Hive,
Mazda recently sent me this to brag that they came in at #2 losing out only to Lexus.
Porsche also did amazingly well but Honda / Acura landed much lower on the list than I think most would expect.
Consumer Reports Car Brand Reliability - November 2019
Are there any flaws in CR’s methodology we should know about…count a rattle the same as the drivetrain dropping out of the car, etc.?
CR gets their data by asking their subscribers to fill out a survey, so is subject to the bias inherent to that. They tend to have lots of data for normal, practical, everyday, kind of cars, and are also biased towards vehicles that are newer (like 3-7 years or so, I think) than seems to be the norm on this board. So if you want to know about a 2015 Camry or Accord then it's great, not so much on a 1991 MR2. :)
Self-selected survey responders are also more likely to be people with problems to report, because they're more motivated to go to the effort to fill it out.
Edit: Looking at the chart, I see that there are some very significant changes in a few brands (Porsche up 5, Audi down 7, Dodge up 13). I think it's unlikely that manufacturer reliability will really change hugely in just a single year, especially in the upwards direction. My impression is that CR tries pretty hard to have solid methodology on this kind of thing, so perhaps the explanation is that there isn't really all that much difference between them and the signal:noise ratio is high.
The chart just shows some kind of cooked "reliability score" without providing much insight into it. Generally they don't put all their info into the public releases (they want people to join to get the magazine), so perhaps there's more access to real data in there.
I find it interesting that various (all?) Subaru vehicles do extremely well in their reliability rankings, yet the CEO of Subaru is making very public statements that increased quality and reliability is the company’s number one goal moving forward. I will make a guess that certain participants fill out the CR surveys in response to frustrations with their vehicles as stated above by codrus, and others do so to self justify their purchasing decisions, or they have low expectations.
Print media is having a lot of challenges these days which makes me wonder, is Consumer Reports still as relevant as it once was in its hayday of the Pre-Internet and a world where print media was seen as "authority"?
In reply to John Welsh :
Consumer Reports is not just the magazine. The website offers digital only subscriptions to access their info online. They are and have always been the closest thing that buyers can get to impartial ratings. Where else would you get that info?
Some of what I've read of their practices is that what constitutes a problem is not well weighted, like major engine issues are the same as a tough to use infotainment system.
I have a hard time believing an Acura MDX is rated so poorly then the almost identical Pilot is nowhere near there, and as it is near the end of its life cycle as a model that wasn't all that cutting edge.
Consumer Reports called the Pontiac Vibe harsh and buzzy. They called the Toyota Matrix smooth and refined. IT WAS THE SAME CAR WITH THE SAME ENGINE.
I don't know about Acura, but I'd guess it's not helping Honda that the 1.5T is dumping gas into the oil and the emergency brake assist is engaging for no apparent reason on the highway... The later of which is an issue certainly not exclusive to Honda right now either.
Yes, we're in the middle of car shopping right now, and it seems half the cars we're looking at have some type of unresolved systemic problem that is being brushed off by the manufacturer.
The last 3 years for Honda have been rough. I know the 1.5T are blowing up left and right and the autos have a box of no movement. The manuals have the crappiest clutch in a car in a long time.
Appleseed said:Consumer Reports called the Pontiac Vibe harsh and buzzy. They called the Toyota Matrix smooth and refined. IT WAS THE SAME CAR WITH THE SAME ENGINE.
There were some minor yet maddening differences between the two models. I know for certain that they had different air boxes (or maybe that was Corolla vs. Prizm?)
Either way, if they put a better quality of sound deadening systems in place on the Toyotas, that alone could do it.
Or maybe it is just confirmation bias. Used Vibes tend to be in way worse shape than used Matrixes, because people take care of Toyotas while the Vibe is just some Pontiac E36 M3box.
Appleseed said:Consumer Reports called the Pontiac Vibe harsh and buzzy. They called the Toyota Matrix smooth and refined. IT WAS THE SAME CAR WITH THE SAME ENGINE.
The Honda Passport was "rugged" while the Isuzu Rodeo was "plain" and "harsh". Literally the only difference was the badging - Isuzu made both on the same assembly line.
I don't recall if CR did the same with the 1st-gen Odyssey and the Isuzu Oasis, which was also only a rebadged Honda.
CR will also carry a grudge against certain manufacturers for decades after a problem has been resolved. Even all-new models get stigmatized by their predecessors for some makers - but definitely not for other favorite manufacturers.
Sonic said:I have a hard time believing an Acura MDX is rated so poorly then the almost identical Pilot is nowhere near there, and as it is near the end of its life cycle as a model that wasn't all that cutting edge.
Since the results are based on customer surveys, I think customer expectations probably play a big role as well. A person that buys a $45k MDX might have different expectations than somebody who buys a $30k Pilot. There may be no difference between the two other than what the buyer expects.
STM317 said:Since the results are based on customer surveys, I think customer expectations probably play a big role as well. A person that buys a $45k MDX might have different expectations than somebody who buys a $30k Pilot. There may be no difference between the two other than what the buyer expects.
