Consumer Reports recently released its annual reliability survey. As always, newly introduced models performed poorly while older vehicles did well. There were some exceptions to that rule though. Some recent debuts continue to vex the automakers that produce them. Other manufacturers managed to launch new vehicles without any hitches. In any event, the publication’s survey definitely had some surprises worth talking about.
Generally speaking, full size pickup trucks scored poorly on the survey. And it wasn’t just American automakers that produced problematic vehicles. But let’s talk about the Big Three’s truck showing first. The Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado 1500, and Ram 1500 all scored below average. While the Chevy and Ram are brand new models, the F-150 is at the tail end of its current run, having been introduced in 2015. Ford’s full-size is currently dealing with issues related to the transmission, engine, body, and four-wheel drive system. Chevy and Ram trucks experienced problems with their entertainment systems. Additionally, the Ram had braking issues and the Chevy’s driveshaft suffered from excessive vibration.
You can single out pretty much any truck in the full-size segment and say basically the same things about them. Reliability is average at best across the spectrum, but owner satisfaction is high and most people would buy the same truck again if given the chance. The only exception is the Toyota Tundra, which has above average reliability. Mid-size trucks fared similarly. The Honda Ridgeline and Ford Ranger posted average and better than average reliability, respectively. The Tacoma finally reached average in the rankings after several years on the market. Everything else scored below average.
All automakers suffer from first year quality woes, with minor exceptions. Redesigned models like the Rav4 and Mazda 3 dropped to average reliability. Same goes for the new Santa Fe. Honda’s new models haven’t fared nearly as well. Out of the thirty automakers evaluated, Acura is third from last, with the new RDX doing extremely poorly. Honda’s Passport started its first year with well below average reliability despite almost literally being a Pilot with some of its rear end chopped off. What’s the deal? HVAC problems plague the new crossover for some reason.
Notably, the 2019 Nissan Altima and 2019 Porsche Cayenne offered above average reliability despite both being brand new. That Nissan succeeded in properly launching the Altima is a bit of a surprise, as the company simultaneously introduced all-wheel drive and a variable compression engine into the lineup for the first time ever. Porsche has been in the top five most reliable brands for quite some time, so their performance was pretty much expected.
And of course there’s the models that perpetually suffer from maladies. The Atlas and Tiguan suffer from numerous issues despite being on the market for well over a year. The Volvo XC90 and S90 rated below average, with the former having brake issues, among other things. Volvo’s smaller cars were average or better though. Additionally, the Honda Odyssey still suffers from issues with its sliding doors and infotainment system.
Overall, the 2019 report pretty much reaffirms the common assumption that automakers need time to suss out the bugs in their newer models. Sometimes that extends beyond a single model year. The Japanese and Koreans continue to perform well while American and European companies remain uneven at best. Tesla earned average ratings for the Model 3 and Model S. The Model X continues to be a disaster for the company because of the falcon wing doors.
Next year’s report will most likely feature some juicy tidbits, like how some newly introduced three-rows performed in their first year. We’ll also see if Ford launched the 2020 Escape and Corsair without any hitches and if they were able to overcome their initial issues with the 2020 Explorer and Aviator.
2019 Most Reliable Brands:
1. Lexus
2. Mazda
3. Toyota
4. Porsche
2019 Least Reliable Brands:
27. Volkswagen
28. Acura
29. Alfa Romeo
30. Cadillac
Related Reading:
Looking For A Used Car? Consumer Reports Recommends Shoppers Stay Away From 108 Models
Although sometimes a little on the dull side; Toyota appears to have made the most reliable, trouble-free cars for ….decades?
Sometimes?
Can’t be as exciting as a floppy Crown Vic with every model you make, or you’ll get a reputation.
Toyota isn’t perfect but generally their models have at least above average reliability (also Lexus).
I recall the recent Toyota rusty frame recall where Toyota would re-frame the impacted trucks and SUVs! I can’t imagine the Big 3 doing that (it would probably also mean many more vehicles too).
We received a recall for the dash cracking on our Solara, but for our car the dash in perfect condition so it does not need to be replaced. Again, can’t remember any automaker doing that – replacing a dash on an older car is a pain, can’t be easier with new cars!
“Ford’s full-size is currently dealing with issues related to the transmission, engine, body, and four-wheel drive system.”
