Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Most of your links are to their own puff pages at CR.
"A larger sample will always give more accurate information than a smaller sample (assuming, of course, that the data are valid and collected from an appropriate source)."
Duh. the point they don't address is that their survey ISN'T RANDOM!!! They also don't mention that a 100 convenience response survey has a variation % of -guessing- 75%.
They also mention their use of online members ($$$$) being asked to complete surveys, again a convenience survey of a specialty membership, hardly random. This increases their $$$ and also makes the online members feel good and become more likely to renew $$$$, but does nothing to increase accuracy of data for many vehicles.
I don't recall what cars you like or drive, but CR's online membership is more likely to be CR and MT type membership, people avid about their particular choice of car and driving and that's to be applied to the other 95% of driver's purchases in the online members' minds much like MT's testers think everyone should be interested in how a Bently specialty model compares to a Rolls Royce specialty model.
You are very much likely to be more practical in your own car choice and driving style; i.e., I don't recall that last time I cared about 0-60 time instead I cared about the torque and how it gets tot he rear wheels in typical driving.
We apparently see statistics differently because I don't believe nor do I trust CR to give complete random survey and honest results without their east coast bias any more than I expect the CEO of NCR to give honest prognosis of their future profits for shareholders in the next two years so I can decide when/if to ditch the stock.
From your comments, it appears you did not read the entire FAQ, since most if not all of your concerns are addressed in there. It takes a little while to read, but I found it pretty enlightening for someone who really wants to understand how CR does its auto reliability surveys. For example, they acknowledge the issue around random surveys of their own readership/web following (and the biases of that population), and explain the steps they take (including a second, targeted survey with followups) to ensure the main survey is valid. They also explain in detail why they report on car model variants with a sample size as low as ~100, although the sample sizes for most car model variants (model/trim/engine) are much higher.
JD Power data is insignificant because they only report on initial quality (meaning brand new) I have always received their survey questioner right after I purchase a car but nothing after that. Is there a company that tracks vehicle reliability as the car gets older, show data significant to quality. I personally cannot rely on meaningless data about a car as it leaves the dealership lot I do not know who controls the actions of JD Power but they appear to be bias to some brands, just my view.
most people trade in cars in less then three years.
I doubt that this is true.
Don't forget that a dealership will see the chronic car traders more often. For example if 20% of buyers trade their car every 2 years and 80% every 8 years, in a given year the dealership will see 1/2 of the early traders and 1/8 of the keepers. Out of 10 buyers two will be trading every second year and 8 every 8 years...so one of each will be trading each year.
So the dealer may think that 1/2 of owners trade every two years. When, in fact only 1/5 do.
Actually 80% of new car buyers have disposed of their vehicle within 5 years. Hence the GM 5 year warranty limit. Chryslers new warranty is actually less expensive to Chrysler because it is not transferable.
JD Power data is insignificant because they only report on initial quality (meaning brand new)
Actually they do a 3 year reliability study. And if you look at data (I have seen the charts) how you do at 3 years indicates how the vehicle will perform even longer term.
Buick and Cadillac are right up there with Lexus(#1) on the JD Power 3 year ranking.
Actually 80% of new car buyers have disposed of their vehicle within 5 years.
Not sure how that relates to the claim the most people trade in cars in less than 3 years, but again there is a difference between saying what typical person does and what typical car buyer does. One person could trade cars every 2.5 years and would therefore be counted as a new car buyer twice in your 5 year period. Someone like me who waits 10 years would only count as 1/2 of a car buyer in the average 5 year period.
Lets say you buy a car every 2.5 years and I buy one every 10 years. This would mean the average person in our group of two owns a car for 6.25 years. However the average car buyer would have their new car for only 4 years. This is because you would have been a car buyer 4 times and owned each car 2.5 years, while I would have been a buyer only once and owned for 10...so 5 buyers and 20 years total ownership gives the average of 4.
difference between typical person and typical car buyer? I do not care about a typical person who does not buy a car. I care about the person who buys a car.
All I said was that 80% of new car buyers sell by 5 years. Therefore it is probable, but not assured, that most people trade in their cars at 3 years. But I surely do not have that data so I will stick with my first data point of 5 years.
Besides the discussion here is about JD Power Rankings and the issue is that many in the buying public can not buy into GM being as good as or better than some of the imports. Data or no data they cannot do that.
I get what you are saying 62vet. They are not polling Everybody, they are just polling those who have purchased new cars, and of those who bought new cars do it on the average of every 3 years. If they ask 100 BUYERS or if they ask 100 riding the Subway will change the results of the poll dramatically.
I would like to find the 3 year rankings the previous poster mentioned. Those would be interesting, I looked on JD's site but found nothing. When I did a google search for "3 Year JD Power Rankings" all I got was the results for the initial ownership surveys on the 3 series BMW.
That while it is perhaps probable that most more than 50% of cars are traded in at 3 years, it is unlikely that most people trade cars every 3 years. Therefore most people would care about more than 3 years of data.
And I don't really care if you care about this distinction. :P
first, everything is covered under warranty for 3 years, so it is financially irrelevant. Secondly, the next buyer will care about how it runs from years 5 to 10.... typically.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I read every auto issue, if only for a list of all cars out there. I sometimes scratch my head over the CR rankings, where two cars that seem to have similar dots down the scale can spit out different recommendations at the end.
That said, CR seems to bear out my experience with vehicles. My family and I have mostly owned Honda's and all of them have been near perfect except the Odyssey (which CR had rated lower than most) and the Honda that Isuzu used to make (which I can't remember the name of). A Civic I owned that had crappy AC had that reflected in the CR ratings.
I own a Nissan Altima, and the reality is that it probably has held up pretty well given the hard miles and lax treatment I've given it. But it had minor stuff go wrong that made it pale in comparison to Hondas I've owned.
I've noticed that the majority of people who get angry at CR are people who are devoted to one make or model of car. And when I talk to them in depth, their "minor" problems are often things I've never seen in the Honda's I've owned. If you're used to owning a GM where little things break off after a few years, your expectations are lower than a Honda or Toyota owner who experiences the same thing, because that's far less common with those cars. CR measures issues with cars, not how owners feel about the issues they've had with the cars.
If you want to see something interesting, look at "Owner Satisfaction" ratings on CR. The cool cars, even the cruddy ones, tend to get high satisfaction marks. I would guess that Mustang and Corvette owners are among those saying CR is worthless. :shades:
I can say, that as an independent shop owner (BMWs) that their reporting methods and reliability rankings are inherently flawed.
They'll show, as an example, big brake problems on a 99 and none on a 2000. Meanwhile the cars use the EXACT SAME parts and both years are notorious for eating ABS modules while the rest of the system is bulletproof.
