Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Domestics, Germans Fare Poorly In Latest CU Survey
Mr_Shiftright
Member Posts: 64,481
in General
Once again, using their most extensive survey methods to date, Consumer Reports have given most domestic makes and most German cars rather dismal reliability ratings.
The new report covers a number of areas (see April 2007 issue).
1. How Well Do Various Cars Age?
One survey claims to predict the RATE of INCREASE in problems as a car ages up to ten years (10). In that survey, VW cars fared the worst as they aged (175 problems per 100 vehicles), with GM and Chrysler close behind (160/100), then Hyundai, Ford and the least problems as cars aged going to Nissan, Honda and finally Toyota as the "best of the old cars".(60/100)
2. Predicted Reliability of 2003-2006 Makes and Models
Another survey covers reliability of makes and models using this criteria:
"based on the three most recent model years' data for models whose design hasn't changed since 2007"
TOP SIX:
Toyota/Honda/Scion/Acura/Lexus/Subaru
WORST SIX:
Cadillac/Jeep/Jaguar/Hummer/Land Rover/ Mercedes Benz (Mercedes was the worst of the worst, with a predicted 35-200% below average reliability rate).
No American or German make scored above average IN TOTAL, with all their models averaged in, but a few American and German MODELS were individually above average.
3. Most and Least Reliable 2007 model cars
(a few examples posted here. There are actually TEN categories)
BEST SMALL CAR: Fit/Yaris/Corolla
WORST SMALL CAR: Cobalt/Jetta/Aveo
BEST LUXURY CAR: Infiniti M/Lexus LS
WORST LUXURY CAR: Cadillac STS/MB-CLS/MB E-class/ BMW 7 series/ Jaguar S type
Where did domestics do well for 2007 models?
The domestics scored well in only three of ten categories:
BEST LARGE CARS: Lincoln Zephyr (in same group as Lexus 350, Acura TSX
BEST FAMILY CARS Ford Fusion (in same group as Prius, Accord, etc.)
BEST LARGE SUVs: Chevy Tahoe/Yukon (in same group as Land Cruiser, Sequoia, etc
SUMMARY?
Looks like Japan ran away with it all across the board.
Most domestics fell in the middle to low-middle, and with the exception of Mercury, all domestics were in a negative mean percentile (that is, below average mean reliability).
German cars also fell into negative mean percentiles, with VW, Mini, Porsche and Mercedes in the bottom ten.
Worst domestic overall for 2003-2006?
Hummer
Second worst: Jeep
Third Worst: Cadillac
THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE NUMBERS:
Vehicle reports included: 1,302,575 samples (i.e., 1.3 million vehicles)
Models surveyed across ten years: 2,200
Most responses from any one model: 7,763 from Toyota Camry
Minimum responses required to include a model in the reliability survey: 100
-------------------------------------------------
Anything you are surprised to see, or does this survey more or less match your expectations?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
The new report covers a number of areas (see April 2007 issue).
1. How Well Do Various Cars Age?
One survey claims to predict the RATE of INCREASE in problems as a car ages up to ten years (10). In that survey, VW cars fared the worst as they aged (175 problems per 100 vehicles), with GM and Chrysler close behind (160/100), then Hyundai, Ford and the least problems as cars aged going to Nissan, Honda and finally Toyota as the "best of the old cars".(60/100)
2. Predicted Reliability of 2003-2006 Makes and Models
Another survey covers reliability of makes and models using this criteria:
"based on the three most recent model years' data for models whose design hasn't changed since 2007"
TOP SIX:
Toyota/Honda/Scion/Acura/Lexus/Subaru
WORST SIX:
Cadillac/Jeep/Jaguar/Hummer/Land Rover/ Mercedes Benz (Mercedes was the worst of the worst, with a predicted 35-200% below average reliability rate).
No American or German make scored above average IN TOTAL, with all their models averaged in, but a few American and German MODELS were individually above average.