Yeah, but what about the important parts?
—-
I respect what CR is doing in the general sense–there’s very little information on vehicle reliability for the general public to access. However, CR irritates me with the specifics of their approach.
First, in order to pay the bills, the useful data is kept behind a paywall while their publicly viewable annual reliability survey is a boiled-down and qualitative summary that serves at best as a starting point in researching reliability of a particular model. This is understandable, but it really limits the utility of these news releases.
Second, even if you pony up for a subscription to access the data for each make & model over the last 10 years, divided out by specific problem area (engine, transmission, electronics, body integrity, etc), you are only given relative problem rates, not absolute. This is important, because if there is little spread in the absolute problem rate then the differences between the black dot of death and red dot of happiness isn’t meaningful. That’s a shame, because their separation of problem rate by each vehicle system for a full decade is the right approach and could be so much more useful to car buyers.
Third, this JD Power-aping 3 year metric isn’t as meaningful for me because I tend to keep my vehicles longer. So, while it may be of some use in exposing vehicles with teething issues (great info for lessees), it may give the erroneous impression of long-term reliability. The Altima is an example–the CVTs on the 2007-2012 generation were failing after the first three years, so it received great marks for the first 4 or 5 years of its run.
You mean like the infotainment system? Apparently not that good either:
Well that does it, then. Powertrain problems I can live with, but I’ll be damned if I can’t pair my phone properly waiting for the tow truck to arrive.
So, Stable Mabel can’t pair her iPhone and rates it low… this is too broad a category imho.
I take Consumer Reports reliability surveys with a grain of salt.
I liked CR’s dry, rather sterile perspective on cars in the late 70s and early 80s, when I was a teenager. I’d read the road test and of course the Annual Auto Issue, with the circles. CR was very objective. Not always logical–they rated a Toyota Corolla SR5 better than a BMW 320i (I am not making this up, 1979 or 1978), but they explained it. Back then, they warned buyers about power windows and locks and repairs. They were looking out for the Consumer.
Our family 75 Pontiac Ventura was rated below average. Not sure what the average was, but as I recall, the car had only one repair during it’s 9 years in my family.
Then, I’ve noticed that for some carmakers, they will give them a pass on a new model. THey used to not do that–they’d say “no data’
As to the data, itself, how is it collected? How good the the participants? WHO are they? The subscribers?
Well, I subscribed for 1 or 2 years. During that time, I did not get ONE survey. The car I had did not have any repairs–the window switch looked worn after 3 years, and the dealer replaced it, no charge. That’s it. And the car in question? A ‘lowly’ Cobalt (well, mine was not lowly, it was a Supercharged SS, great driving car). And CR had it as ‘lower than average’.
So CR restates the general obvious–Toyota/Lexus is more reliable than average, overall. True. Unless you were among the unlucky few with the rusty leaf spring frame shackles, or the sludge V6 engines in the late 90s.
Finally, if you read today’s CR road tests, they try to be like Car and Driver. A lot of fluff. Perhaps because cars are so competent, and it’s hard to justify a 3-series over a Camry. It would have been hard for CR 40 years ago, when they rated a 77 Caprice as the best car, equivalent to a big Benz. So now they use fluffy phrases. Data takes time. Data costs money.
There is less data. Admittedly, the difference is much smaller now than 30 years ago from Toyota to Chevy to Hyundai, but still.
It’s a different world now. CR wants to ‘improve society’. CR reflects the values of academics in New England, it seems. It wants a ‘cleaner’ society, ‘safer’ cars, things that make cars more expensive for flyover America, but does not want to offend the suburbanites who read it, by asking, do you really need 3000 SF?
Caveat emptor
I learned to be skeptical of the CR reliability reports in the 80s, when the Mazda MX-6 and Ford Probe were both assembled at the Flat Rock plant, on the same platform, with the same drivetrain, but received wildly different ratings. The Mazda was rated “better than average”, while the Ford was “worse than average”, with particular differences in the engine and transmission, despite these parts being identical between the models. I wondered whether there was some difference in psychology between Mazda and Ford owners, leading the Mazda buyers to report everything was perfect, while the Ford buyers reported every little glitch they found. After a couple of years, CR seemed to average out the responses, much as they seemed to do on other badge-engineered models, and the Mazda and Ford received similar ratings for identical parts systems.
