Some problems arise from trying to do too much with what you have. For example, it upset a lot of customers when American brands would shoe horn components into existing brands, creating problems all along. This was especially true i thought when America was first introduced to compact muscle cars. Toyota on the other hand would stay with something that worked forever until a model makeover was in line. It frustrates Corolla owners sitting on 4 speed autos for years waiting for the car to grow into something else, but they did always work. On the other extreme, anything that tickled your fancy would suddenly appear in European models, along with all the teething problems.
Americans grew used to changes every few years and began to demand it. The Detroit 3 had to do it to maintain market share. It’s much easier to do something entirely different, like maintain the same models and lineup for many years and save a lot of money when you have very little market share. Companies like Toyota found a small market for a quality car that was a bargain. More and more people decided that was a good idea, and look what it got them.
The worst car,is the ragged out lemon.Cars are so good now,its really not a major issue-Kevin
This I never pay attention to. Someone can’t figure out the radio presets and it’s a problem. I don’t trust lists that vary so much year to year. I also don’t like the way Consumer Reports does their manufacturer ratings. They vary wildy from year to year because they don’t include new models for a year. Which is true of their recommendations, too, where it makes sense, but it makes the company ratings worthless. A company redesigns their worst model and that year they zoom up the ratings and get a gold star from CR for improving so much. The next year the redesigned car, just as much of a dog as the old one, drags the rating back down. The company did not magically improve for one year.
What I always find amusing about ratings is that for example, a certain car model may be claimed to be mechanically trouble prone and yet a pickup with the same running gear, brakes, suspension, and steering components may be praised. Or vice-versa.
Yeah, I’ve read Motor Age, but not regularly
I regularly read Autoinc and Motor magazines. I really like Motor magazine, but some of Mike Dale and Mark Warren’s columns nearly leave my head spinning! I understand all the stuff, but it’s definitely not easy reading. Hard core stuff . . .
It bothers me that CR always goes by what its readers report, even when its nonsense. For years the Versa hatch was praised and the sedan panned because its reliability was much worse. They were made in the same factory and were mechanically identical. Did the sedan’s trunk hinges fail that often? It was clearly the result of a tiny sample size (for the very rare sedan, probably), but CR printed this fluke as a significant fact. Silly. Plenty of other cases, too, like what you are talking about.
There are definitely small sample variations, but overall, nothing is more reliable then the owner’s opinion. I just don’t see the contradictions over time from CR that some of you are raving about. Maybe I’m getting differnt issues then some of you. ;=) If the sample size is too small, it is omitted. Buick at one time, wanted more autonomy during assembly of their parts which were often exactly the same as the rest used by GM. They showed a significant difference in reliability, both long and short term. So yes, two vehicles can share the same parts and have different reliability ratings just like two people using the same paint can have different results when they paint their houses.
@MarkM
It bothers you that CR uses what 'it’s reader’s report ? I think that’s the whole idea ! You’re not relying on “for profits” to decieve the consumer. Do we feel that readers somehow can’t answer the questions like; “did you have any repair work done on your transmission in the past year ?” ? Every product evaluation is done within the last year and does not require “long term memory”. If it did, my cars “would never need repair” I’m so bad.
Overall, I just don’t see " plenty of cases". I do see plenty of cases of distorted views from testing and ratings from the factory itself and “for profits” who accept advertising dollars from the same makers.
When CR does their own testing and their ratings appear to vary from one tested item of the same product from year to year, it’s because they are compared to the rest oy the market. When the competition improves and a product doesn’t, it is noted and the CR down rates models in their own rests because of this. Otherwise, they are consistent in their reviews. One thing I have seen over the years as a direct result of CR, is that if anything, reviews from Motor Trend etc. have becom more consistent in their elvauations and less bias then before.
What bothers me is that CR reports survey results as facts. They aren’t. Sometimes they make no sense at all. I know they supposedly exclude models they have few results for, but a few years ago a Versa sedan and a Versa hatchback were exactly the same except for the trunk (this was before the sedan was redesigned). I have no idea why the sedan’s reported reliability was so much worse, but I’m sure it wasn’t anything but a statistical blip, probably caused by the rarity of the sedan, yet for a few years CR praised the hatch and condemned the sedan as unreliable. I suspect the reality was in between (they were to steps apart).
I’ve seen many other equally foolish examples that could more easily be explained by varying user expectations than by actual product differences. Cars made side by side using the same parts are unlikely to vary much. Appliances that differ only in brand name likewise.
BTW, I’d like to note that I’ve been a CR subscriber for many years. I strongly support their goals. I just think they make better advocates than statisticians. They have made it their policy that their readers are never wrong, yet surveys are just surveys. They are never perfect. CR has also been caught repeatedly using testing methods that were nonsensical. A few years ago they finally even admitted that they were screwing up too often and promised to get more industry input in the design of their tests. You could have heard my cheering across the city. Finally.
Have you been to their testing facilities ? It’s worth the trip. Getting too much industry input in the design of their tests and you might as well have them let the industry do the tests. The industry has a goal; to sell more products. Any thing that makes their product look better then someone else will skew the testing. CR is suppose to represent the consumer, not the industry. For example, it shouldn’t matter whether a car uses a 6 speed auto or a CVT, nor should it matter in the testing except as a side comment. What works, works ! If the industry were allowed to design their own crash tests, they all would get top marks. I don’t see where this is going @MarkM except to say that everyone has their own self interest whether it be the reader of CR, you and I or the industry who provides the products. Even CR has their own interest. If their results are too often inconsistent and unreliable, they fail as they accept no advertising dollars. They have a vested interest in being perceived as being truthful and comprehensive in their opinions and surveys. Otherwise, the idea at CR there is long term ineptness as proposed by some, is it’s own conspiracy theory.
I think that CR is an almost unimpeachable source of information. Almost? They present the data collected honestly. If there is a difference between submodels (Versa HB, sedan), they report it. The difficulty comes in their rating system. Anything with 5% or more problems gets a much worse than average rating. That doesn’t leave much room at the top for the other 4 rating categories. To me, this means that almost any car will be reasonably reliable, and most cars should be chosen on how they meet your needs. For used cars, it means stay away from the Asian cars with the high reliability reputation. The differences aren’t that much, and paying thousands more for them will rarely be a shrewd money decision. But at least they are honest and tell you how they rate them and let you make your own decisions.
@jtsanders Up to 5 years of age there is not a lot of ABSOLUTE difference in repair frequency and severity. However, as the vehicles age, the CR curves show that the best Japanese cars have about 1/3 the repair frequency of the US models. In other words, after 10 years, US models have about 140 repairs per 100 cars, whereas Toyota and Honda have about 60 per 100 cars. That’s a HUGE difference.
In other words, if you don’t drive much buy a US used car about 4 years old. Then get rid of it after 10 years. Buying a high mileage Japanese car at a premium price and then driving a lot, is poor economics. Buy a NEW Japanese car if you drive a lot.