Consumer Reports recently published a comprehensive list of used cars to avoid. The publication usually dedicates at least one issue a year to automotive reliability, but now they’ve gone even further by compiling a list of vehicles with below average reliability stretching all the way back to the 2007 model year. And you don’t even need a subscription to read the list, because they put it all on their website. There are no shocking revelations here, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t interesting. 
Japanese and Korean automakers continue to produce vehicles almost as reliable as the sunrise. What they haven’t overcome is the “first model year blues.” And this extends to all other automakers as well. Generally speaking, car buyers should probably stay away from the initial examples of a completely redesigned model.
Overall, the list continues to support the assertion that American automakers continue to lag behind the Japanese and Koreans when it comes to reliability. Volkswagen also has a substantial number of models with below average reliability.
Is Consumer Reports suggesting you completely avoid vehicles from GM, FCA, Ford, and Volkswagen? Not really. In fact, the data suggests that vehicle reliability from these four companies is neither uniformly good nor bad, just extremely inconsistent.
Why do these companies produce vehicles that vary in quality from one year to the next? There is probably no definitive answer, but there appears to be a correlation between this OEM-supplier relationship index and the overall reliability rankings that Consumer Reports assigned to the American automakers. Volkswagen isn’t on the list, but if it was, I suspect it would slot somewhere between FCA and Ford.
How else can you explain only one model year of a particular generation showing up on this list? Let’s use the Ford Edge as an example. The second generation Edge was introduced for the 2011 model year and ran until 2014. Only the 2012 made the list. Was a new powertrain or infotainment setup introduced for that particular year? Nope. MyFordTouch debuted with the 2011 model year, and no new powertrains were introduced either. The 2011 and 2012 Edge are nearly identical vehicles. So what gives? Quality control issues, probably. And if you have a poor relationship with your supplier, a minor issue could turn into a big one. I suspect the Japanese automakers don’t really have this problem.
The main takeaway here is that car buyers most likely don’t have to worry about vehicle reliability if they’re looking at a Japanese or Korean model. And if shoppers want an American or German product, they have plenty of good examples to choose from, they just have to do some research in order to avoid picking up a vehicle with a bad reputation.
” And if shoppers want an American or German product, they have plenty of good examples to choose from, they just have to do some research in order to avoid picking up a vehicle with a bad reputation.”
Quite true. The current Impala is at the top of the list in it’s class. Why some designs fall into place and other don’t in the same company in which I’m sure several components are the same or very similar is beyond me. I scratch my head and wonder, what happened?
My list of car magazine companies that i stay away from………….consumer reports, motor trend, car and driver and road and track. In one form or another……………..they are all idiots!!!!
Yes indeed, and may I recommend that consumers try thinking for themselves and accept a degree of personal responsibility in the choices that they make.
Unless you think CR is flatout lying, the idea that an individual consumer can make a better-informed decision with approximately zero information is ridiculous.
You’re associating “personal responsibility” with “ignorance.”
I’m with hubba here… how is doing zero research before buying a car “personal responsibility”? Subjective things like how comfortable you find a car are one thing, but an individual can’t be expected to know how reliable a car will be on their own. To know that someone needs to collect a lot of data. Someone like… Consumer Reports!
Right. CR has their flaws, to be sure, but they’re certainly a valuable research tool.
A few years back, the Toyota Carina (camry’s sister model) ranked on top of all reliability rankings in europe.
Far down towards the bottom was the toyota celica. Does toyota selectively add reliability to one model, and skip another?
Of course not. This is a driver issue. Grandmas and other sedate people chose the dull carina, while the wild and young ones chose the celica, and drove the snot out of it, i might add.
One need to be able to read between the lines, and not just swallow hook, line and sinker.
It is amazing to me how far the Korean manufacturers have come. I looked up Kia and found a single year of a single model listed. If someone had told me ten years ago that Kia and Hyundai would rank far ahead of virtually every American nameplate I would not have believed it.
QFT!