That’s a great example Don K! I can’t recall specifics now, but I noticed similar inconsistencies. Maybe Pontiac Vibe vs Toyota Matrix.
Or maybe, with the Probe/MX-6, the Ford dealers were worse?
CR rated the 2013-16 Buick Regal highly. That further reinforced my decision to buy a certified used one.
It’s not lemon–at least not a total lemon, but it’s not a paragon of reliability by any means. Rear wheel bearings at under 40k? ALL four shocks leaking by 50k.
At the same time, I still will consult CR. It think it is valuable, yes–but it’s not the absolute authority.
There is a lot of good information out there–including here at CC! Also a lot of misinformation, so it’s up to us to try to discern the good from bad
This report is useless.
Consumer Reports asks rookie questions that don’t do reveal anything about a model’s quality. They generate fodder to sell Consumer Reports. They generate conversations that gives CR exposure.
All CR does is reveal an owner’s prejudices towards their preferred brands. It is little more than church gossip.
They start off with a skewed, self-selected demographic base. You have to be a Consumer Reports reader. Then you have to respond to their surveys. Then they compile that data. This information doesn’t reflect much beyond what this group of self-selected folks with something to say about their rides, says about their rides.
There is no independent research. There is no reaching beyond their little consumer base. This is no Bible. It is all self reported anecdotes. CR puts spit and polish on it to make it look like it means more than it does.
Baloney.
By your logic then, owners of the best-selling vehicle in America are making up powertrain and driveline problems simply to “have something to say about their ride” because they are biased *towards* their “preferred brand”, which in the face of the 80% loyalty to the F150 is…the F150 in which they’ve reported problems?
CR has some serious methodological shortcomings, but your rant makes absolutely no sense.
+1
Anytime CR’s reliability ratings are brought up in a post, there will inevitably be rants like this. I suspect it’s politically based, ultimately, as CR by its nature is seen as suspect because of its pro-consumer advocacy.
It is a report based on a survey of subscribers of CR, similar to a fancy Drudge Report poll.
Yes, and that does leave the possibility of selection bias since it is indeed not a fully random sampling of a population. My questions to you are then:
Do you know what that bias is?
How consequential it is that bias?
What sources and information are you using to determine that?
Recognizing shortcomings and potential problems in their methods is one thing. Specific accusations about similarities to a Drudge Report poll are another and would benefit from supporting data
You are still falling into that same trap.
CR has its own demographics.
So you can make your own conclusions from there.
Drudge has its own demographics.
So you can make your own conclusion from there.
What you are doing is putting more value on CR’s demographics regarding auto ownership because you more closely identify with those demographics.
A vast majority of auto buyers don’t do that.
That is why there is that disconnect between CR results, and sales results.
CR wants to be an auto authority, but it only convinces its own subscribers of its authority. If you are a believer, you believe.
I’m not a believer.
Good grief, what trap?
I ask you for some source of information (a similar car reliability database, a published reported chronicling CR’s biases, *anything*) that supports your specific stated accusations, and the response is a thicker web of grassy-knoll-deep-state-red-pill/blue-pill nonsense than before.
What demographic, exactly, is CR, and how does that skew their results so they are non-representative?
What demographic, exactly, am I? The kind who finds quantitative data on vehicle reliability useful but is still skeptical of CR methods and therefore doesn’t have subscription and only uses their results very selectively? Guilty as charged, I guess.
If you like Ford or Chevy or Toyota because they are familiar or have the performance specs you want or because Pops drove Fords so I’m a Ford Man, then CR’s reliability information is irrelevant to you whether it is valid or not. The sense I’m getting from you here is that you’ve flipped that logic: CR’s information is not valid because it is not relevant to your priorities…or goes against your brand preference.
At least CR still refuses to accept advertising. I’m much more inclined to trust their information than sources that depend on ad revenue from the manufacturers they review.
As soon as I saw CR I knew there was going to be fireworks. Seen these fireworks for decades. Suffice it to say the CR demographics leans heavily towards college educated and professional people. It doesn’t lean towards high school educated or the good ol’ boy who drives and loves their truck. I get their surveys every year but many times don’t return it as I am not a consumer but rather a minimalist. I rarely buy anything new if I can get a older used American made item for a really good price and I usually do. Gotta love my 1970s GE iron and 1950s Toastmaster.