Again, the same factory making the same parts might fail in one year and do well the next. There might have been an isolated bad batch run. Who knows, but one thing everyone logical knows, is that CR is accurate and true, and most importantly honest.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
As someone who owns a shop that works on BMWs, nothing but BMWs, who is a member of BMW Technician groups, goes to tech seminars, owns factory diagnostic equipment, is online with BMW North America, etc... I think that it's fair to say that there are proven common problems that affect multiple year cars.
Here's an example. CR said that the 1989 Jaguar XJ6 and Vanden Plas were used cars to avoid, and that's a fair assesment. However, the 1988s were NEVER on their list. Ask ANY Jaguar technician what was the absolute worst Jaguar made in the past 20 years and you'll find that they'll say the 1988 XJ6.
Yet CR never warned anyone about them.....
And they also don't single out and mention that certain cars require much more costly maintinence. The BMW 3 series is a great example.. it requires frequent valve adjustments with shims. Since it is a high-revving, high-performance engine it has to use solid lifters, and those require adjustment. This is a costly service.
but one thing everyone logical knows, is that CR is accurate and true, and most importantly honest.
That's logical and true?
Nothing is perfect and putting blind faith in any one single 3rd party vendor of information is illogical in my opinion.
Who do you trust? Consumer Reports or people who work on these cars for a living?
These days there's enough information out there on the web that anyone who is seriously shopping for a specific used car can research what will go wrong with that car on an in-depth basis.
I buy and sell cars on a personal level all the time.. before I delve in I find whatever messageboard pertains to that car and there's always a sticky post that's something akin to "What to look out for when buying a 2nd=Gen Whizmobile 3.5LX"
I read that, know what to look for and what to expect.
What lists are you referring to? CR only goes back 10 model years on their surveys, and it's a rolling 10 years. So for example, in their 2007 Auto Issue, they gave assessments on best/worst used cars only back to 1997. And they show the details only back to 2001 in their magazine. Is it possible the reason you didn't see the 1988 Jaguars in the report you looked at is because that year was beyond the scope of the report?
It's true that CR does not consider maintenance costs in their rankings. That is not a matter of honesty. They simply choose not to report on that factor. Just like they don't rank cars based on purchase price, ala "Car A is pretty close to Car B, but Car A costs $7000 less so we think Car A is the best buy." Is that dishonesty? I don't think so. Just like auto mags don't consider reliability or safety when they recommend cars--but CR does. Is it dishonest for, C/D for example, to say they prefer a VW Rabbit when VW has a horrible reliability history? I don't think so. Is it logical? Yes, based on how C/D evaluates cars. Just as it's logical that they rank cars highly if they have razor-sharp handling, even if they have a harsh ride. They value sharp handling. Is that logical, considering that many people never take their cars through a mountain pass?
I agree with you that no one should put "blind faith" in any 3rd party. But does CR provide information I find useful? Yes. Have they ever made a mistake? Yes. Have you, as a BMW service professional, ever made a mistake? When you did, did you publish a public correction of your mistake, like CR has done when they make a mistake?
Well, there's a couple things you should know and consider:
There may not have been a sufficient sample size for one given year of the Jaguar, but in another year there was. Most people would logically assume if there is a bad year before and after an "unspoken" year, then that year would be bad too. Usually, bad vehicles are bad for every year they are ever made, unless of course it was just 1st year jitters.
I've found the best vehicles (even with 1st year jitters) are still very good.
Also, CR won't report on a vehicle they don't have a sufficient sample size for.
Lastly, auto/mechanic shops are not known to be the most honest group of people. Go to get 2nd or 3rd opinions and you'll hardly ever get 2 or 3 mechanic's/technicians to agree, usually one will want you to do a bunch of repairs that are totally unnecessary according to the other.
Now if you can find that one extremely rare honest mechanic, they still have a conflicting interest in getting you to buy a used vehicle that will have a ton of problems so that they get more business and money out of you. I know if I was in the auto repair business, I'd find it irresistable to suggest used cars to people that I knew would end up making me more money.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I know if I was in the auto repair business, I'd find it irresistable to suggest used cars to people that I knew would end up making me more money.
That sentence right there shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I have run a small independent shop and they live or die by word of mouth. The higher up you move in the food chain to more specialized high end shops like Bill's then word of mouth matters even more.
Start recommending problem car or being less then honest about the condition of a car you inspect and you will be out of business fast. I have seen it happen.
I place some stock in CR's data when it is consistent but, as some have suggested, there are limits on its utility.
If they consider one year bad, I will infer that all similiar years of that model are dicey unless only one or, perhaps, two non-critical categories are flagged.
When it's good (or bad) across the board, I'll rely on their data.
Considering the reputation of some folks that work on cars......
My take is CR is simply one tool in selecting a car. Their survey does have some flaws, but it is still the best one out there. I have no time for JD Power. Their survey pool is too small for me to take seriously. Rating brands tells me nothing about the individual car I want to buy. I'm not interested in just the initial quality (90 days) or long term reliability (3-years). too short of a time period for the length I keep my cars. Instead, I rather visit internet sites and get the real information on cars.
Yes, and JD Power's supposedly long term reliability of 3 years should really be called short term reliability.
I don't understand why you'd call something within even the most basic warranty period "long-term" Seriously, JD Power needs to come back to reality and do a truely long term test, how about 7 or 8 years old?
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Well then, they should track 2nd owners and survey them. Also, some people want a car that lasts more than 5 years. Lastly, the way a car runs in years 5-10 matters a whole lot to the second owner (typical case), and affects resale value accordingly.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
The big thing that JD has going for them is the power of print. If they put in there magazine that the 1998 Zorch is the best Used Car for the money then the majority of the readers will then believe it.
If a Zorch Salesmen tells the customer the same thing they automatically think he is just saying it to sell a car.
It is just like when we work a deal here. The salesmen tells the customer that the payment is $500 a month and they say no way. They then come in my office and see it on the computer screen and on the contract and then all of the sudden it is believable because they saw it on the screen.
The "Cordone" method of selling cars says that you never verbally tell a customer anything and you never show them anything that is hand written. Always put your offers on a typed proposal, and never give the customer one choice, always give them three.
First, this was about 10 years ago with regards to the Jaguars.
Smaller sample size? Well the 1988 XJ6s were sold in a model year that lasted close to 18 months, AND they also outsold the 1989 models on a month-to-month basis.
Translation: There's about twice as many 88s as there are 89s.
You're missing the point of Car and Driver as well. People like myself buy car and driver. If I had a choice between, say, a Passat and a Camry, I'd sooner push the Passat than drive the Camry. I've driven Camrys before, I can't find anything about them to like whatsoever, they are vile and repulsive, in my opinion. But then again, my daily driver is usually a vintage BMW M5, so you know where my priorities are. DO I drive on sharp mountain passes? No, not on a daily basis.. but a car like my M5 is still a joy for me to drive even on normal roads, and that's the point.
