer reports numbers before i would ever consider ford again.

ateixeira

I had a 1984 Honda Aero scooter. The engine siezed on me. I was traveling about 35mph for a long distance, and the air cooled engine just overheated.

Later I had a 1987 Honda XL 250 motorcycle. On my 21st birthday, the carb cracked and the engine basically blew up, actually breaking the valve stems and destroying the whole top end.

Neither story would stop me from buying a Civic today if I was shopping in the FWD compact segment.

Nice post, by the way, Frank.

-juice

scape2

on the money.. I am one of those that have been a Ford "loyalist" since I bought my first vehicle that was a 1968 Ford pick-up. It had 150,000 miles on a 390V8 and lasted me up to just over 200,000 before I rebuilt the engine and transmission. Never had any more issues with the truck.. sold it for a 1971 Mustang Mach1 with a 351 Cleveland. Built it up to about 335HP.. had a 9" Ford rearend and a 4spd FMX transmission... sold it (dumb) for an Escort! dumb.. But I had a family to think about.. Anyhoo... had a few more Fords.. but.. I am not one to remain loyal to a company that does me wrong. In fact.. I am now contemplating between two sedans for next year... The new Ford Fusion or a Volkswagon Jetta.. These are my two top picks.. We'll see if I jump ship on Ford? who knows?... :shades:

ateixeira

My college roommate is now a VP for a construction company, and they've had fleets of Fords. They'd routinely get 250k miles out of them with one engine rebuild during that time. These are HD F series trucks.

The whole industry has improved, consumers simply to not tolerate unreliable cars. If you look at JDP, the difference between the best and worst are just fractions of a single problem per car.

Even with CR, the best report 8 problems or so per 100 cars while the worst are in the low 20s. That sounds terrible, but we're still talking about 0.22 vs. 0.08, or a difference of 0.14 per individual car, i.e. likely no difference for most owners.

-juice

suvshopper4

In June 04, JD Power's dependability study of 2001 model-year vehicles showed the number of problems per 100 vehicles.

Industry average was 269, and only 5 mfrs bettered this mark: Toyota (207), American Honda (210), Porsche North America (240), GM (262) and BMW North America (264).
Bottom five were Land Rover (472), Kia (432), Daewoo (411), Isuzu (393) and Volkswagen (386).

Quite a spread.

explorerx4

it is an average. if land rover scored zero defects, the average would probably still be 269. if toyota scored zero, the average would probably be 280. just some fuzzy math

suvshopper4

"if land rover scored zero defects"
then beware of flying pigs.

explorerx4

is that you way of agreeing with me that vehicles sold in small numbers don't really affect the average?

suvshopper4

Is that what you meant? I couldn't tell by what you wrote.
I thought you were just rejecting the whole survey.

explorerx4

my point is that most of the low scoring vehicles are sold in small numbers. that really does not affect the overall average very much. even a relatively high volume seller, like toyota has a limited effect on the overall average.

ateixeira

Not really. It's per 100 vehicles, so divide the difference by 100.

That means the worst manufacturer in the industry (VW) has only about 1 more problem than the average car, and this is over a 5 year period, I believe.

From the other angle, Toyotas only have 0.62 fewer problems than average over a long, long 5 year period!

I don't think that's quite as much of a spread as people think. If Ford is somewhere in the middle, then it's likely within 1 problem of the Toyota, or 0.2 per year.

Certainly not the doom-and-gloom that some people imply when they bust on Fords. The way some people talk you'd think a Ford owner would be fixing something at the dealer every weekend.

In reality, it's more like every 250 weekends.

See what I mean?

-juice

explorerx4

since the problems are per hundred, forget everything i wrote. ... i mean about this.

suvshopper4

I thought it was over a 5-year period too, until I read the article more closely.