First, I have to acknowledge that CR is the best, most objective data source for car reliability history. However, I’m irritated that they don’t publish sample sizes: it’s impossible to know just how trustworthy their data are. I’m sure that there are plenty of readers who provide CR with reliability info for their Camrys and Sonatas… but how big is the sample for the BMW 5-series? For Corvettes??? And then imagine splitting it even further into specific model years.
I trust CR when they tell us, “Don’t buy a Passat or a Charger.” But I won’t take their word for low-volume models. At that point, I feel that you’re stuck trying to make a judgement based on the manufacturer’s reputation. (Example: If the high-volume VW models are generally unreliable, I’ll just assume that the same is true of the Touareg.)
Well said. The 911, for instance, seemed to pinball from recommended to unreliable year to year, and you may be right that sample size is a big factor.
One must also realizes that the surveys are from Consumer Reports subscribers only….That in itself is a skewed sample…I don’t subscribe because I think their road tests prioritize things the car magazines may not…Problems with brakes can mean excessive brake dust on wheels, a harsher ride or “uncomfortable” seats….This may mean the car has higher performance brakes, is better handling and may have more supportive seats.
One must take their results with a grain of salt
Sample size and the fact that subscribers only are the make up for these surveys is a big factor in why I don’t take the CR results as gospel. That narrows the amount of information available on a car you may be interested in.
David Zatz, who is the behavioral psychologist who used to run Allpar (and Corolla.com, too) had a dispute with CR over it’s methodology some time ago. He used to have a summary of it on allpar, but that’s been bought up by the Auto Guide family of websites. I don’t know how much longer his original stuff will remain before it gets “corporatized”. Read it while you can. Absolutely interesting stuff.
With the internets available to us, we have many more sources of information about any car we can imagine. I do think that for certain models CR is a decent resource, but if I were looking for info on a Camaro Z28 1LE, there would be virtually no useful information on them there.
People’s perception of what constitutes “reliable” seem to vary highly as well, further skewing the results. I’ve seen people write that they have had the most reliable vehicle ever, often a japanese brand, where they only experienced worn out brakes a few times, an alternator and a few batteries in its life time.
Then you have other owners, often american or european brands, who have had “the worst lemon ever”, with nothing but trouble, such as worn out brakes multiple times, alternator issues, and needing new batteries several times.
Its as if the perception is that the vehicle is supposed to be reliable, then it is, regardless of the amount of repairs, and if the vehicle is supposed the be “unreliable”, its a total POS, after any repair at all.
I got a laugh when i once saw a seller of a daihatsu rocky, calling it the “good-good-car”, “ultra reliable, never fail, best vehicle he ever owned”, while dissing euro & us 4wd in the same ad, for sale, complete with 2 parts vehicles, and a note at the bottom to “bring a trailer, currently doesn’t run”.
Hey, if it’s good enough for Literary Digest, it’s good enough for me!
Sampling issues aside, it’s a good tool for vehicle reliability. But it’s not infallible.
Hmm I wonder about averages though, everybody can’t be above average but is below average really that bad? And do problems with below average cars all occur with a small group of cars, or do they all have the same problems?
The supplier working relations index is extremely interesting though, it mirrors my brief experience in the auto industry. (Old) GM was the worst, one example was the payment terms were 10% down and 90% on acceptance of the equipment we built. Following installation the safety department wouldn’t sign off on it because the travel speed was too fast. Production said they needed the speed and wouldn’t change it. Neither side cared about the other (or us) so this small company didn’t get paid 90% of the contract for a year after delivery.
Chrysler was pretty bad too, but our owners had some good relationships with people in some plants so they shielded us from a lot of the BS, they were just trying to get the job done.
Anyway I’m not about to buy a brand new car anytime soon…
///
Not a single Honda (excluding Acura) made the list.
Man I used to think it’s an issue for car makers in developing countries,but apparently in first world countries auto factories have the same problem.