For some people a car is a transportation appliance. For those people we have Toyotas. For some of us a car like a BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, S2000, etc is a LOT of fun to own and drive, and like anything else in life there is a tradeoff. My BMWs require more repairs and more service expense than a Honda or a Toyota or a Hyundai or whatever Asian blandmobile of the month CR has fallen for. And I am OK with that, I'll take the costs and inconvienience over a dull car.
Have I made mistakes? Of course I have and I have admitted them. In fact, I went ahead this spring and recalled every single BMW that we put a certain brand of camshaft sensors in (Febi Bilstein, total JUNK and this was about 40 cars) after we had a tremendous rash of failures. But then again, I'm always very busy, we don't advertise, and I'd say 70% of my customers in my local area (Middlesex/Union County NJ) are following me to the new shop in Newburgh, NY (85 miles north) and will do so until the main shop gets a Cert of Occupancy in Mahwah, NJ (45 miles north).
Also, about 1/3 of my customers live over 50 miles away. I have customers in Washington DC, Schenectady NY, Buffalo, Hartford, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Montreal, etc.. About half of the repair end of my business involves repairs, the other half is conversion work.
The next big jobs that I have waiting are...
1993 525i Wagon 5-speed conversion 1988 325i Cabriolet 5-speed conversion* 1988 325iX Engine swap and transfer case replacement* 1987 325is swapping in the engine from a 98 M3 1993 325is BMWCCA Spec E36 Race car* 1993 740i 6-speed manual conversion 1992 325is Euro-Spec 1995 M3 engine conversion 1997 M3 Supercharger Installation 1999 M3 Convertible 5-speed conversion
* = Cars belong to the same customer, a good friend who is also one of the biggest BMW performance parts manufacturers in the country.
So traditional logic doesn't fly very far at my shop, I build fun cars. And if Consumer reports wants to say one thing when the consensus among BMW Technicians, dealers and even BMW NA themselves differs from what Consumer Reports says, you can bet that I'm not going to go with CR's word.
And as far as suggesting problem cars.. don't paint me with that brush. I have told some of my customers that if they buy certain cars that they are not to come to me and expect me to bail them out of their foolishness.
I'll never suggest an early 750iL, a high-mileage car with an automatic transmission unless the customer knows up front that modern BMW Automatics can fail as soon as 60k on some cars and rarely break 150k and cost $2,500 for just the trans itself. I've also talked a few of my customers out of expensive mods and engine swaps that I would have made thousands on because it made no sense for them. I've also talked people out of buying certain cars because they would be over their heads with them, and I have strongly talked 17 year olds with 2 week old licenses in their fists from buying M3s... I recently told one of my customers who wanted to buy an M3 for his son that it would be cheaper and less trouble to just shoot his son in the head. 333hp + new driver = at LEAST a nasty accident, maybe worse.
All true and all match my experiences with my shop, although we weren't nearly as large or as high end, but it doesn't matter what you say or what your experiences are to some people who paint with a broad brush.
To them anyone in the car business at best doesn't know what they are talking about or at worst is outright lying.
Never mind that I read some of these magazine reviews about cars I know intimately that are completely false. They state the car has features it doesn't have or complain about missing features that it does have but they don't notice. They complain about driving dynamics I have never experienced when driving dozens of new cars and it makes me wonder if they even drove the car.
Did you know what CR's top-rated 4-cylinder family sedan is? The Passat. Do you know what CR's top-rated V6 family sedan is? The Passat (tied with the Accord). I guess you and CR have something in common.
I get C/D in my mailbox every month too. So you and I have something in common also. And I think I understand where they are coming from very well. But I also try to understand CR's perspective, which is different than C/D's. I think having different viewpoints for car reviews is helpful, to see all the angles. CR doesn't wax poetic (or try to) like C/D does on their reviews, so CR is not as entertaining, but I appreciate that approach also.
Just because someone finds some value in CR's reports doesn't mean we don't like cars other than Camrys. It's just that not all of us are lucky enough (rich enough?) to drive a M5.
Well, I drive an 88 M5, for the price of a BASIC new V6 Passat you can buy one in showroom condition with maybe 40k original miles. You can also pick up a 2000 M5 in the low 20s.
I threw the Passat out there as an example because someone said that CD loved VWs and CR has traditionally told everyone to buy a Camry.
I totally understand CR's viewpoints.. I just rarely agree with them, which is why I don't get CR and don't pay it a lot of mind. What did it for me was their review of the 1993 XJ6 "Well it's pretty but it gets bad gas mileage, has a cramped interior, probably won't be very reliable and you should buy a Camry or something".
Yeah, no kidding the Jag was cramped, expensive to run and probably not all that reliable, but anyone who bought a Jaguar knew that upfront or they were fools.
The original issue that I took with CR was when the original post that got my attention was made... their reliability ratings are often flawed and their followers often take their word as absolute gospel. I don't and won't.
First of all, let me say that I have been a subscriber to CR for many years, so that makes me as much of an expert on them as any layman can be. Generally, I think they do a decent job with presenting their rating and opinions. I do like the fact that they don't accept any advertising and they buy all of their test cars themselves. Therefore, they don't have the conflict of interests that other reviewers have. That being said, I take some issues on the way they present some of their statistics.
First of all, I have always had a problem with the way that they present their reliability ratings. They way they do it is that they survey their readership as to the number of problems they have had in various different areas (transmission, electrical, etc). Then they assign one of 5 ratings based upon the percentage of problems. However, the difference between the lowest rating and the highest rating is quite small. To get the highest rating, you need to have a problem rate of 1%. If you have more than 3%, then you get one of the lowest ratings.
Now on the face of it, you could say that the lowest rating means that the car is three times more likely to experience an issue. However, let's flip it around for a second. If you have the highest rating, that means that 99% of cars won't experience a problem. Meanwhile, if you have the lowest rating, then 97% of the cars won't have a problem. If you look at it from that standpoint, then even cars with the supposedly low rating really aren't THAT bad if they won't experience a problem 97% of the time.
Next, to get the overall rating, they don't just average the rating for the 16 components. They compare the reliability ratings to other cars of the same year. If the car is below average compared to other like-aged cars, it gets a low rating. If it is better than average, it gets a high rating.
Take the '06 Ford Expedition as an example. This past year, the model year '06 Expedition was rated in the top or next to top rating in 15 of the 16 areas (and it got the middle rating in the 16th area). In other words, you can expect it to be 98-99% reliable overall. However, the '06 Expedition got the lowest rating for the '06 model year I assume because there were other vehicles that were better. However, when you are talking about the difference between 98% reliable and 99% reliable, it is pretty much just splitting hairs. Giving it the lowest rating gives one the impression that the vehicle is junk when the truth is, based upon their own statistics, it is still pretty darn good!