If that is literally the case, then Consumer Reports as a magazine is functionally useless to me. I don't want impressions, I want data. Yes, I read reviews for impressions when I want impressions - but don't tart it up and pretend it's science.
einy said:I find it interesting that various (all?) Subaru vehicles do extremely well in their reliability rankings, yet the CEO of Subaru is making very public statements that increased quality and reliability is the company’s number one goal moving forward. I will make a guess that certain participants fill out the CR surveys in response to frustrations with their vehicles as stated above by codrus, and others do so to self justify their purchasing decisions, or they have low expectations.
They are the "quirky, fun" company with major fanboi/girls that overlook things like "Oh, it's just a Subaru, engines failing with 2,000 miles on it is OK."
Duke said:STM317 said:Since the results are based on customer surveys, I think customer expectations probably play a big role as well. A person that buys a $45k MDX might have different expectations than somebody who buys a $30k Pilot. There may be no difference between the two other than what the buyer expects.
If that is literally the case, then Consumer Reports as a magazine is functionally useless to me. I don't want impressions, I want data. Yes, I read reviews for impressions when I want impressions - but don't tart it up and pretend it's science.
When you compile enough impressions, you get data. The question is really if that data means anything significant or not.
Sonic said:Some of what I've read of their practices is that what constitutes a problem is not well weighted, like major engine issues are the same as a tough to use infotainment system.
Which may well be accurate to the average non enthusiast buyer. An engine blows, it's a major SHORT TERM issue while it's fixed under warranty. Hard to use infotainment is an annoyance for the life of the vehicle. I'm surprised it's not weighted more harshly TBH.
z31maniac said:einy said:I find it interesting that various (all?) Subaru vehicles do extremely well in their reliability rankings, yet the CEO of Subaru is making very public statements that increased quality and reliability is the company’s number one goal moving forward.
They are the "quirky, fun" company with major fanboi/girls that overlook things like "Oh, it's just a Subaru, engines failing with 2,000 miles on it is OK."
Which is funny, because in the late '80s and first half of the '90s Subaru were the quirky company that made capable but dull cars that ran forever with zero maintenance until the individual rust flakes didn't have enough molecular bond left to keep the whole cloud going in the same direction.
In reply to Duke :
As a 80s Subaru guy this is true. Ea81/82 is best motor Subaru ever built
Adrian_Thompson said:Sonic said:Some of what I've read of their practices is that what constitutes a problem is not well weighted, like major engine issues are the same as a tough to use infotainment system.
Which may well be accurate to the average non enthusiast buyer. An engine blows, it's a major SHORT TERM issue while it's fixed under warranty. Hard to use infotainment is an annoyance for the life of the vehicle. I'm surprised it's not weighted more harshly TBH.
There was a Lemon Law return Golf R at a dealership that was brought back due to issues with the infotainment/nav system. Apparently even replacing the entire unit didn't solve the issues.
After working 10 years in an Acura dealership, I'm not the least bit surprised.
Professor_Brap said:In reply to Duke :
As a 80s Subaru guy this is true. Ea81/82 is best motor Subaru ever built
Except for the turbo engines that would crack the heads if you looked at them funny.
The nonturbo engines were anvils, mostly because they didn't make enough power to hurt anything. But then that is what makes an anvil an anvil.
Knurled. said:Professor_Brap said:In reply to Duke :
As a 80s Subaru guy this is true. Ea81/82 is best motor Subaru ever built
Except for the turbo engines that would crack the heads if you looked at them funny.
The nonturbo engines were anvils, mostly because they didn't make enough power to hurt anything. But then that is what makes an anvil an anvil.
I had 2.2 heads on my turbo loyale, biggest mistake ever.
When CR reviewed the early Miatas, they didn't have much real data to go on. They generally liked the car, but made up stuff to complain about. One comment was that the door handles were difficult to use when packed with snow. That's pretty much when I stopped caring what they had to say.
Professor_Brap said:Knurled. said:Professor_Brap said:In reply to Duke :
As a 80s Subaru guy this is true. Ea81/82 is best motor Subaru ever built
Except for the turbo engines that would crack the heads if you looked at them funny.
The nonturbo engines were anvils, mostly because they didn't make enough power to hurt anything. But then that is what makes an anvil an anvil.
I had 2.2 heads on my turbo loyale, biggest mistake ever.
How you do dat?
It's great to see Dodge's quality finally coming up after years of being near dead-last, though it'll be a little longer before I ever consider one.
CR really is hard to gauge as an actual publication as they also count broken parts in "groups" in aggregate, and then alter their verdict based on how much work was done under a warranty. So if one piece of plastic breaks in the interior for a lot of people, it doesn't matter if the part doesn't matter, or how much it costs or if it's a minute-long fix; you'll get a hard ding from the sheer number of reports. It's a perfect example of how statistics can fail.
Knurled. said:Professor_Brap said:In reply to Duke :
As a 80s Subaru guy this is true. Ea81/82 is best motor Subaru ever built
Except for the turbo engines that would crack the heads if you looked at them funny.
The nonturbo engines were anvils, mostly because they didn't make enough power to hurt anything. But then that is what makes an anvil an anvil.
Well, when you make a turbo engine with no intercooler and intake temps in the 170s... you kinda get what you paid for.
You'll need to log in to post.