3. Most and Least Reliable 2007 model cars
(a few examples posted here. There are actually TEN categories)
BEST SMALL CAR: Fit/Yaris/Corolla
WORST SMALL CAR: Cobalt/Jetta/Aveo
BEST LUXURY CAR: Infiniti M/Lexus LS
WORST LUXURY CAR: Cadillac STS/MB-CLS/MB E-class/ BMW 7 series/ Jaguar S type
Where did domestics do well for 2007 models?
The domestics scored well in only three of ten categories:
BEST LARGE CARS: Lincoln Zephyr (in same group as Lexus 350, Acura TSX
BEST FAMILY CARS Ford Fusion (in same group as Prius, Accord, etc.)
BEST LARGE SUVs: Chevy Tahoe/Yukon (in same group as Land Cruiser, Sequoia, etc
SUMMARY?
Looks like Japan ran away with it all across the board.
Most domestics fell in the middle to low-middle, and with the exception of Mercury, all domestics were in a negative mean percentile (that is, below average mean reliability).
German cars also fell into negative mean percentiles, with VW, Mini, Porsche and Mercedes in the bottom ten.
Worst domestic overall for 2003-2006?
Hummer
Second worst: Jeep
Third Worst: Cadillac
THE NUMBERS BEHIND THE NUMBERS:
Vehicle reports included: 1,302,575 samples (i.e., 1.3 million vehicles)
Models surveyed across ten years: 2,200
Most responses from any one model: 7,763 from Toyota Camry
Minimum responses required to include a model in the reliability survey: 100
-------------------------------------------------
Anything you are surprised to see, or does this survey more or less match your expectations?
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Whoa that stands out?
Has CR always had 100 responses as the minimum? From what I remember of my stats classes in college you need a minimum of 300-500 responses on a truly random survey in order to get accurate results. I just don't think 100 responses is enough to get a truly accurate survey result and I doubt CRs survey methods are random enough that the bare minimum of 300-500 responses works. They probably need more then 500 responses for a truly accurate survey result.
fare - noun, verb
7. to experience good or bad fortune, treatment, etc.: He fared well in his profession.
Too bad CR does not have a result that shows how the Japanese cars have taken the joy out of driving. Last Japanese car I drove that was fun. The Honda CRX
You are right about one thing you said though---there is no room in CR for a "fun factor".
But--they did title it a "reliability" survey, so I guess the best criticism would be on the limited nature of the survey.
People buy cars IN SPITE OF the reliability ratings all the time.
The survey does seem to imply that American manufacturers are still behind the curve, and that the Germans haven't solved their quality control issues.
My impressions were...yeah, it's about what I expected from the Japanese and Americans (the "best" and "mediocre" respectively) but I really didn't expect to see Mercedes in the toilet.
Kinda sad how the domestics couldn't even score in the Pickups category. You'd think......
Visiting Host
It also surprises me they got so few Camry surveys. 7000 over 4 years, with close to 2 million sold. Maybe CR is losing subscribers and or no one bothers with the survey.
It does seem though that CR results roughly mirror what you see here in the Edmunds forums.
The part I found intersting was the rate of decline as each car aged. This would be more useful to used car buyers rather than new car buyers I'd guess.
How 'bout a Miata? G35? 300ZX? :confuse:
You gotta get out more and drive more Asian cars if you're gonna talk about 'em like that.
One little beef I have with CR's wording:
"2. Predicted Reliability of 2003-2006 Makes and Models...
...TOP SIX: Toyota/Honda/Scion/Acura/Lexus/Subaru"
Maybe it's just me, but I've always thought of a "make" as the manufacturer, not the brand. Scion, Acura & Lexus are brands. With CR's terminology, things get muddy. If you're in Canada, for example, buying an Acura that's really a re-badged US Honda, is your new vehicle rated #4 in reliability, or is it rated #2? CR's Top 6 really reads as a top 3 to me: Toyota, Honda, Subaru. Who cares which badge the manufacturer slaps on?