The other area where I find their statistics lacking is when the give their "road test" score. Independent of the reliability, they rate vehicles on a scale of 0-100 based upon their road test. While it appears as if their road test is pretty comprehensive, I think the way they calculate their numerical score leaves something to be desired.
As an example, I give you the results of the testing of the Hyundai Elantra and the Nissan Sentra that was reported in the Oct '07 issue. The Hyundai got a score if 70 (which is the middle of the Very Good range) and the Nissan received a 60 (which is still a high Good rating). Looking more closely at the numbers they present, it seems like, at the very least, the cars should be equal. In fact, you could argue that the Nissan is better based upon their statistics.
Head-to-head, the lower rated Nissan equalled or nearly equalled the Hyundai in transmission, handling, avoidance maneuver, ride, noise, comfort, controls, fit & finish, and gas mileage. In addition, the Nissan BEAR the Hyundai in acceleration, rear seat comfort, and crash testing. The Hyundai did beat the Nissan in braking, headlights, and trunk space. Also, the Hyundai was $1000 cheaper. I think, on balance, both vehicles were roughly equal all things considered. So why did the Nissan get a 10+% lower rating?
There are other cases like this that I can cite; this is just one example of the confusion.
Just to further prove this point, I have noticed that vehicles with a score as low as 40 have gotten "recommended" by CR. That makes you wonder how much true difference there is between a 40 and an 80. Numerically, it suggests that the 80 is twice as good as the 40. However, if the 40 is still recommended, maybe the difference between the vehicles really isn't that great after all.
I do have to say that I do like the writeups that CR does on the cars it tests. Generally, they do cover the items of interest to most car buyers, and their insights certainly are useful. However, I do question how they translate those impressions into their numerical ratings.
October 16, 2007 1:27 PM ET Consumer Reports says Toyota slips in reliability
DETROIT (Reuters) - Consumer Reports said on Tuesday that it was reversing a practice of recommending all new Toyota cars and trucks after two models earned below-average rankings in a closely watched reliability study.
The step marked the latest setback for Toyota Motor Corp. after a period of fast growth in the United States that has made it the No. 2 player in the world's largest auto market.
In recent years, Japanese auto brands, led by Toyota, have dominated Consumer Reports' influential study of the most reliable new vehicles.
Besides its influence with car shoppers, the annual study is used by major automakers as a proxy for their performance in improving and maintaining vehicle quality.
Although Toyota ranked third in reliability behind only Honda Motor Co and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd's Subaru, Consumer Reports also found two Toyota models had "below average" predicted reliability.
Those two models were the V-6 version of Toyota's flagship Camry sedan and the four-wheel-drive, V-8 version of its new Tundra pickup truck.
"Consumer Reports will no longer recommend any new or redesigned Toyota-built models without reliability data on a specific design," the publication said in a statement. "Previously, new and redesigned models were recommended because of the automaker's excellent track record."
The same study found gains for Ford Motor Co. , which landed three models on the magazine's "most reliable" list.
Consumer Reports ranked the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and the automaker's market-leading F-150 pickup truck with a V-6 engine as among the most-reliable new vehicles on the market.
"Ford continues to improve," David Champion, director of auto testing for Consumer Reports, said in a statement. "We believe Toyota is aware of its issues and trying to fix problems quickly."
Champion was due to brief reporters in Detroit on the results of the annual survey on Tuesday.
Representatives for Toyota and Ford were not immediately available for comment.
In the first nine months of this year, Toyota had a 16.2 percent share of the U.S. market for new cars and light trucks, behind only General Motors Corp at 23.8 percent.
But the Japanese automaker's fast growth since 2000, when it had less than 10 percent of the U.S. market, has left it facing new pressure and scrutiny.
Two high-ranking executives have defected from Toyota's U.S. subsidiary in recent months to join U.S. automakers. The most recent of those was Jim Farley, who left Toyota's luxury Lexus division, to take over as top marketing executive at Ford.
In September, Toyota's North American chief, Jim Press, left the automaker after a 37-year career to become vice chairman at newly private Chrysler LLC.
Toyota, which has won credit with consumers for its reputation for quality and fuel-efficiency, has also come under fire from environmental groups.
Although Toyota dominates the market for fuel-efficient hybrids with its Prius, it has joined Detroit-based automakers in lobbying against stringent increases in fleetwide fuel economy.
Consumer Reports is published by the nonprofit Consumers Union. The magazine accepts no paid advertising.
The publication's "predicted reliability" study for new model vehicles is based on an average of consumer ratings of the same model in the recent years.
The magazine surveys readers and visitors to its Web site about their experience with the cars and trucks they own.
Wow, the Camry V6 is not just below average, it’s over 40% below average. And I almost bought one last week. Altima V6 is also below average. Fusion and Milan are 40% above average two years in a row.
Tundra V8 AWD is almost 80% below average. It is the second lowest reliability rating in the Full Size Pickups category. Nissan Titan AWD is rated higher than the Tundra.
Actually, CR never recommended any vehicle based only on its reputation. In order to be "recommended" by CR, 3 things have to be true: 1) It has to score acceptably in CR's tests; 2) it cannot have a poor crash test score (in IIHS or NHTSA ratings); and 3) it must have at least Average predicted reliability. That last point is where CR made its big mistake, by assuming that because a model had good reliability for many years in the past, a redesign would continue to be reliable. They just learned their lesson on that one, big time. I am glad to see CR change their policy, because it's the one thing they did in rating cars that seemed really nonsensical to me.
One wonders why they were so desperate to find a way to put "recommended" label on newly redesigned vehicles from Toyota (and presumably Honda). It's not like the readers are not already going to know that cars from those manufacturers were very likely to prove to be "reliable".
The article was wrong--or at best over-simplified CR's approach to recommending cars. They do not and never have "recommended" a car only because of its reliability.
Fine...it requires more than above average reliability to be "recommended". That does not change the fact that they rated cars as reliable with no evidence other than that past versions with the same name on them had proved to be reliable. So cars from toyota that otherwise would not have gotten the "recommended" label did get it.
Not necessarily. What we don't know is if these cases, e.g. new Camry V6, are the first time that CR found in recent history that a new Toyota model got less than Average reliability scores.
But you are ignoring the so called "Lexus effect."
By saying a vehicle is reliable without actually knowing if it is reliable CR is tainting their statistical data.
They buy a car that CR recommends and then they have some problems with it. The owner might gloss over those problems or assume they are doing something wrong and it is not the fault of the car. If this happens enough times it can skew the data and with the difference between a reliable car in CR's tests and an unreliable car being only a few percent it doesn't take much of an error to skew the data.