My wife worked for a supplier to a major Japanese electronics company. That company was very involved with the supplier; they worked with them developing both the product and the costing. They were in for a long term relationship; they wouldn’t leave for two cents a part but instead would bring in engineers to help the current supplier reduce costs if possible without harming quality. The master company also did regular batch QC checks. If they found a problem, the master company engineers would be involved in the fix.
All this doesn’t mean the marriage was made in heaven nor that there were no quality problems. I became pretty close friends with a Japanese engineer and he taught me how to game the system but that’s a tale for another day.
In the parts/price/quality question is a great story for someone who is a better writer than I am – the Lopez saga.
It’s the epic tale of the rise and fall of a ruthlessness man who very nearly destroyed not one, but two automotive giants while they paid him top dollar to do so, and then fought a 100 million dollar lawsuit over him.
If you ever had a part on your Opel, Cadillac, VW, or Audi break in your hand and cursed the bastard responsible you were talking about Jose Ignacio Lopez de Arriortua.
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-30/business/fi-4213_1_top-executives
I can relate; I do R&D work for a Chinese producer of portable inverter generators; it is all about gaming the system. You go shopping in China, they ask you two questions. 1) How much are you willing to pay? 2) How many units are you going to buy? Those two questions alone determine the quality of the product.
Game the system? I bet that’s what Takata did. I also bet they had great relationships with their customers, too. After that little exercise I feel a lot better about the Chinese suppliers…
Agreed on Inaki, too. And to think they fought over him…
I would hazard that the most reliable car from say…1980 (Accord? Prelude? Celica? Anyone have a old 1980 Buyer’s guide handy?) is as or slightly more reliable than the least reliable car on CRs list. Not that I would turn down an immaculate 1980 Prelude or Celica, mind you.
It strikes me that the same good and bad players are still the same. There are no Hondas, one Toyota, and five Nissans.
I trust CR. Some factors are bizarre but in the 27 or so cars I’ve had, they’ve been exactly parallel to my experience. Volvo 850= average. Tercel=perfect. ’87 Golf= Average. 2001 & 2003 Saab 9-5= Better than average (which surprised many including me). Sienna=perfect. 2002 BMW 325it=better than average. 2003 MINI Cooper: worse than average. This is just a few but it’s hard to fault being correct. If your passions don’t align with CR, that’s fine but appreciate that their research is pretty sound and fair.
I’ve subscribed to Consumer Reports sporadically for 30 years. I used to take their advice as gospel, but, recently, I’ve become less an adherent, mostly based on experiences with major appliances and TVs they recommended. Sometimes, their statistical averages or reviews just don’t match up with my real-world experience. Also, looking at their when-to-replace-what recommendations, they seem pretty quick to jump the gun, especially for those of us who can fix our own washers and dryers. Then, there are items I (think that I) know more about than they do (e.g., bicycles) and often completely disagree with their recommendations.
Also, like bufguy says above, anytime something is based on a survey, there are statistical anomalies, sample-size and composition issues, etc. Therefore, your mileage may vary.
I’ve been reading Consumer Reports since 1977 (not religiously).
Slowly, over time, CR has become less objective and more subjective. In the 1970s, they would publish steady state mpg at 40, 50, 60. As a kid, I thought that was neat.
In the 1980s, they started report the cost of repairing the damage caused by hitting a telephone pole at 5mph. Useful info
Over the decades though, the amount of OBJECTIVE data has diminished. Over the past 5 years, they’ve become much more subjective on cars, like a wannabe car and driver.
As for their reliability surveys, they are questionable. Always have been. They are only as good as those who complete the surveys. In the 1970s, they rated the Pontiac Ventura as “worse than average”. Ours was a good car. They rated the Cobalt as “worse than average”. Over 4 years and 40k miles, mine had no repairs.
They have ‘favorites’. A Saturn Ion got panned for the stupid center-mounted instrument panel, deservedly so. But no criticism of the same set up in the Toyota Yaris, or God forbid, the saintly Toyota Prius. Please.
In their latest car issue, the new Buick Regal, which is not even out, has “lower than average reliability”. Yet they loved the outgoing Regal, which among other things had “higher than average” reliability. They used to say “new car, no data”, but now they know so much…or cars in general are so good, that this is not longer a consideration.
