I never found JD Powers to be that accurate. Initial quality doesn’t equate to long term reliability (8+ years)
2 Likes
Always loved Hudsons, too bad the brand disappeared before I got around to buying one,. My Father and uncle both drove Hudsons.
@MikeInNH The annual auto issue from CR just came in the mail today and there were quite a few models that CR didn’t have enough data to make a reliability rating. One model that surprised me was that the 2009 Toyota 4RUNNER did not have enough response from its subscribers for a reliability rating. However, enough CR subscribers owned Teslas that CR did produce a reliability rating. To me, this indicates that CR subscribers may be more affluent than the population as a whole and CR subscribers may not be representative of the population of automobile drivers as a whole.
1 Like
I agree the Initial Quality is rather useless; it reflects mostly assembly quality. British cars of the 50s would have had good initial quality before they fell apart.
Realizing this, they went to 3 year (in their term Long Term) satisfaction, which is a little more realistic. It still does not reflect LONGEVITY which is more an 8 year issue in this day and age…
@MikeInNH, JD Power has an initial quality survey and a long-term survey. IIRC, the long term survey is conducted 5 years after the model year. IMO, they measure different things.
One of the big advantages of the CR reliability survey is that the data is available far earlier than the JD Power data and other survey data. Waiting for 5 years to get reliability data is too long to make decisions on buying a new car. I’m starting to look for a new one and have narrowed the field using reliability data and professional driving reports for midsize and large sedans. By the time I get over sticker shock and test drive a few more cars, it should be the end of the model year. I might get a good deal at that time.
Good observation! The TrueDelta I partake I gives long and short term and does it on a quarterly basis. Even better than CR.
I don’t put all this emphasis on reliability. I shop for value concerning comfort and fun. Practically all cars made within the past few decades are plenty reliable for me, not a hill of beans difference.
I’ll tell you, I have seen quite a few folks mention noisy cars from Honda and Toyota, for example, on this site over the years. So what if they have a perceived minute reliability advantage, I wouldn’t have one.
My GM cars are quiet, ride well, are easy to drive, handle well, have comfortable seating and are fun to drive and deliver pride in ownership. They last virtually forever!
Sound level (noise) or lack of it is something some folks don’t weigh enough or notice very much on a test drive or in a car survey. However, on a road trip I find nothing more stressful and fatiguing as road/wind noise that might not seem bad on a short ride and not easily noticed, but eats on occupants.
My cars come with plenty of sound absorbing insulation from the factory, as well as lots of seals to eliminate wind noise. I occasionally ride in others’ cars that are noisy and that’s when I appreciate quiet interiors
I have no reliability issues and truly enjoy the comfort and library quiet peace. I guess it’s a case of whatever floats your boat.
CSA
Did they play the forklifts . . . ?
Are you going to vote for candidate Smith (A) or candidate Jones (B) ?
Have you had any major engine problems, yes (A) or no (B) ?
One is opinion and one is not?
Maybe you didn’t realize, but the President is elected through the Electoral College. NOT the populist vote.
Figuring out the Electoral college vote is damn near impossible. But figuring the populist vote isn’t. And that’s exactly what the survey’s did. They were well within the margin of statistical error. One statistician calculated that it’s mathematically possible to win the populist vote by as high as 20% and still loose the Presidential election. Trump lost the populist vote by the widest margin to then win the electoral college.
Mike, I understand popular vote/electoral college vote.
I was referring to the fact that all the network news shows I watched on TV (I only get 7 channels) and most of the popular news publications I read used survey results to predict that Mrs. Clinton would carry enough popular and electoral votes to become the president, some with certainty!
To tie this in with the car discussion about choosing winners using survey results comes with some risk.
Again, I say,
"The most recent historical epic failure of survey results occurred when most surveys revealed that Mrs. Clinton would win the presidential election going away, some even predicted it as a landslide."
And again I say, be careful using surveys as always being reliable, even when selecting a vehicle.
CSA
And that would be an opinion…NOT a survey. The election surveys all had the margin between the candidates to be about 3%. Just because someone made a prediction not based on the statistics doesn’t mean the statistics are inaccurate. Again that was for the populist vote. Predicting the electoral collage is near impossible to predict. So I stand by my statement…apples to snow-plows. Not the same survey at all.
1 Like
Back in 1936, a survey predicted Alf Landon would defeat Franklin Roosevelt for President of the United States in a landside victory. It didn’t happen. The reason was that the survey was conducted by telephone. At the time, the U.S. was still in a depression and many people could not afford a telephone. Also, the telephone service hadn’t been extended to many rural areas. Landon would have won if only those people with telephones been allowed to vote.
I have a similar problem with Consumer Reports surveys. CR surveys its subscribers.These subscribers may have different opinions than the rest of the population. As I stated in another post, CR had enough subscribers who own a Tesla to compile frequency of repair data. On the other hand, there weren’t enough subscribers who owned 2009 Toyota 4RUNNERs to have sufficient data to make a frequency of repair evaluation. Now I would bet that there are more owners of 2009 4RUNNERs than Teslas. The results of.the CR survey may or may not be reflect the population as a whole.
Some years back, I owned a Ford Maverick. It had a much worse repair record than the Mercury Comet which was the same car with a different nameplate. When I wrote to CR about this discrepancy, the answer I received was “That’s the way the data came out”. The.logical question is “Why did the data come out this way?”. With a little digging, I found the average age of the Comet owner was about 7 years above that of the Maverick owner. Younger drivers probably drive their cars harder and may not do the maintenance as dilligently as older drivers.
1 Like
Those are reasonable concerns, but the fact that CR survey results track with the other major surveys leads me to trust the CR results.
And having an election survey be off a few percent, resulting in a different winner, is different than counting how many readers have problems. Not a ‘yes/no’ type of thing. I do agree that detailed interpretation of the CR results is not worth it. But on a make to make comparison? I think there are plenty enough data for that.
They were the Rust-Eze owners (the medicated bumper ointment company that sponsored Lightning McQueen)
When GM built cookie cutter full size cars with only badges and trim different the least reliable was Pontiac, the best was Buick with Chevy and Olds in between.
After some digging I found that Buick had old and conservative buyers, Chevy was the bread and butter car but Pontiac sold ATTITUDE!!! The ads reflected a tough hombre who did not take flack from anyone and drove accordingly!
With the weak drivetrains in those days it stands to reason that Pontiacs did not fare well. The plodding Buick driver did OK.
1 Like
I believe your statement is as concise and accurate as CR should be. But CR often ignores the obvious while highlighting the inconsequential. Several brands of automobiles have a large, very loyal customer base that minimizes problems while lauding the performance or luxury or whatever of their cars and CR passes on subjective opinion as objective fact.
Which brands? You know this how?
I subscribed to CR years ago and often read automobile reviews and I specifically recall the magazine’s heavy support of Toyota and a seemingly blanket condemnation of domestic brands. Their positive review of the Toyota pickup in the face of a plague of head gaslet failures as compared to their lack of anything positive to say about GM pickups was quite obvious. And for years the magazine seemed to find every opportunity to pump Subarus despite several common problems of that brand.
Even though my memory is fading I do seem to recall posting several comments on the Car Talk forum in the early 90s voicing my opinion that the 3.8L GM engine/drive train seemed to be world class despite CR’s poor opinion.
1 Like
I remember that from the late 1990s, too. My Buick Regal was quite reliable, and the individual test breakdown in CR showed all half or full red dots (above average to superior). When it came to the final rating, though, the Regal got a mediocre grade. I followed that specific issue for several years and never understood how the sum of the individual ratings never translated into a superior rating for the car.