This is called the Lexus effect because people that own a Lexus and have a problem with it will many times assume they are doing something wrong because Lexus vehicles never break down. It can be applied to any vehicle with a high reputation for reliability.
The opposite is the "Land Rover Effect" when someone has a vehicle that is generally considered to have poor reliability. If something happens with the car even if it is their fault or if the car is operating as designed they will assume the car is broken.
We just had this happen a few weeks ago. A gentleman comes in complaining of poor gas mileage, loss of power and pinging. The LR3 was also showing a check engine light for miss fires/detonation in multiple cylinders.
I know this guy and he is a hard driver. The car is always loaded down with a ton of stuff and he tows a big trailer from time to time.
The tech can't seem to find anything wrong with the car so he asks the owner what kind of gas he uses.
Owner replies, "oh whatever is the cheapest 87 octane around."
Tech says, "Well you know these cars require premium."
Owner says, "Well yeah but I don't want to pay the extra money for it." :confuse: :sick:
Tech tells him he is going to clear all the codes wipe the PCMs memory and put a tank of 93 octane in it.
"Run a few tanks of premium through it and I bet that will solve all your problems," the tech tells the owner.
Flash forward to today and miraculously the car drives fine now and his gas mileage is up significantly. What do you want to bet though if someone asks him if his car has had problems or if he gets one of those surveys in the mail he will complain about the problems HE caused by running substandard fuel in the car.
But you are ignoring the so called "Lexus effect."
No, I said that I thought CR's past practice--now corrected--of saying new Toyotas will be reliable before collecting any reliability data on them was ridiculous, or words to that effect. I am glad they came to their senses on that. But they need to stop that practice on all makes--the article wasn't clear on whether they'd continue doing it for Hondas, for example.
Not necessarily. What we don't know is if these cases, e.g. new Camry V6, are the first time that CR found in recent history that a new Toyota model got less than Average reliability scores.
Emphasis is mine of course and because of the Lexus effect we will never know if other Toyota models should have gotten lower reliability scores because the survey data has been tainted.
The article was wrong--or at best over-simplified CR's approach to recommending cars. They do not and never have "recommended" a car only because of its reliability.
That may be true but actually they never recommend a vehicle unless they have proven reliability. For first year cars that is impossible so first year vehicles get a pass IF the previous model has proven itself and the changes are not too much. i.e. the new LaCrosse was given a recommended in it's first year because of the Regal/Century and Oshawa assembly plant history.
Comments
"A larger sample will always give more accurate information than a smaller sample (assuming, of course, that the data are valid and collected from an appropriate source)."
Duh. the point they don't address is that their survey ISN'T RANDOM!!! They also don't mention that a 100 convenience response survey has a variation % of -guessing- 75%.
They also mention their use of online members ($$$$) being asked to complete surveys, again a convenience survey of a specialty membership, hardly random. This increases their $$$ and also makes the online members feel good and become more likely to renew $$$$, but does nothing to increase accuracy of data for many vehicles.
I don't recall what cars you like or drive, but CR's online membership is more likely to be CR and MT type membership, people avid about their particular choice of car and driving and that's to be applied to the other 95% of driver's purchases in the online members' minds much like MT's testers think everyone should be interested in how a Bently specialty model compares to a Rolls Royce specialty model.
You are very much likely to be more practical in your own car choice and driving style; i.e., I don't recall that last time I cared about 0-60 time instead I cared about the torque and how it gets tot he rear wheels in typical driving.
We apparently see statistics differently because I don't believe nor do I trust CR to give complete random survey and honest results without their east coast bias any more than I expect the CEO of NCR to give honest prognosis of their future profits for shareholders in the next two years so I can decide when/if to ditch the stock.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I doubt that this is true.
Don't forget that a dealership will see the chronic car traders more often. For example if 20% of buyers trade their car every 2 years and 80% every 8 years, in a given year the dealership will see 1/2 of the early traders and 1/8 of the keepers. Out of 10 buyers two will be trading every second year and 8 every 8 years...so one of each will be trading each year.
So the dealer may think that 1/2 of owners trade every two years. When, in fact only 1/5 do.
Actually 80% of new car buyers have disposed of their vehicle within 5 years. Hence the GM 5 year warranty limit. Chryslers new warranty is actually less expensive to Chrysler because it is not transferable.
Actually they do a 3 year reliability study. And if you look at data (I have seen the charts) how you do at 3 years indicates how the vehicle will perform even longer term.
Buick and Cadillac are right up there with Lexus(#1) on the JD Power 3 year ranking.
Not sure how that relates to the claim the most people trade in cars in less than 3 years, but again there is a difference between saying what typical person does and what typical car buyer does. One person could trade cars every 2.5 years and would therefore be counted as a new car buyer twice in your 5 year period. Someone like me who waits 10 years would only count as 1/2 of a car buyer in the average 5 year period.
Lets say you buy a car every 2.5 years and I buy one every 10 years. This would mean the average person in our group of two owns a car for 6.25 years. However the average car buyer would have their new car for only 4 years. This is because you would have been a car buyer 4 times and owned each car 2.5 years, while I would have been a buyer only once and owned for 10...so 5 buyers and 20 years total ownership gives the average of 4.
difference between typical person and typical car buyer? I do not care about a typical person who does not buy a car. I care about the person who buys a car.
All I said was that 80% of new car buyers sell by 5 years. Therefore it is probable, but not assured, that most people trade in their cars at 3 years. But I surely do not have that data so I will stick with my first data point of 5 years.
Besides the discussion here is about JD Power Rankings and the issue is that many in the buying public can not buy into GM being as good as or better than some of the imports. Data or no data they cannot do that.
I would like to find the 3 year rankings the previous poster mentioned. Those would be interesting, I looked on JD's site but found nothing. When I did a google search for "3 Year JD Power Rankings" all I got was the results for the initial ownership surveys on the 3 series BMW.
That while it is perhaps probable that
mostmore than 50% of cars are traded in at 3 years, it is unlikely that most people trade cars every 3 years. Therefore most people would care about more than 3 years of data.And I don't really care if you care about this distinction. :P
That is the 2004 year survey. Remember these are for cars that are Three years old so this survey includes 2001 MY cars.
This is the 2005 Survey
2006 Survey
The 2007 Survey was released today but they don't have a summary graph up yet.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/pressrelease.aspx?id=2007130
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/ratings/dependability-ratings/segment
That said, CR seems to bear out my experience with vehicles. My family and I have mostly owned Honda's and all of them have been near perfect except the Odyssey (which CR had rated lower than most) and the Honda that Isuzu used to make (which I can't remember the name of). A Civic I owned that had crappy AC had that reflected in the CR ratings.
I own a Nissan Altima, and the reality is that it probably has held up pretty well given the hard miles and lax treatment I've given it. But it had minor stuff go wrong that made it pale in comparison to Hondas I've owned.