I think until 5 yrs ago, CR was credible. Now it is not. Entertaining, yes.
CR just wants to sell magazines. Toward that end, they have sold their soul to the culture of wretched excess, unlike the ‘prudent consumer’ attitude they had in the 70s and 80s.
If CR pans a product, BUY IT. As said earlier, they are morons….And Toyota products are proof a million people CAN be wrong….
Yup. Toyota became the world’s most successful automaker by scamming folks into thinking their cars were more reliable than others. Maybe they bribed CR all of these many decades?
Of course they scammed them. They realized early on that CR buys their test cars off the showroom floor and made sure that the test car CR ended up with was as good as they could make it. The best way to do that is by making all of the cars on all of the lots the same way to be sure that CR got a good one… 🙂 Oh Toyota, what have you done, you devious bastards?
Which brings me to the one thing I like most about CR: they actually *buy* the cars (and other products) they test rather than take loaner cars from manufacturers who can carefully check out those cars to iron out defects first. CR also won’t get swayed by cozy treatment of auto journalists, like Honda flying them out to Hawaii *with their kids* to try out the new Odyssey for example.
The stupid runs deep in such a statement. I often wonder how such individuals get through life. Probably not very well.
The last time I was shopping for a used car my top two choices were a 2009 Corolla and a 2012 Fiesta. I ended up buying the Corolla even though it had way more miles on it than the Fiesta, mainly because it was cheaper if I’m to be perfectly honest. I guess I made the right choice according to the Consumer Reports data. I’m actually a little bit surprised it made the list; the Fiesta made my list because my perception of Ford was that they were reasonably reliable. More reliable than the other American makes at least. But I guess still not as reliable as the Asian brands.
I’d also looked at a listing for a 2008 Jetta, but didn’t really consider it based on negative things I’d heard about Volkswagen’s reliability. It seems I was right to avoid that car according to CR, too.
IIRC, the Fiesta was (is?) an outlier on the Ford reliability spectrum.
We just bought a new Buick this weekend, but it was assembled in Korea so maybe we split the difference? 🙂
The automatic transmission used in the Fiesta and post-2011 Focus has been very troublesome.
The one I was looking at actually had a manual transmission, so maybe it would have been ok then.
Edit: This could possibly be a flaw with CR’s survey. The vast majority of cars sold in the US have automatics, therefore the majority of Fiesta owners who responded to the survey probably have the automatic. So 2011 and up Fiestas end up looking bad when maybe the ones with manual transmissions are fine. Assuming that’s the main problem with them, that is. I don’t know if there were also other issues.
From what I’ve read, the manual transmission used in the Fiesta and Focus is fine. But most Americans prefer automatics – even in smaller cars.
Both cars also had trouble with their infotainment system and rattles the first year that they were on the market.
Yeah, I’m an outlier in that I’m a rare American that would actually rather have a manual.
Having rented a Focus with the Select Shift transmission a couple of years ago I understand. The transmission was a mixed bag, unacceptable to the average American and the infotainment system would not work with an iphone.
A dual clutch automatic with dry clutches is a bad idea. It was like driving with a teen just learning to use a clutch. Launches were very jerky. However, once rolling, it was far superior to a CVT, especially in the mountains.
I would prefer a manual over anything more complicated than a 4 speed auto. I hear about the six and seven speed transmissions and I think they are a reliability disaster waiting to happen.
You are correct. I looked at a fair bit of info before buying my 2014 Fiesta, and the only problem area I could find was the automatic trans. No problem…I have yet to own a car with an auto, and was not about to change with my purchase of the Fiesta. Four years and 70,000 miles later, it has had only a couple minor problems.
The automatic and also the SYNC system, although my impression is that the latter is more a matter of constant irritating functionality glitches rather than actual failure.