"The study is based on responses from more than 48,000 original owners of 2001 model-year cars and trucks. It measures problems such as wind noise, excessive brake wear, vibrations, and the replacement of parts not called for under normal maintenance."
Again, it is from an AP article dated June 30, 2004.
If they ran a similar article in 2005, I missed it, unfortunately.

There was not a full listing, but other mfrs mentioned were:
Ford 275
Daimler Chrysler 302
and both were improvements over the prior year (by 12 and 9 respectively).

And what I think the results are saying is that even the top-rated mfr had an average of 2 such problems in just a few years. This surprises me. Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong.

Still, I'll take one less problem. The fewer the better. Particularly when many shops "can't duplicate the problem" first time thru.
Who needs the inconvenience (at best) or the aggravation?

ateixeira

Sure, it's a factor, but not as major as it used to be.

So while it's one criteria when shopping for a new car, it might not be as high up on the list as it used to be. Things like performance, fuel economy, and availability of safety features have moved up the list, while the small differences in durability has probably moved that criteria down the list a bit.

-juice

suvshopper4

Depends on the person.

For me, first and foremost is a reasonably-priced vehicle that has the best chance of starting and driving reliably for many years.

YMMV.

ateixeira

Fair enough, but let's face it, if that were the case for everyone, the Toyota Echo would be the best selling car in America.

-juice

zukimock

True true...

Nowadays reliability between companies are very close and the main difference that will make one car last longer than another is probably the owner. I mean a Hyundai could last a lot longer than a Porsche if the Porsche never gets an oil change and is driven like... well... a Porsche!

Thus, I would have to say that what I'm going to use the vehicle for and the price are the first factors that I would consider when buying a vehicle.

suvshopper4

How do you figure?
I didn't consider buying one.

Also, how do you arrive at your conclusion that reliability has slipped down the list of buyers' priorities?
Seems like the opposite is more likely.
Buyers have always been seduced by the sizzle, but now, thru the internet, many shoppers have access to the experience of owners, for better or worse.

explorerx4

reliability is factor in buying a vehicle, but not the only one. i would never buy a vehicle i didn't like, even if the reliability was 100%. this is separate from maintaining a vehicle.

kdshapiro

I have never had a non-reliable vehicle. By that I mean one that I trust that won't strand me on the road for mechanical or electronic defects. I've had a lot of nuisance vehicles. Vehicles that were high on JD and CRs list made it to the shop like clockwork on a frequent basis. So on the basis of that statement, I look for vehicles that won't leave me stranded, which are most of the them. I then pick the one I that suits my preferences.

I can deal with the small stuff.

ateixeira

The reliability spread is tighter, so in many cases when you compare two cars it's often a virtual tie. So I figure if car A has 0.02 fewer problems than car B, other factors will be used to break that tie.

Like price, performance, features, etc.

We all have preconceived notions of certain brands and specific cars or trucks that are realible or unreliable, so a history of good reliability might still be a tie breaker. I bet it often is.

-juice

suvshopper4

Such timing. JD Power just released its new Dependability study; this time it is 2002 models.

Lexus on top, 139 problems per 100 vehicles over 3 years.
Kia on bottom, 397 problems.
Industry average, 237.
Interestingly, Ford Chevy and Chrysler are now shown above average.

If you are interested in the article and a graph with all brands shown, here is the link:

http://www.jdpower.com/cc/auto/ratings/vehicles/FindJdAwards.jsp

Go to the bottom of the page, and click on Vehicle Dependability Study.

ateixeira

Interesting, but I really wish they did it by model, not by brand. You might be buying the least reliable model of a brand that scores well, or, conversely, the most reliable model of a brand that scores poorly.

That kind of waters it down a bit.

-juice

suvshopper4

Watered down? It is better than the previous MY 2000 info, which was only by mfr, not brand.

You really think there'd be that much spread between models within the same brand?

