Consumers Reports Seeks Bailout

So you're claiming a CR reader who drives a Chevy is simply going to
report more problems than one who drives a Toyota? Why? And do you
have a shred of evidence to back up this wild accusation?

If you were correct, all the cars low on CR's scoring would be rated
unreliable too, and vice-versa? That's simply not true. Look at the
articles. Or are you claiming readers look at what other readers say
about reliability, and then next year, like sheep, write down the same
things? That's simply ludicrous. And if so, no car would ever change
its reliability, and many do.

 

It is not an example. Nor do they call it a "failure rate."
It is a "problem rate."

Section 4.2 does not say anything like what you are saying.

Problem rates. Not when one is trying to establish whether
the differences between two models are statistically
significant.

I think this is a very honest and fair statement by CR:
"While the difference between a [fully colored red circle]
and a [half colored red circle] may be small, a pattern of
several less-than-perfect trouble spots in a brand new car
should be cause for concern and does not bode well for a
model's long-term reliability."

Pretty much all of them, because they are based on the large
errors you made above. IOW, your premise is wrong.

I do not have a problem with anyone calling the samples CR
uses biased, as long as they call nearly all samples used in
any such study biased. CR's survey is what it is. I have not
seen a better survey out there.

Really, CE White, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not
expect you to buy mine. I am responding for others, as an
engineer with publications, advanced degrees, much education
in statistics, and years of engineering experience. Not that
these make me more of an authority. More that others
poo-pooing the CR study are saying they have such
credentials. They're wrong, AFAIC.

 

Not wild at all. The Toyota Corolla and its Chevy clone often were
rated differently.

 

Oh God, Dizzy's back. Time to update the spam filter.

 

"4.7. Why are there sometimes considerable differences in reliability
between "related" or "twin" models?
Some variants of similar vehicles have different reliability results
in our survey. Although you might expect that related vehicles, or
"twin" models, would have very similar reliability histories, there
are a number of factors that can lead owners to have different
reliability experiences with these models.

Some differences can be attributed to different equipment, such as
different transmissions, suspension tuning, or power equipment.

Some related models may be manufactured in different plants. While
their designs might be quite similar, by being built in separate
facilities they may be subject to different manufacturing processes,
such as differences in quality control.

Some model variants that share the same design but have different
equipment level or body style can lead to differences in reliability.
For example, the V6 version of the Chrysler Sebring has below average
predicted reliability, but the 4-cylinder version had average
reliability. The V6 offered more standard equipmentthan the 4-cylinder
and had more power equipment and audio problems. The redesigned for
2008 Chrysler Sebring Convertible has much worse than average
predicted reliability. The convertible body style contributed to more
body hardware and squeaks and rattles in addition to electrical, power
equipment, and audio problems.

These are some examples of factors that may cause seemingly similar
models to have different reliability profiles. We carefully examine
the data for all related models, and if the data show that their
reliability profiles are similar, we will combine their data to yield
more robust results. We believe, though, in the accuracy of our data,
and we have a commitment to report the experiences our subscribers
share with us. In some cases, they report different reliability
experiences with closely related models."

 

SNIP could haves and might bes

There you have it, Lloyd. They believe.

How nice. They're reporting the "experiences of our subscribers", not
the reliability of the cars.

Isn't that a red flag? Apparently "experiences of our subscribers" has
some subjectivity to it.

 

Aww, then you might miss my "I told you so" about how I was right
about everything, all along. Right about SUV's. Right about the
deficit spending.

Look at where you short-sighted dimwits have gotten us.

 

How else? The only ones that might have more accurate data - ie from a
larger sample - would be the makers via their dealers, and they're not
going to be honest about such things in public. Quite the reverse - they
lie through their teeth.

It's often the case that those who criticise a consumer body findings on
the reliability of a particular model - ie the one they own - due to a
small sample are basing that criticism on a sample of one...

 

Not by much, and when comparably equipped (for part of one model year,
when the Chevy/Geo Nova/Prizm lacked a front anti-sway bar that the
Corolla included) they ranked right next to each other. The same was
true of the Toyota Matrix and its clone, the Pontiac Vibe.

Where did you get your information that said the ratings for the
clones were different?

 

Or maybe different versions come from different factories. For
example, the early 1990s Ford Escort hatchbacks were made in the US,
but the sedans were from a plant in Hermosillo, Mexico that Ford rated
more highly, and Consumer Reports said that the sedans were slightly
more reliable.

Please cite a car quality survey that's extensive but doesn't reflect
the experiences of the car owners.

 

I've never looked at CRs ratings on the last two vehicles I've owned.
What they thought was irrelevant to my purchase decisions.

 

Well stated. You see that all the time. CR will have a poll based on
thousands of responses to detailed surveys and someone will claim, 'well
obviously they're biased, I have that product and mine is fine.'

The survey isn't asking the subscriber their opinion of every vehicle,
they are gathering only the subscriber's personal experience with their
own vehicle.

One of my favorite CR issues is the one where they survey on cellular
providers in 20 or so metro areas. Their results consistently match the
results of every other survey by every other independent publication. Of
course you still have people extremely upset by the results, with the
same sort of thing, 'my sample of one, trumps their sample of 50,000.

 

I do look at the UK versions findings - but wouldn't let them *decide* for
me on something like a car. Domestic appliances, yes.

IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like
those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car is
simply another appliance.