Interesting, I recently bought another used car its got fairly high mileage 264,000 kms at purchase time goes great everything and I do mean everything works as intended it drives fine starts everytime and would certainly not be recomended by comsumer groups, but its my second car in a row by the same manufacturer and its what I wanted so I’m perfectly happy with my MK1 C5 HDI manual, and if it goes wrong I have a competent dealer/workshop nearby.
I wish that when establishing a list like this, that they could differentiate between reliability problems that will strand you and those that won’t. If one car has major power door lock failures and another car has major charging system failures, they both receive the same score even though the guy with the bad door locks is hardly inconvienced.
If you check out the April issue you can see the record for each car over a bunch of years and broken down into a bunch of categories of problems. They did reduce the number of categories a few years ago.
Picking up on DougD’s point: Hmm I wonder about averages though, everybody can’t be above average but is below average really that bad? And do problems with below average cars all occur with a small group of cars, or do they all have the same problems?
The failure rates on almost all modern cars are very small. CR publishes a table of the failure rate for each subsystem that is “average” for each year. In the current issue, the “average” failure rate for 2016 and 2017 models, except for “in car electronics” is 1% or less for every subsystem. For some subsystems, the failure rate is so low, even when the car is quite old, that a failure rate of a paltry 3% will draw the dreaded red double down arrow of “much worse than average”.
Another quirk of their ratings is when a car that has not earned a “much worse than average” for a single subsystem, will still get a “much worse than average” rating for the entire car. Consider a 2016 VW Golf. The car draws a lone single down arrow “worse than average” for the in-car electronics, “average” for fuel system and power equipment, “better than average” for transmission, leaks and body hardware and “much better than average for 10 other criteria, yet overall the car gets a red double down arrow of “much worse than average”.
Another issue can be small sample size, which compounds the narrow differences between “better than average” and “much worse than average”. Consider the cooling system on the Fiat 500. For 2012 and 13, the Fiat’s cooling system is “much better than average”. For 14, the cooling system is rated “much worse than average”, Then for 15, the cooling system springs back to “much better than average”. For the small number of 500s being sold in the US, it could have been a single thermostat or water pump failure that dropped the car’s rating from “much better” to “much worse” for that one year.
The guy who runs the True Delta auto reliability site reads a board on FB that I also read. We had quite a discussion a year ago about how the way CR presents it’s data tends to over-dramatize small differences in reliability.
The bottom line is the only rating to worry about is the “much worse than average” because it’s open ended. It could denote a 3% failure rate, or a 50% failure rate. There is no way to tell the way the data is presented.
I tend to look at it the same way you do and happen to own the disgraced 2016 VW Golf. 5 issues between 18000 and 32000 miles – Recall to fix evap system (fuel system), auto trans shifter twice (electronics or transmission? The replacement part failed before they could give me the car back so a second replacement was installed and I was warned this was a common issue), failed sat radio antenna (in car electronics) , and a piece of peeling interior trim (interior hardware I guess). The dealer took care of the issues and gave me a new Passat to drive while we waited for the second shifter(a good mid size car but missing some of the VW magic ) so it’s not that big of a deal.
I’m not happy but knew what I was getting into when I bought the car. My research indicated anecdotal evidence of the normal inconsistent VW quality but no major widespread MK4 Jetta type issues so I wasn’t worried about buying the car. A car that has a 3% failure rate of a component has 3 times the problems of one with a 1% failure rate, but it’s still 97% good vs 99%. It’s like you say on the much worse than average stuff , is it 3% failures or 50%?
Despite the issues I’m happier with this car than I would be with a Corolla. I have the utmost respect for Toyota and completely understand their success but there’s more to automobiles than statistical reliability.
I tend to look at it the same way you do and happen to own the disgraced 2016 VW Golf. 5 issues between 18000 and 32000 miles
A friend of mine has a 2016 Golf. He had it in for maybe three things, one of which was a coil pack. I don’t recall what the others were. He asserts it’s the best car he’s ever had.