Some people are never happy.

mtngal

I know one year (97? 98? 99? somewhere around there, IIRC) the Jeep Grand Cherokees were terrible - many with major problems, enough that there was a very active separate thread here on Edmunds for those with problems (and many of them ended up getting bought back under the lemon laws). That same year, the Jeep Wrangler had few problems and few unhappy people. So yes, I know there are instances where there's a large spread between models.

dstew1

"You really think there'd be that much spread between models within the same brand?"

The Consumer Reports reliability ratings for new vehicles released last week showed significant differences in what to expect from different models within a given brand - Nissan/Infiniti, for example.

http://www.pnnonline.org/article.php?sid=6302&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

dstew1

Quotes from the article about CR's findings:

Four models from Nissan and its luxury brand, Infiniti - Nissan's Quest, Armada and Titan, and the Infiniti QX56 - are on Consumer Reports' list of 2006 models with the worst predicted reliability. But the new Infiniti M35 and M45 are among the most reliable models. Other Nissan models, such as the Murano and Sentra, have above-average predicted reliability. Historically, Nissan and Infiniti have done well in CR reliability surveys; many vehicles from the automaker have had above-average reliability over the years.

"The message to consumers is clear: You can't gauge reliability based only on a nameplate. Some automakers do have a better track record but individual models - especially newer ones - can have problems," said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center in Connecticut. "New-car buyers should always check our reliability rating for the model they're buying."

ateixeira

OK, it's an improvement, let's acknowledge that. At least you don't have Saab and Hummer grouped together under "GM".

But with Mazda, for instance, a Miata is a lot more reliable than an MPV.

-juice

guyf

CR has a very low credibility in my book. According to their prediction, the Tucson will have poor reliability, while the Santa Fe and Elantra have average reliability.

Would someone explain to me why the 4 cylinder engine from the Elantra and the 6 cyl from the Santa Fe would mysteriously become unreliable in the Tucson? Same applies to the transmissions. Maybe it's the Tucson specific parts and components taht are going to be unrilable? Better check those taillamps lenses, Tucson badges and mag wheels...

Every car will bring bad luck from time to time. My sister in law had a 2000 Corolla that was awful, a co worker had to have the engine replaced in it's Forester, some friends Altima are awful while others seem fine, and so on.

At least with Hyundai, with the lenght of the warranty, you have enough time to dump the car before the warranty is over if you happen to have a bad one.

And to write that the BMW X3 is reliable??? In a parallel world maybe??? Where was I reading a road test where the rear suspension collapsed on an easy trail?

Even tough poorly rated by CR, my Volvo XC90 has been very reliable up to now.

Maybe they got confused after the toaster's long term test... :P

kdshapiro

"Where was I reading a road test where the rear suspension collapsed on an easy trail?"

WRT to CR I sometimes I wonder why as well. But let's back up with the BMW thing. Doing what they did to the X3, which is a street vehicle, is the same as putting an LS430 on an "easy" trail, breaking the suspension components and then calling it unreliable. Both cars are street vehicles and do not do trails.

ateixeira

Perhaps, but then why not just get a 325xi wagon instead? It does everything better on pavement. And the interior is nicer to boot.

-juice

scape2

is not a good one to rely on for data. They only pull from their subscribers not from the general public as a whole. They have been picked apart time and time again right here at Edmunds...They have been shown to be very bias..

p0926

I think CR's staff is biased towards safety, reliability and value vs performance, sexiness and snob appeal (basically the opposite of most car mags). It's also true that they generate their reliability data from the annual subscriber surveys. However, that hardly means that the data is invalid.

-Frank

losthat1

Drove the Forester LL Bean and liked everything but the hard seat. Today I drove the new Suzuki GV. Has a truck like drive in MHO. The gas milage is 22 MPG avg. I would have considered it if it had higher MPG and gave a softer ride.
Any suggestions on a small SUV with AWD, pep and good MPG?
Thanks!

ateixeira

Was the Forester an '05 or '06?

I ask because the '06 got softer fabrics and a longer travel suspension, so it should be more cushy.