I've noticed that the majority of people who get angry at CR are people who are devoted to one make or model of car. And when I talk to them in depth, their "minor" problems are often things I've never seen in the Honda's I've owned. If you're used to owning a GM where little things break off after a few years, your expectations are lower than a Honda or Toyota owner who experiences the same thing, because that's far less common with those cars. CR measures issues with cars, not how owners feel about the issues they've had with the cars.
If you want to see something interesting, look at "Owner Satisfaction" ratings on CR. The cool cars, even the cruddy ones, tend to get high satisfaction marks. I would guess that Mustang and Corvette owners are among those saying CR is worthless. :shades:
They'll show, as an example, big brake problems on a 99 and none on a 2000. Meanwhile the cars use the EXACT SAME parts and both years are notorious for eating ABS modules while the rest of the system is bulletproof.
Charmin, Northern, CR.. same thing.
As someone who owns a shop that works on BMWs, nothing but BMWs, who is a member of BMW Technician groups, goes to tech seminars, owns factory diagnostic equipment, is online with BMW North America, etc... I think that it's fair to say that there are proven common problems that affect multiple year cars.
Here's an example. CR said that the 1989 Jaguar XJ6 and Vanden Plas were used cars to avoid, and that's a fair assesment. However, the 1988s were NEVER on their list. Ask ANY Jaguar technician what was the absolute worst Jaguar made in the past 20 years and you'll find that they'll say the 1988 XJ6.
Yet CR never warned anyone about them.....
And they also don't single out and mention that certain cars require much more costly maintinence. The BMW 3 series is a great example.. it requires frequent valve adjustments with shims. Since it is a high-revving, high-performance engine it has to use solid lifters, and those require adjustment. This is a costly service.
but one thing everyone logical knows, is that CR is accurate and true, and most importantly honest.
That's logical and true?
Nothing is perfect and putting blind faith in any one single 3rd party vendor of information is illogical in my opinion.
Who do you trust? Consumer Reports or people who work on these cars for a living?
These days there's enough information out there on the web that anyone who is seriously shopping for a specific used car can research what will go wrong with that car on an in-depth basis.
You said basically all I was going to say.
Nothing more to add except to say that many people will believe CR over people that actually work on vehicles.
I buy and sell cars on a personal level all the time.. before I delve in I find whatever messageboard pertains to that car and there's always a sticky post that's something akin to "What to look out for when buying a 2nd=Gen Whizmobile 3.5LX"
I read that, know what to look for and what to expect.
Silly me!
It's true that CR does not consider maintenance costs in their rankings. That is not a matter of honesty. They simply choose not to report on that factor. Just like they don't rank cars based on purchase price, ala "Car A is pretty close to Car B, but Car A costs $7000 less so we think Car A is the best buy." Is that dishonesty? I don't think so. Just like auto mags don't consider reliability or safety when they recommend cars--but CR does. Is it dishonest for, C/D for example, to say they prefer a VW Rabbit when VW has a horrible reliability history? I don't think so. Is it logical? Yes, based on how C/D evaluates cars. Just as it's logical that they rank cars highly if they have razor-sharp handling, even if they have a harsh ride. They value sharp handling. Is that logical, considering that many people never take their cars through a mountain pass?
I agree with you that no one should put "blind faith" in any 3rd party. But does CR provide information I find useful? Yes. Have they ever made a mistake? Yes. Have you, as a BMW service professional, ever made a mistake? When you did, did you publish a public correction of your mistake, like CR has done when they make a mistake?
There may not have been a sufficient sample size for one given year of the Jaguar, but in another year there was. Most people would logically assume if there is a bad year before and after an "unspoken" year, then that year would be bad too. Usually, bad vehicles are bad for every year they are ever made, unless of course it was just 1st year jitters.
I've found the best vehicles (even with 1st year jitters) are still very good.
Also, CR won't report on a vehicle they don't have a sufficient sample size for.
Lastly, auto/mechanic shops are not known to be the most honest group of people. Go to get 2nd or 3rd opinions and you'll hardly ever get 2 or 3 mechanic's/technicians to agree, usually one will want you to do a bunch of repairs that are totally unnecessary according to the other.
Now if you can find that one extremely rare honest mechanic, they still have a conflicting interest in getting you to buy a used vehicle that will have a ton of problems so that they get more business and money out of you. I know if I was in the auto repair business, I'd find it irresistable to suggest used cars to people that I knew would end up making me more money.
That sentence right there shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I have run a small independent shop and they live or die by word of mouth. The higher up you move in the food chain to more specialized high end shops like Bill's then word of mouth matters even more.
Start recommending problem car or being less then honest about the condition of a car you inspect and you will be out of business fast. I have seen it happen.
If they consider one year bad, I will infer that all similiar years of that model are dicey unless only one or, perhaps, two non-critical categories are flagged.
When it's good (or bad) across the board, I'll rely on their data.
My take is CR is simply one tool in selecting a car. Their survey does have some flaws, but it is still the best one out there. I have no time for JD Power. Their survey pool is too small for me to take seriously. Rating brands tells me nothing about the individual car I want to buy. I'm not interested in just the initial quality (90 days) or long term reliability (3-years). too short of a time period for the length I keep my cars. Instead, I rather visit internet sites and get the real information on cars.
I don't understand why you'd call something within even the most basic warranty period "long-term" Seriously, JD Power needs to come back to reality and do a truely long term test, how about 7 or 8 years old?
The vast majority NEW car buyers are out of a car in five years or less.
If a Zorch Salesmen tells the customer the same thing they automatically think he is just saying it to sell a car.
It is just like when we work a deal here. The salesmen tells the customer that the payment is $500 a month and they say no way. They then come in my office and see it on the computer screen and on the contract and then all of the sudden it is believable because they saw it on the screen.
The "Cordone" method of selling cars says that you never verbally tell a customer anything and you never show them anything that is hand written. Always put your offers on a typed proposal, and never give the customer one choice, always give them three.
Smaller sample size? Well the 1988 XJ6s were sold in a model year that lasted close to 18 months, AND they also outsold the 1989 models on a month-to-month basis.
Translation: There's about twice as many 88s as there are 89s.
You're missing the point of Car and Driver as well. People like myself buy car and driver. If I had a choice between, say, a Passat and a Camry, I'd sooner push the Passat than drive the Camry. I've driven Camrys before, I can't find anything about them to like whatsoever, they are vile and repulsive, in my opinion. But then again, my daily driver is usually a vintage BMW M5, so you know where my priorities are. DO I drive on sharp mountain passes? No, not on a daily basis.. but a car like my M5 is still a joy for me to drive even on normal roads, and that's the point.