 

Yup. And can't be bothered to read the article fully where it explains
that perhaps 80% of all vehicles (on average) will be totally fault free.

Indeed. And of course for every person who hates their car and tries to
run it down there will be others who do the reverse.

My findings too.

A few years ago Jaguar got a poor score on reliability by the UK CA based
on members survey results. And made a big fuss about it being too small a
sample to be accurate. But didn't comment (probably never even read) on
the bit where those same members liked their Jaguar very much and would
recommend it to a friend...

My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some
replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though -
there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them
that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which
simply doesn't happen with modern cars.

 

For vehicles, Consumer Reports emphasizes reliability and safety. Yet
many of us have bought vehicles knowing full well that they are neither
the most reliable or the safest, but have other characteristics that we
value. Some are items that are extremely important to a small subset of
people.

I made a list a long time back of things that I needed to consider when
selecting a vehicle, and few are considered by Consumer Reports, but
they can be important considerations to some buyers.

Exterior
--------
1. 5 mph bumpers
2. Sufficient front and rear ground clearance for speed bumps, steep
driveways, dips, parking stones, etc.
3. Trunk with low liftover
4. No difficult trim that will make the car a pain to wax.
5. Hood springs instead of prop stick
6. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in trunk lid
7. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in rear bumper


Doors & Windows & Mirrors
-------------------------
1. All door windows fully framed OR PROVEN DESIGN FRAMELESS WINDOWS
2. Rear windows open on 2 door models.
3. Power mirrors (mechanical inside controls at a minimum).
4. Folding outside mirrors
5. No glass mount rear view mirror.
6. Power door locks, especially on minivans or wide vehicles
7. Drivers side sliding door on minivans


Audio
-----
1. Radio/Cassette has built in CD-Changer controller for
non-proprietary CD changer.
2. CD changer that mounts under seat rather than in trunk
3. Standard radio antenna (non-windshield, non-power)


Interior
--------
1. High quality supportive seats
2. Easy entry/exit for 6' person
3. Rear seat headroom enough for 5 10" person.
4. Passenger hand grips above all doors (except driver's)
5. Usable cup holders
6. Multiple Cup holders (4 minimum).
7. Remote fuel door release.
8. Rear cargo cover for SUVs


Safety
------
1. Side air bags
2. Rear headrests
3. Minimum of 4 star rating for both passenger and driver.
4. Steel safety cage or equivalent body strength
5. Good overall rating from IIHS.
6. Traction control.
7. No daytime running lights, or easily defeatable DRLs.
8. Head curtain air bags


Engine/Transmission
-------------------
1. Oil filter accessible from top (or otherwise easily accessible)
2. 0-60 in <12 seconds
3. Able to climb I-80 up to Donner Pass at 60MPH minimum (or similar
test depending on your area).
4. Minimum of 7500 miles between REQUIRED oil changes
5. Long engine and power train warranty (5 year 60K minimum)
6. Non-interference engine (yeah, I know this is getting hard to find)
7. Sealed coolant recovery system (very rare except on European cars)
8. Selectable shift points
9. Cruise control maintains speed on uphill (unlike my Honda CR-V)
10. Front accessible engine
11. Engine has a history of reliability (i.e. no history of oil burning,
sludge, cracked heads, timing chain failures, etc.).


Brakes & Wheels
---------------
1. Wheels can accept tire chains or cables (S type okay)
2. High quality brakes with thick rotors
3. Spare tire does not mount on rear door
4. ABS
5. Tire size is 'super-standard' not uncommon (expensive) size
6. Full size spare


Exhaust
-------
1. Long or lifetime warranty on exhaust system
2. Stainless steel exhaust system


Body
----
1. Galvanized steel body


NVH
---
1. Low engine noise, wind noise, and road noise


Fuel Economy
------------
1. 30mpg or higher fuel economy for a car, 20MPG for a minivan, 25MPG
for a mini SUV, 18 MPG for a full size SUV.
2. 300 mile minimum range


Accessories
-----------
1. Ability to mount a trailer hitch, even if just for a bike rack
2. Accepts Thule or Yakima rack with loading up to the limit you need
(varies based on what you want to carry, i.e. skis, canoes, bicycles,
lumber, cargo box, etc.)
3. Sufficient towing capacity for your needs (needs vary of course)
4. Roof rack mounting without load bearing on roof (i.e. structural
steel rain gutters).
5. EASY mounting system for baby seats, sides and middle
6. Extra cigarette lighter outlets
7. Cigarette lighter socket not in ashtray, and/or auxiliary sockets
8. Provision for fog lights if not standard
9. Pre-wired for alarm


Insurance
---------
1. Low to moderate insurance cost
2. Low theft rate


Dealer Specific

 

Have a look at consumerdistorts.com for the rest of the story.

 

Another good source of reliability/breakdown info would be the major
motoring organisations and I have never understood why the British ones
don't publish whereas the German ADAC does (or did).

Maybe the UK RAC/AA are too scared of the car makers...?...

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

Right. All Consumers Reports is doing is trying to maintain an
illusion that there is relevance to inaccurately measuring the
insignificant.

 

You've not understood the previous posts, have you? ;-)

 

That isn't true in the case of CR. Their chief engineer is definitely
a car guy who was hanging around test tracks long before he was old
enough to drive. If he tests a sports car and it isn't fun to drive,
it is going to bomb big time. If it is a minivan test, that is a
different matter.