My Jetta wagon is a 2014, with the gas 2.5, derived from the Mk 5 Jetta that came out in 06, so VW had plenty of time to cure the timing chain, the oil leak from the vac pump and the door wire harnesses that would fatigue and break before mine was built. I’m just shy of 34K on it now. The one big issue was an ominous whine from the trans (thanks a lot Aisin) that the dealer cured by replacing the trans. Otherwise, a couple loose bits of trim, a somewhat undercharged a/c and a missing clip in the left rear brake that caused a small rattle, are the total issue list.
Steve, you raise a lot of the points I was going to raise. I will say I was reading through my latest CR recently and I noticed some inconsistency in their ratings. For instance, the 2017 Mustang was all above average except for the in car electronics which was much worse than average and it got a much worse than average used car verdict. While the 2015 Prius V was all above average, with the in-car electronics being rated much worse than average and it it’s used car verdict was much better than average.
I question their methodology on their “new car” predictions, as it doesn’t seem clear how they come up with these ratings. And reliability ratings on brand new cars is not really useful for me. Not many new cars today have major issues, so all are relatively good. It doesn’t take much to skew the results when the cars surveyed are almost brand new. I want to know how they hold up in the long run.
While I have been a long time reader of CR, and I do buy there magazines, they are not the be all end all. I prefer to look at their stats for a model over the long term and see how it holds up. Cars like many Toyota’s are usually good when new and old (for the same design), suggest to me they are likely a good long term reliability. The new CR magazines cover a much shorter time period which is disappointing. Like other’s, I think sample size is an issue for non-mainstream models.
I have come to prefer True Delta since you can actually read about the specific problems cars are having. For example, when I bought our Outback, I saw there were problems with the power tailgate. So, I bought one without the power tailgate. Again, True Delta is not perfect, but I think it’s better than CR overall. I try to encourage many people to sign up, since it really is easy to participate in.
I have come to prefer True Delta since you can actually read about the specific problems cars are having.
True Delta is nice because you can read exactly what the problem is. Did the in dash video game get a bad mark because it’s slow or the owner doesn’t like the interface, or did it get a bad mark because the video game shorted out and set the car on fire?
True Delta is subject to the same small sample size issue as CR. CR says the 2013 VW Jetta Sportwagen is OK, but avoid the 2014. On True Delta, the 2013 wagon is edging toward the really sketchy end of the scale, while the 2014 is bulletproof.
Another point occurs to me that I have not yet seen made about sample size. We all know how print media has been in a downward subscriber spiral for several years. With CR basing its reports on responses from its subscribers, I wonder what the sample size looks like today compared with, say, 15 years ago.
There is also a tendency for print subscribers to be older and wealthier than average so cars that do not appeal to that demographic may be getting some really small sample sizes these days.
CR has a big digital presence and sells distal-only subscriptions. I had one for a while. it makes accessing older material much easier.
I get all my newspapers digitally too.
I used to think that I knew more than most when it came time to choose cars and shunned all things Japanese because to me they were boring appliances that still broke despite the premium price paid on a nice used one.
And up until recently, it seemed like I was onto something as I used to buy nothing but Volvos based on my positive experience with 240’s and a good 850GL. Then I bought an ’01 V70 T5 Wagon that basically rattled itself to death.
Then, after a long, trouble-free run with my ’99 Saturn SL2 (with manual) and my wife’s reliable ’09 Saturn Aura, I figured GM was worth another shot.
So when I needed a new family car a couple of years ago, I figured I’d get a bargain on a nice CPO Buick Enclave. Worst. Purchase. Ever.
It spent far more time at the dealership being serviced than it spent in my driveway. Once the CPO warranty was almost up, and the fear of non-stop repairs became very real, I traded it on a nearly-new ’15 Toyota Highlander. So far not a single issue. The peace of mind is worth the price premium to me these days.
Some strange things I noticed on the list. How did the Tacoma manage to make the avoid list, but no other Toyota truck or SUV did? Why is the 2013 Cruze not on the avoid list, but the 2012 and 2014 are? Several Fords made the list, but the Lincoln rebadges of the same cars did not?