Ford has been having 4×4 problems since at least 2004 thanks to their vacuum actuated locking hubs, which are practically guaranteed to fail before hitting 100,000 miles. Their door locks also have issues with freezing despite the truck being on the market for 5 years. There’s nothing wrong with the 10 speed transmission that competent programming couldn’t fix, yet they don’t. And they have yet to produce a reliable variable valve timing system.
It’s one thing to have issues…it’s quite another not to fix them. I don’t get it, I thought those days were over. It’s why I bought a new truck this time, I don’t trust any of them to last much more than 8-10 years.
What amazes me is that 80% of F-150 buyers would buy a Ford again despite their very public recent quality issues, only 1% below the “above average” quality Toyota. How is this possible?
Tribalism is very powerful, and seemingly more so than ever these days.
That has always existed. We have many auto buyers loyal to specific brands based upon dozens of reasons. Loyalty is a good thing. Measure that, CR!
I remember one of the neighbor kids I used to play with once asked me if my family was Ford People or Chevy People, as if those were the only two tribes that existed. At the time my family owned a Plymouth and a Toyota. His family appeared to be fiercely loyal to Ford. I don’t think I ever saw a non-Ford vehicle in their driveway, including vehicles belonging to extended family that frequently visited them.
I don’t think an F150 buyer cares that a Focus has transmission issues. Brand loyalty =/= model loyalty
Right on, Paul.
“Real World” correct, Paul!
Reliability is not the be-all-end-all for most truck buyers. Performance, economy, value and comfort are all important and that is where the Tundra lags badly.
Phil, keep in mind that the Tundra is and has been production-constrained from day one. Until this year, the Tundra and Tacoma shared one plant in Texas, and Toyota has favored Tacoma production because it’s by far the sales leader in its class and it wasn’t going to do anything to impact that negatively.
The Tundra has the best resale value of all ful-sized pickups, and a very devoted and loyal following, and has had that for quite some years. But Toyota has never tried to take on the Big Three head on with it. It would take a much more massive effort, including HD versions and such.
Toyota is quite content to sell the Tundra at fairly modest volumes at quite high average selling price, and make money off it.
The repeated story that the Tundra failed to make serious inroads against the Big 3 because it’s an inferior product is not really the full story by a long shot.
And of course a new Tundra is on the way. And with tacomas now being built in Mexico, there will be potentially higher volumes of Tundras, if Toyota chooses to go that route.
Yes, I agree they are production constrained, which is why they have never discounted much. And that lack of discounting is why resale values can be deceiving. I’m very pleased with the depreciation on my F-150 so far, it’s been spectacular due to how many incentives I got.
The current Tundra was competitive when it came out, but that was 12 years ago. Its payload is quite poor, it’s thirsty, it rides rather crudely, it fares poorly in the new crash tests, and many modern conveniences are simply not available. It looks and feels its age. It is mainly selling due to its reputation for reliability in my opinion…which was well earned.
It’s still making Toyota money of course, but to loop back on point I think these factors explain why it doesn’t garner much more owner loyalty in this survey than the F-150. More so than tribalism, anyway. I’d argue there’s a lot less truck loyalty now than when I was in high school, and Ram is capitalizing on that.
What should amaze you is that CR completely fails to measure whatever it is that makes 80% of F-150 buyers loyal. CR is obviously missing something big.
Not true at all. They have four categories for owner satisfaction: Driving experience, comfort, value, and styling. The F-150 rated high in everything except value.
Consumer Reports doesn’t view its job as figuring out why people buy various vehicles, or remain loyal to certain brands, despite dubious reliability records. It simply offers information on the vehicle’s performance and comfort, as measured by its tests, and its projected reliability, based on this survey.
The magazine has tested the F-150 and other full-size pickups. If I recall correctly, the Ford has performed well in the road test.
Consumer Reports merely puts the information out there for the public. The buying public is free to do whatever it wants with said information. That includes buying F-150s because the performance level and styling outweigh concerns over possible problems down the pike.
As others have mentioned I don’t think the public quality issues with the PowerSh!t transmission or the Explorer/Aviator really concern the F150 buyer that much.