The 05 was more fuel efficient, but made 8 fewer horses.

I'm not sure if any of these ride much softer, SUVs tend to be a bit stiff.

-juice

losthat1

It was an 06 LL Bean with leather....had the same problem in my former Volvos. Have an Impreza OutbaCK Sport with cloth that is great....my spouse has an Outback that he loves...would love to add a Forester to the driveway.
Love everything about it except the seats. Planning to drive a Saturn Vue tomorrow but already have lower expectations for it than the Forester.

Is the o5 really more fuel efficient....hard to find except in the XT. version.

guyf

You didn't like the seats in your Volvo? I had a couple of 10 hours days in mine last summer and stepped out of my XC90 fresh like a rose at the end of the day.

losthat1

I've had five Volvos! The last one was an XC70 and the seats were too firm. Eventually they did soften up but it took a few years! I'm beginning to think that leather seats just don't work for me.

ateixeira

Volvo (and Subaru) believe that firm is good. While they seem hard at first, the seats are supportive on long drives.

The Vue is the opposite, very soft and even mushy. I don't like them at all, so who knows? You may end up loving it. They're spongy and tend to "give" a lot, especially side to side. I feel like I could slip out of the chair.

-juice

turksteritis

I get 30 mpg (CDN) at 110 kmh(70mph) with my 05 AWD V-6 Saturn Vue. I had an 04 also with similar mileage. I have owned Tributes, Pathfinders; Explorers;Rav 4...nothing can duplicate the performance & mpg I get with that Honda V-6 in the lite saturn chassis!

guyf

Wow, that's great mileage!

losthat1

This week I tried out three of these vehicles and have a fourth. A few humble opinions of them follows. I have owned/leased Volvos, Audis, VWs and Hyundais and others.

Suzuki GV--lost interest when I was told to expect a great 22MPG from a slick looking saleman. There is only one dealer in my area and I think he is the only salesman. Looks nice inside and out...a little bigger than I expected. Took a spin around the parking lot...more truck like than I expected.

Saturn Vue--very professional presentation of the entire SUV from a helpful salesman. I was impressed by the polymer panels, interior, and mileage figures. I did not like the cheap looking chrome. Drove like an American GM product...loose steering and handling. Otherwise nice.

Subaru Forester--I posted elsewhere about the firm leather seat, but found that by releasing the lumbar support it seemed to ease up a bit. I love the pep of the normally aspirated engine and the MPG. I will probably buy in the near future. Wish the warranty was better, but love the size, handling, and my local Subie dealer.

Hyundai Santa Fe--Our family of five drivers have had three of these. One was totaled in a terrible front-driver's side collision and no one could believe my son walked out uninjured. Drives well, handles well, and is very reliable. Local dealer treats us like a Volvo dealer would. Excellent service and the warrenty has been honored on all small problems. Radio has been the only negative. Four different ones have been installed and reception is still terrible. 100K approaching and still going like it was new! WOuld buy another if a Subie Forester didn't exist. In MHO this offers the best bang for the buck.

I haven't tried the Liberty or Escape. I am looking for something that offers safety, reliability, good MPG, and I don't think the Liberty fits that criteria. (Although I do love the look.) Ditto for the Escape.

I'd be interested in others opinions!

guyf

You sound like you're doing your homeworks! What kind of mileage do you expect from the Subie?

BTW, I had the same reliability (and radio) experience with my 2001 Santa Fe. Glad to hear your son was well protected by the Santa Fe!

ateixeira

Is that Imperial gallons, or US gallons?

30 mpg seems a bit unlikely from a 3.5l V6. Maybe it's geared ultra-tall.

-juice

guyf

He means Imperial gallons; that would be 25 mpg US.

Guy

easy2t2

I also lost interest in GV for the MPG factor. Lousy, IMO. Everything else was perfect. I'm wating for the RAV4 b/c of this.