I would be interested in knowing their testing methodology. How do they control for varying sample sizes. I’m sure the sample size of Toyota Camrys are far larger than Fiat 500s because Toyota sells far more Camrys. A small sample size might skew results. How do they determine what exactly a defect is. If somebody does not like the color of their car and the dealer refused to repaint it, would that count as a defect?
from their website:
Our latest survey of about 400,000 subscribers who own 640,000 vehicles
reveals that all-new or updated models are now more likely than older ones to have a wonky engine, a jerky transmission, or high-tech features that fail outright.
For even more information, we collected data on more than half a million vehicles with our Annual Owner Satisfaction Survey. The Owner Satisfaction Score, based on whether an owner says he or she would buy the same car again, measures whether a car lives up to expectations. Respondents also rate their cars in six categories: driving experience, comfort, value, styling, audio, and climate systems. Combined with CR’s ratings, our Owner Satisfaction Survey gives car buyers valuable guidance when they’re shopping for a vehicle.
It’s interesting to see that for 2018, Chrysler ranks 4th in owner satisfaction ahead of Honda and Toyota while Acura is last.
I wonder how many regular readers of CC are CR subscribers ? Also I wonder what vehicles CC readers that are CR Subscribers own ?
I am not a subscriber and I currently own a 2016 F150 and a 2017 Rav4.
I did a lot of research before purchase of both vehicles, just not with CR.
The owner satisfaction ratings do tend to produce some interesting results. Sporty but troublesome cars – Corvettes, Minis – are often wildly popular with their owners.
If you think about it makes perfect (if illogical) sense – If you have, for example, a VW that you purchased thinking that you’ll like it but understanding that it may have a few issues and then it does have those issues, you ended up with exactly what you expected.
Conversely, if you purchased a Toyota thinking that it’ll be perfect and never need anything, the slightest little thing that wouldn’t bother you at all on the VW will take a much greater significance.
2013 MB E350 BlueTec and a 2012 500 Abarth. Ditto on research. I bought the Fiat, 1) because my experience with my first new car – a ’74 X1/9 – was very good and I remember CR was one of the few negative reviews of that car. I was tickled to be able to finally buy another new Fiat in the USA and, 2) the name Abarth. And as for the MB, I bought it for my wife.
Every Toyota pickup and SUV from the last 15 or so years should be on this list if you live where road salt is used…
You are assuming Consumer Reports’ methodology is flawless. You’re not alone in that assumption, but it’s still an assumption, and there are solid reasons for doubt. I’m not a statistician (and I don’t even play one on TV), but I did take a couple of well-taught stats courses in university, and that educated-layman background makes me nod my head “yes” when I read critical analysis of CR’s car-reliability methodology by those who do have the expertise to know what they’re talking about. That’s number one.
Number two, outside of the subject of car reliability I am (painfully) aware of deficiencies and flaws in CR’s methodology in areas where I do have sufficient expertise to detect and assess their substance and significance.
Many people regard CR’s every word as gospel-level Truth. That doesn’t make it so, any more than believing the Bible is the inerrant word of god makes that the case. Many people think CR’s refusal to run advertising (for products and services other than their own) guarantees accuracy and veracity. It does not; that is a non-sequitur. All it does is foreclose one (far from the only) source of bias.
You say CR’s avoid-it list tracks well with an index of the relationship between automakers and their suppliers. Maybe it does in some cases—certainly not in all; FCA’s score on that index is better in 2012 than in 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, yet only the 2012 Jeep Wrangler is on CR’s avoid-it list. That’s a vehicle substantially identical across its 11-year run, which doesn’t track at all between the CR list and the automaker/supplier marital-bliss index. And that’s just one example I noticed with a quick look; more thorough scrutiny might well turn up more.
I’m not saying you’re wrong (you probably aren’t) or that the factors you describe aren’t real (they probably are). But I don’t think they’re the whole picture. I would be mildly interested to see how CR’s list tracks with other sources of vehicle-reliability data.