Even defining it by manufacturer is getting harder now, for example having Camry built at the Subaru plant in Indiana... is it really #1 in reliability or #3 (or #6?) because it's not built in a Toyota factory?)
The rest are just divisions.
Scion isn't really even a stand-alone division, they are models within the Toyota franchise. Notice how the stores are contained within Toyota dealerships.
FYI, Buick and Lexus tied for #1.
Cadillac is #3.
Mercury is #4 (but badge-engineered Ford is below average -- go figure).
Honda is #5.
Toyota is #6.
Subaru is #9.
All other GM brands -- Chevy, GMC, Pontiac, Hummer, Saturn, and Saab were below average (Saturn and Saab especially so, with Saab being 4th worst). So why do the old folks' GM cars of choice score so well, but those purchased by younger buyers fare much more poorly? Any ideas?
Not that I put much stock in old JD anyway, but what GM product do you drive?
There is the old saw about GM's expensive cars with old-person appeal being better-designed, better-built, and better-cared-for than the less expensive cars aimed at a younger, poorer demographic less likely to sink cash into regular maintenance and upkeep.
You'd think though that if it were based on the care given the older cars, that the cheapest cars would fare the wors in reliability, but apparently that isn't the case in all instances. VWs do poorly, as do Chrysler products, but not Toyota.
As for the sampling, CR seems to have the edge here because they test cars and drive them, whereas JD Powers are desk people, not car people. They are more like statisticians. So I'd venture that CRs database is more historical and hands-on.
But again, these are just speculations or impressions as I look at the data.
Upon what basis might you conclude that the news story source is any less suspect than CR in your mind? The survey I *think* you saw states the following:
"The 2007 survey is based on the responses of 53,000 owners of 2004 model year vehicles. The survey gives all problems equal weight."
Soooo....given that CR does 1.3 million responses and weights the answers, I'm still leaning toward CR as more indicative.
Why the results are so radically different, beats me! Maybe a statistician can explain for us how this happens?
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/types/new-a-to-z-index.htm
is recommending Buicks, so is there really much discrepency?
Also, CR doesn't recommend all Buick models, and that might explain why Buick gets dragged down in the "older car reliability" chart---which just lumps GM all together. So the "older car reliability" chart is more or less corporate.
I guess this would happen say with Cadillac, too, where the Catera and the STS are more typical of the bad GM rating for older car reliability, rather than every Cadillac model.
And I guess it works in reverse as well, where the occasional turkey made by Toyota isn't weighted enough to give the whole company a bad name.
Maybe what all this really means is that VW and GM make more worse cars than they make good ones?
When I used to ride motorcycles one of the magazines I happened to subscribe to had a tongue in cheek article that stated that CR would ding any motorcycle it tested for not having four wheels to make it more stable. More seats to make in more family friendly. More cargo space for weekend trips and a roll cage to make it safer. Maybe true but then that is pretty much how CR tests cars. The goal of CR "seems" to be to find the perfect generic vehicle or transportation pod.
That is another problem is that CR doesn't really explain how they come up with a lot of the results. You don't get much of an idea about the RAW data. They have changed how they report reliability what two times now? They had to change the previous methods because cars were getting so reliable that all of them earned full dots. They don't tell us the difference between a full dot and a half dot. If it is only say half a problem per 100 cars that frankly I don't car that is close enough to a statistical tie to me.
CR also does not recommend every Toyota or Honda. Only Acura and Subaru had a recommendation for each listed model.
J. D. Power, for the initial quality survey, has a new set of people every year. I got a J. D. Power survey for my 2007 SRX which I bought in April. I have also gotten two other surveys to fill out.
I personally rely on resale values to tell me what people think of various cars, because in that case they are voting with their checkbooks.
Resale values do not, of course, CORRESPOND to reliability, but I think they CORRELATE to reliability.
How do I relate the "resale value" theory to results in CR?
Well for one thing I think it shows that number of complaints is not the same as gravity of complaints.
While I do not doubt for an instant that Lexus cars have fewer incidents per 100 than Mercedes, I don't believe that a Benz is 200% worse than a Lexus....probably any number of incidents with the Benz are annoying but not important.