The bigger thing that it doesn’t capture is what the 19-23% are planning on buying instead of another of the same. Is the F-150 buyer planning on buying a Sliverado next time or have they decided that a Ranger is enough truck for them or are they giving up pickups all together and want a SUV instead.
The other question is what they had before, maybe they are planning on buying another F-150 because they are happier with it than they were with their previous brand.
What ever the exact reasons clearly full size truck buyers have some of the highest brand loyalty of any segment and the difference between the brands isn’t that significant.
“Reliability is average at best across the spectrum, but owner satisfaction is high and most people would buy the same truck again if given the chance.”
Thank you Sir, may I have another…?
How did Honda’s premium brand make the least reliable list, below even perennial bottom feeder VW and all the American brands except Cadillac.
This is strange since most Acuras are rebadged Hondas. How on earth is Lincoln more reliable than Acura given Ford’s recent issues?
I looked up a short review of the RDX, they liked it except for the infotainment. I suspect that is why it and probably many of the other cars got poor reliability ratings. https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/acura/rdx
Ah, the magic of statistics.
It’s not just the question, it’s who you ask.
Ask some nice person, and they will probably say that the car was great overall, with just an issue with syncing their phone.
Ask someone critical, and they will tell you every incident that has annoyed them about a car that they paid good money for and yet it had problems, Nothing that required a trip to the dealer, but problems.
Maybe the Acura owners had crap cars, and the Lincoln owners all were lucky. Maybe the Lincoln owners just don’t consider things problems and the Acura owners do.
I agree with that.
Ask me and I’ll tell you how unreliable my 99 Silverado was, but my 2007 Audi A3 was. I’m probably the only one who would say that.
JFrank, you can get around that somewhat by going to your public library, finding the annual auto issue, and looking at the charts of relative problem frequency for each vehicle system for the make/model/year you are interested in. You can then weed out stuff you may not care about (infotainment, categories more prone to superficial annoyances) and focus on categories like the drivetrain. Doesn’t get you around the problem of relative rate =/= absolute rate.
Acura has a different infotainment system and the TLX has a problematic dual clutch transmission. They’re a bit more than fancy Hondas, which is probably why they haven’t performed well.
And Lincoln didn’t use Ford’s dual clutch transmission in any of their products, which is most likely why they’re higher on the list.
A lot of Ford’s problems have stemmed from the Powershift debacle in the Focus and Fiesta. No Lincoln models have used that transmission.
Early Acura MDXs and TLXs had troubles with the shifting of their automatic transmission, and the RDX has had problems with squeaky front brakes and the infotainment systems.
Acura has corrected the problem with the automatic transmissions, and has released a software update and new brake pads that appear to cure the RDX’s big problems (judging by the reaction of RDX owners on the Facebook group). But these problems were around long enough to ding the brand in this type of survey.
The most recent problems with the Aviator are too recent to make an impact on the results of this survey.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
(I have no strong opinion on any of this but I like that saying.)
I prefer this one.
“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.”
Bottom line for me is that you have to drill down to what specific items are or are not pertinent/important. Infotainment systems are very important to many buyers today.
Things like power operated doors have tended to have problems and I prefer to buy lower trim models without them.
Having experienced a few bad automatic transmissions in the family from Ford and Honda, I pay special attention to reported transmission problems.
GM released the Hydramatic in 1940. Putting aside the recent Powershift idiocy – clearly the result of a poor engineering decision made against known practice – why is it still far too common for major auto transmission issues to still be a thing 79 years on? Engines practically don’t fail any more, vast majority of electrical stuff doesn’t either, so why so for such a mature technology?
Because they don’t try to redesign the combustion cycle every time, unlike all the CVTs, DCTs, semi-automatics, etc. coming up, and the meteoric push for more speeds.
For whatever this is worth: In my 30 years employed by everyone’s favorite Uncle, usually in an industrial job location, the Toyota trucks (Hilux, T-1000, Tundra, Tacoma) all received excellent “owner reports” from the guys (and gals) I worked with.
In the early 1980’s a Toyota was the exception in the Ford-Chevy-Dodge dominated parking lot. As the years passed, their numbers increased greatly.
I can recall only one dissenting vote; from a lifelong “Ford Fanatic” who’s wife talked him into buying the Tundra.
This is a huge win for Alfa Romeo because they finally sold enough cars to be included and more importantly for not coming in last.