You might want to read this and this (and take a look at the 2nd blue box in this link—did you know CR’s legal beagles regard reporting on their findings as violating their copyright?).
the supplier issue is very interesting. i suspect there is a lot to that.
one thing that caught my eye recently was a youtube video where tavarish took the valve cover off his wife’s 180k mile second hand hyundai elantra. there was almost zero wear in evidence and not a drop of sludge anywhere. likewise, there were no fluid leaks anywhere. tavarish is an enthusiatic amateur who “wrenches everyday” on his menagerie of second hand exotic cars. he was dumbfounded by the elantra. in his experience, any vw or bmw with with more than 80k miles is leaking fluid somewhere.
here’s the link: https://youtu.be/eVyFUbPcPsI
I made the mistake of buying that issue while at the supermarket on Saturday. After reading it cover to cover, I was reminded why I swore off buying or subscribing to CR. Other than Toyota, they’ve never reflected my car ownership experiences. Advising me that Toyotas are reliable is no feat. They recommended SONY televisions for years that were nothing but trouble. Recommendations on other appliances fared no better.
The list of items with which I had that experience (CR says a brand/model is awesome but I have nothing but trouble with it or vice versa) grew way too long by the early ’90s: cars, answering machines, washing machines, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners, on and on and on. Came to find out the stages of enlightenment on this point mirror the stages of grief:
1. Denial: “Any maker can foul up from time to time. I must have got a different model than they tested. The maker must have cheapened it after the CR test came out. I must be imagining these problems. They probably all do that.”
2. Anger: “Dammit, just my bad luck to get a lemon!”
3. Bargaining: “The problem must be on my end, or it was a random fluke. I’ll buy another one, then I’ll have a good experience with it just like CR says. Okeh?”
4. Depression: “Geeze, if even the best [car, dishwasher, whatever] as proven by CR’s unbiased and flawless tests breaks down and fails so often, society really has gone to hell in a handbasket.”
5. Acceptance: “Gosh, ever since I stopped just swallowing CR’s recommendations as gospel truth, my luck has been consistently better.”
And I prefer TrueDelta.
The Supplier Happiness Ratio long-term trend at GM looks very encouraging.
Another thing to chew on, the J D Power ratings.
Here’s the 2017 initial quality study by brand. The best in the US last year was Kia, with 72 problems reported per 100 cars. The worst was Fiat, with 163 problems per 100 cars. So Fiats have twice as many problems as Kias, but it’s still only 1 or 2 problems per car.
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2017-us-initial-quality-study-iqs
Oh ugh, J D Power and their parade of so many bogus “ratings” that everyone’s a winner sooner or later. Best initial quality! Most appealing! (‘scuze me, WTF?) Dependability! IMO it’s a fœtid, steaming pile of the same meaningless bilge that used to(?) fill the pages of the buff books in the ’70s when their awards were all but openly for sale.
Interesting. I remember looking on True Delta stats on my ’04 Nissan Titan, and as I recall it rated quite highly. Now, I don’t find any listing or stats at all for Titan/Armada, for some reason.
I remember the Titan was recommended in the first CR reports, based on older Nissan truck reports. Later as 1st year owners reported problems, this was changed to not recommended. Later I noticed CR changed new model’s to “too new to assess” or something along those lines. My only actual problem (so far) was a stuck CD and the radio (made in China) was changed (made in Mexico 2005 design) under warranty and I got the CD in the mail a few weeks later. There were lots of recalls, (brake rotors, IPDM relay, rear door wire harness, rear seatbelts, condenser fan motor (mine was OK), had them all done.
Consumer Reports has an agenda which is reform of automobile design to their vision.
Notice how CR immediately puts out a new evaluation when someone else discovers a problem in a car they have given high ratings. Montero tippiness, Toyota pedals, Explorer tire pressures, Tesla issues, etc.
Reliability tests are misleading because they cover mileages at which the differences between cars are less significant. Start the tests at 150,000 miles and run them out to 250.000 and the differences will become more apparent. Some of the leaders will fall down in the ratings.