As for the low resale value of most domestics, I think that relates mostly to their mediocrity (as in "average-ness"), their large numbers dumped by rental fleets, and their inability to measure up in most comparos with foreign makes. (in spite of their dollar value).
As for the high resale value of Toyotas, that seems to be a direct result of 25 years of solid "brand equity", something the domestics and even other Japanese cars cannot get a handle on.
Anyway, just musing here with some alternative ways of assessing the results.
I have to say that the FWD domestics that I have owned (86 Buick Electra, 91 Reatta, 90 Riviera, 95 Riviera, 98 Olds Aurora and lastly 2002 Seville LS) have been good cars, but the last three were very similar and all would drag their noses on the pavement on a steeper than usual driveway. I have yet to find a driveway steep enough to drag the SRX's nose, but the SRX has a lot more ground clearence. Of the last three, the Aurora was supposed to be a good handling car, but my SRX is really better even though it has a higher center of gravity. The 86 Electra T-type was the best in the list.
When I was in need of a new dishwasher I realized that I did not have any idea of what there was, so I went to the library to see what CR had to say. Then I talked with a salesperson to see what they thought. CR said one brand was worst, but saleperson said that brand had been completely updated and was actually quite good. :surprise: I ended up buying something in the middle of CR's ratings.
I think that CR's rating, to the extent that they depend on the subscribers surveys, are based on "stuff" that is ageing on average, and therefore not up to date.
Maybe CR and Power really use an axe instead of a scalpel as they should?
J. D. Power is giving the manufacturers the information they want. What they are giving the public is leftovers (or unclassified information).
They also include perceived design flaws into their problem per 100 rating. That was why the MINI scored so low on many of the JD Powers survey. People don't like the cup holders or thought the ride was too rough. :confuse:
I did not test drive my SRX. The dealer did not have the optional 20 inch wheels in stock in any case.
MINI actually redesigned the shock absorbers for late 2003 MY to make the ride softer and sacrificed some handling in the process.
Quite humurous, thanks for that.
Not really fair, though, as CR rates the Boxster very highly, as well as the S2000 and other roadsters. They compare cars within each class. The overall score for the Boxster is higher than their score for some minivans.
So that's not how their scoring system works.
The theory is worth a good laugh, at least, but it's otherwise worthless.
What I have observed, interestingly enough, is that the biggest critics of Consumer Reports seem to know little or nothing (emphasis on the latter) about them.
I've heard people say they use vague terms like "peppy" to describe engine performance yet they conduct instrumented tests just like others do. In fact for trucks they even do acceleration tests with trailers, which is more useful than 0-60 any day.
Yet it's funny how often people who have not read an issue since 1987 think they know everything about how CR tests cars.
This rant is not aimed at boaz47, of course, it's just me venting about often vague and meritless dismissal of CR completely.
I swear my dog is smarter then some of the people I meet on a daily basis.
You'd be surprised how many people base a car purchase decision according to the dog's needs!
Just a couple of months ago I had a woman trade out of a fully loaded 2007 Lexus IS250 into a 2004 Land Rover Discovery...
because her dog didn't really fit in the back of the Lexus. :surprise:
He also loves watching Lassie, Benji, and K-9 on the 12" DVD player.
What he should have bought is a minivan of some sort. I suggested that too...
To be fair they buy low cost, high mileage samples.
Still, without exception, they die a horrendous, expensive death.
Think about it, if something breaks in JD Power's 90 day study, so what? It's fixed for free. It was a minor aggravation that cost you nothing except maybe a bit of time and some pride.
Something breaks after the warranty, and it's coming out of your pocket. The time and pride costs are still there, just add money.
So I tend to look at the longer-term studies, durability 5+ years from new.
VW is funny, though. VW owners are either fiercely loyal and absolutely love their GTIs, or it's the other extreme - you could not pay them to drive another one ever again even if it were for free.
That's enough to scare me off from any VW.