For some people a car is a transportation appliance. For those people we have Toyotas. For some of us a car like a BMW, Volkswagen, Audi, Porsche, S2000, etc is a LOT of fun to own and drive, and like anything else in life there is a tradeoff. My BMWs require more repairs and more service expense than a Honda or a Toyota or a Hyundai or whatever Asian blandmobile of the month CR has fallen for. And I am OK with that, I'll take the costs and inconvienience over a dull car.
Have I made mistakes? Of course I have and I have admitted them. In fact, I went ahead this spring and recalled every single BMW that we put a certain brand of camshaft sensors in (Febi Bilstein, total JUNK and this was about 40 cars) after we had a tremendous rash of failures. But then again, I'm always very busy, we don't advertise, and I'd say 70% of my customers in my local area (Middlesex/Union County NJ) are following me to the new shop in Newburgh, NY (85 miles north) and will do so until the main shop gets a Cert of Occupancy in Mahwah, NJ (45 miles north).
Also, about 1/3 of my customers live over 50 miles away. I have customers in Washington DC, Schenectady NY, Buffalo, Hartford, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Montreal, etc.. About half of the repair end of my business involves repairs, the other half is conversion work.
The next big jobs that I have waiting are...
1993 525i Wagon 5-speed conversion
1988 325i Cabriolet 5-speed conversion*
1988 325iX Engine swap and transfer case replacement*
1987 325is swapping in the engine from a 98 M3
1993 325is BMWCCA Spec E36 Race car*
1993 740i 6-speed manual conversion
1992 325is Euro-Spec 1995 M3 engine conversion
1997 M3 Supercharger Installation
1999 M3 Convertible 5-speed conversion
* = Cars belong to the same customer, a good friend who is also one of the biggest BMW performance parts manufacturers in the country.
So traditional logic doesn't fly very far at my shop, I build fun cars. And if Consumer reports wants to say one thing when the consensus among BMW Technicians, dealers and even BMW NA themselves differs from what Consumer Reports says, you can bet that I'm not going to go with CR's word.
And as far as suggesting problem cars.. don't paint me with that brush. I have told some of my customers that if they buy certain cars that they are not to come to me and expect me to bail them out of their foolishness.
I'll never suggest an early 750iL, a high-mileage car with an automatic transmission unless the customer knows up front that modern BMW Automatics can fail as soon as 60k on some cars and rarely break 150k and cost $2,500 for just the trans itself. I've also talked a few of my customers out of expensive mods and engine swaps that I would have made thousands on because it made no sense for them. I've also talked people out of buying certain cars because they would be over their heads with them, and I have strongly talked 17 year olds with 2 week old licenses in their fists from buying M3s... I recently told one of my customers who wanted to buy an M3 for his son that it would be cheaper and less trouble to just shoot his son in the head. 333hp + new driver = at LEAST a nasty accident, maybe worse.
To them anyone in the car business at best doesn't know what they are talking about or at worst is outright lying.
Never mind that I read some of these magazine reviews about cars I know intimately that are completely false. They state the car has features it doesn't have or complain about missing features that it does have but they don't notice. They complain about driving dynamics I have never experienced when driving dozens of new cars and it makes me wonder if they even drove the car.
I get C/D in my mailbox every month too. So you and I have something in common also. And I think I understand where they are coming from very well. But I also try to understand CR's perspective, which is different than C/D's. I think having different viewpoints for car reviews is helpful, to see all the angles. CR doesn't wax poetic (or try to) like C/D does on their reviews, so CR is not as entertaining, but I appreciate that approach also.
Just because someone finds some value in CR's reports doesn't mean we don't like cars other than Camrys. It's just that not all of us are lucky enough (rich enough?) to drive a M5.
I threw the Passat out there as an example because someone said that CD loved VWs and CR has traditionally told everyone to buy a Camry.
I totally understand CR's viewpoints.. I just rarely agree with them, which is why I don't get CR and don't pay it a lot of mind. What did it for me was their review of the 1993 XJ6 "Well it's pretty but it gets bad gas mileage, has a cramped interior, probably won't be very reliable and you should buy a Camry or something".
Yeah, no kidding the Jag was cramped, expensive to run and probably not all that reliable, but anyone who bought a Jaguar knew that upfront or they were fools.
The original issue that I took with CR was when the original post that got my attention was made... their reliability ratings are often flawed and their followers often take their word as absolute gospel. I don't and won't.
First of all, I have always had a problem with the way that they present their reliability ratings. They way they do it is that they survey their readership as to the number of problems they have had in various different areas (transmission, electrical, etc). Then they assign one of 5 ratings based upon the percentage of problems. However, the difference between the lowest rating and the highest rating is quite small. To get the highest rating, you need to have a problem rate of 1%. If you have more than 3%, then you get one of the lowest ratings.
Now on the face of it, you could say that the lowest rating means that the car is three times more likely to experience an issue. However, let's flip it around for a second. If you have the highest rating, that means that 99% of cars won't experience a problem. Meanwhile, if you have the lowest rating, then 97% of the cars won't have a problem. If you look at it from that standpoint, then even cars with the supposedly low rating really aren't THAT bad if they won't experience a problem 97% of the time.
Next, to get the overall rating, they don't just average the rating for the 16 components. They compare the reliability ratings to other cars of the same year. If the car is below average compared to other like-aged cars, it gets a low rating. If it is better than average, it gets a high rating.
Take the '06 Ford Expedition as an example. This past year, the model year '06 Expedition was rated in the top or next to top rating in 15 of the 16 areas (and it got the middle rating in the 16th area). In other words, you can expect it to be 98-99% reliable overall. However, the '06 Expedition got the lowest rating for the '06 model year I assume because there were other vehicles that were better. However, when you are talking about the difference between 98% reliable and 99% reliable, it is pretty much just splitting hairs. Giving it the lowest rating gives one the impression that the vehicle is junk when the truth is, based upon their own statistics, it is still pretty darn good!
The other area where I find their statistics lacking is when the give their "road test" score. Independent of the reliability, they rate vehicles on a scale of 0-100 based upon their road test. While it appears as if their road test is pretty comprehensive, I think the way they calculate their numerical score leaves something to be desired.
As an example, I give you the results of the testing of the Hyundai Elantra and the Nissan Sentra that was reported in the Oct '07 issue. The Hyundai got a score if 70 (which is the middle of the Very Good range) and the Nissan received a 60 (which is still a high Good rating). Looking more closely at the numbers they present, it seems like, at the very least, the cars should be equal. In fact, you could argue that the Nissan is better based upon their statistics.
Head-to-head, the lower rated Nissan equalled or nearly equalled the Hyundai in transmission, handling, avoidance maneuver, ride, noise, comfort, controls, fit & finish, and gas mileage. In addition, the Nissan BEAR the Hyundai in acceleration, rear seat comfort, and crash testing. The Hyundai did beat the Nissan in braking, headlights, and trunk space. Also, the Hyundai was $1000 cheaper. I think, on balance, both vehicles were roughly equal all things considered. So why did the Nissan get a 10+% lower rating?
There are other cases like this that I can cite; this is just one example of the confusion.
Just to further prove this point, I have noticed that vehicles with a score as low as 40 have gotten "recommended" by CR. That makes you wonder how much true difference there is between a 40 and an 80. Numerically, it suggests that the 80 is twice as good as the 40. However, if the 40 is still recommended, maybe the difference between the vehicles really isn't that great after all.
I do have to say that I do like the writeups that CR does on the cars it tests. Generally, they do cover the items of interest to most car buyers, and their insights certainly are useful. However, I do question how they translate those impressions into their numerical ratings.
link title
October 16, 2007 1:27 PM ET Consumer Reports says Toyota slips in reliability
DETROIT (Reuters) - Consumer Reports said on Tuesday that it was reversing a practice of recommending all new Toyota cars and trucks after two models earned below-average rankings in a closely watched reliability study.
The step marked the latest setback for Toyota Motor Corp. after a period of fast growth in the United States that has made it the No. 2 player in the world's largest auto market.
In recent years, Japanese auto brands, led by Toyota, have dominated Consumer Reports' influential study of the most reliable new vehicles.
Besides its influence with car shoppers, the annual study is used by major automakers as a proxy for their performance in improving and maintaining vehicle quality.
Although Toyota ranked third in reliability behind only Honda Motor Co and Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd's Subaru, Consumer Reports also found two Toyota models had "below average" predicted reliability.
Those two models were the V-6 version of Toyota's flagship Camry sedan and the four-wheel-drive, V-8 version of its new Tundra pickup truck.
"Consumer Reports will no longer recommend any new or redesigned Toyota-built models without reliability data on a specific design," the publication said in a statement. "Previously, new and redesigned models were recommended because of the automaker's excellent track record."
The same study found gains for Ford Motor Co. , which landed three models on the magazine's "most reliable" list.
Consumer Reports ranked the Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and the automaker's market-leading F-150 pickup truck with a V-6 engine as among the most-reliable new vehicles on the market.
"Ford continues to improve," David Champion, director of auto testing for Consumer Reports, said in a statement. "We believe Toyota is aware of its issues and trying to fix problems quickly."
Champion was due to brief reporters in Detroit on the results of the annual survey on Tuesday.
Representatives for Toyota and Ford were not immediately available for comment.
In the first nine months of this year, Toyota had a 16.2 percent share of the U.S. market for new cars and light trucks, behind only General Motors Corp at 23.8 percent.
But the Japanese automaker's fast growth since 2000, when it had less than 10 percent of the U.S. market, has left it facing new pressure and scrutiny.
Two high-ranking executives have defected from Toyota's U.S. subsidiary in recent months to join U.S. automakers. The most recent of those was Jim Farley, who left Toyota's luxury Lexus division, to take over as top marketing executive at Ford.
In September, Toyota's North American chief, Jim Press, left the automaker after a 37-year career to become vice chairman at newly private Chrysler LLC.
Toyota, which has won credit with consumers for its reputation for quality and fuel-efficiency, has also come under fire from environmental groups.
Although Toyota dominates the market for fuel-efficient hybrids with its Prius, it has joined Detroit-based automakers in lobbying against stringent increases in fleetwide fuel economy.
Consumer Reports is published by the nonprofit Consumers Union. The magazine accepts no paid advertising.
The publication's "predicted reliability" study for new model vehicles is based on an average of consumer ratings of the same model in the recent years.
The magazine surveys readers and visitors to its Web site about their experience with the cars and trucks they own.
Copyright 2007 Reuters
Tundra V8 AWD is almost 80% below average. It is the second lowest reliability rating in the Full Size Pickups category. Nissan Titan AWD is rated higher than the Tundra.
Past history is no guarantee of future returns...
Obviously non one at CR ever bought or sold stocks.
Kind of kills the myth that CR is unbiased doesn't it. Maybe one of the testers got stuck with one of those sludged up lemons.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Backy the article said.
Previously, new and redesigned models were recommended because of the automaker's excellent track record."
By saying a vehicle is reliable without actually knowing if it is reliable CR is tainting their statistical data.
They buy a car that CR recommends and then they have some problems with it. The owner might gloss over those problems or assume they are doing something wrong and it is not the fault of the car. If this happens enough times it can skew the data and with the difference between a reliable car in CR's tests and an unreliable car being only a few percent it doesn't take much of an error to skew the data.
This is called the Lexus effect because people that own a Lexus and have a problem with it will many times assume they are doing something wrong because Lexus vehicles never break down. It can be applied to any vehicle with a high reputation for reliability.
The opposite is the "Land Rover Effect" when someone has a vehicle that is generally considered to have poor reliability. If something happens with the car even if it is their fault or if the car is operating as designed they will assume the car is broken.
We just had this happen a few weeks ago. A gentleman comes in complaining of poor gas mileage, loss of power and pinging. The LR3 was also showing a check engine light for miss fires/detonation in multiple cylinders.
I know this guy and he is a hard driver. The car is always loaded down with a ton of stuff and he tows a big trailer from time to time.
The tech can't seem to find anything wrong with the car so he asks the owner what kind of gas he uses.
Owner replies, "oh whatever is the cheapest 87 octane around."
Tech says, "Well you know these cars require premium."
Owner says, "Well yeah but I don't want to pay the extra money for it." :confuse: :sick:
Tech tells him he is going to clear all the codes wipe the PCMs memory and put a tank of 93 octane in it.
"Run a few tanks of premium through it and I bet that will solve all your problems," the tech tells the owner.
Flash forward to today and miraculously the car drives fine now and his gas mileage is up significantly. What do you want to bet though if someone asks him if his car has had problems or if he gets one of those surveys in the mail he will complain about the problems HE caused by running substandard fuel in the car.
No, I said that I thought CR's past practice--now corrected--of saying new Toyotas will be reliable before collecting any reliability data on them was ridiculous, or words to that effect. I am glad they came to their senses on that. But they need to stop that practice on all makes--the article wasn't clear on whether they'd continue doing it for Hondas, for example.
Not necessarily. What we don't know is if these cases, e.g. new Camry V6, are the first time that CR found in recent history that a new Toyota model got less than Average reliability scores.
Emphasis is mine of course and because of the Lexus effect we will never know if other Toyota models should have gotten lower reliability scores because the survey data has been tainted.
It still changes the data by an unknown small amount.
That may be true but actually they never recommend a vehicle unless they have proven reliability. For first year cars that is impossible so first year vehicles get a pass IF the previous model has proven itself and the changes are not too much. i.e. the new LaCrosse was given a recommended in it's first year because of the Regal/Century and Oshawa assembly plant history.