KitchenKitten99
10-06-2012, 08:23 PM
Might not be as reliable as people have been led to believe...
Full article here:
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
A couple sections snipped below. CR=Consumer Reports
...
Lumping cars together in the car ratings Different drivetrains have different reliabilities -- CR often lumps them all together. (Now they are also combining "corporate twins" to hide the anomalies of years past). Standard and Grand Caravans are listed in the same category, despite the very different repair histories of the two transmissions and the different engines. They separate some engines but lump the 3.0 V6 oil-leaker in with the more reliable 3.3 engine.
David Ta wrote: "I'd expect CR to point me to those unique problem(s) from different make-model-year combination. Those CR reliability reports, regardless how they were done, did not reveal those problems. For example, 6 months ago, I noticed a bunch of postings on [Japanese SUV] problem of blown head gasket, within the first 70k miles. I checked CR report on [vehicle] and compared to CAA report on the same make-model-year. Not surprisingly, CR reported a under the "engine" category. And surprisingly CAA reported the same make-model-year a "much worse than average" two red-dots for that category."
Lloyd says that unreliable options or components are sometimes pointed out in the ratings. This is indeed true, with an emphasis on "sometimes." We have to trust Consumer Reports on that, which we'd rather not do, considering what they do not tell us. WhatCar? used to have a very consistent approach to this; and WhatCar? also used to point out what the manufacturer had done, or had not done, to solve the problem. (WhatCar? used actual repair records from vehicles leased in the UK.) ...
...
John Phillips wrote: "A few years ago, they had the [2 domestic nameplates and one foreign nameplate all of the same car] owner's satisfaction. The [domestic nameplate] had the least owner satisfaction of these three. Next was the [other domestic nameplate]. The best owner support was for the [foreign nameplate]. There was a fair spread between them. Funny thing: all of these are built at the same American plant, only varying, primarily, in "hood ornaments." How can the same car be perceived differently when the only real difference was the label?"
Chris Jardine wrote:
I've noticed a number of occasions where data they have presented simply CANNOT be correct. Example 1 - a few years ago I looked at their reliability chart for the [car and car with another engine]. They claim that exterior fit and finish was [good rating] on the [one engine] and [terrible rating] for the [other engine] . This translates to a 4 and a 1 on a 1 to 5 scale. Since these vehicles were produced by the same workers, tools, raw materials, etc [B]it is not possible for this to happen! I could buy a difference of one but not three between the two. A short statistical analysis lesson would be appropriate here. You can expect a variation of one when working with something like this. If you see the deviation that you do here you simply have not sampled the data properly! This is basic statistics. If this difference came in something that was not common to the two, like the engine, cooling system, transmission, etc. I would be able to accept the variation as correct. However, there is no way that this deviation from one to the next can occur with common items to the two.
Example 2 - [same cars, different nameplates]. There were major differences with the engine, electrical, fit and finish, etc. between these two. The only difference between them was the name plate applied near the end of the assembly line and a code in the VIN. There were differences in standard levels of equipment, but, that should not statistically effect what CR would have us believe it did. This is another case of improper statistical procedures.
For these reasons, I for one simply cannot believe much of anything CR prints as statistical data.
....
....Routine maintenance varies by vehicle Jim Eldridge essentially wrote this for us by example:
I have a 1985 Dodge Daytona that has 135,000 miles on it. It runs great. At about 85,000 miles the timing belt broke, stranding my wife. The maintenance schedule says nothing about replacing the belt. Dodge thinks it's OK to wait till it breaks and then replace it; the design is such that it does nothing bad to the engine. However, to my wife, the car broke down and had a "serious engine problem." [Note: the manual actually does suggest replacing the belt at 105,000 miles.]
My friend with a Nissan Maxima just had his 60,000 mile maintenance at the dealer. He had the timing belt replaced, the fuel injectors cleaned, oil change, etc. and a fuel injector replaced. Cost, $850! If he filled out the CR form, he would show no major problems, just routine maintenance.
He then told me he was considering replacing all of his shocks because "it was about time." No Dodge owner would ever consider replacing shocks before the car bounced down the road. All Dodge had to do was recommend the belt change at 60,000 miles to avoid a "serious engine problem."
Will Mast said, “A friend with a Toyota used to brag about how trouble free it was until I showed him all the repairs, including a cracked exhaust valve, that were hidden in his 30,000 mile "maintenance" visits to the dealer.”
The solution is to get far more specific - and perhaps, to be really careful, to find out something about owners' routine maintenance.
...
Full article here:
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
A couple sections snipped below. CR=Consumer Reports
...
Lumping cars together in the car ratings Different drivetrains have different reliabilities -- CR often lumps them all together. (Now they are also combining "corporate twins" to hide the anomalies of years past). Standard and Grand Caravans are listed in the same category, despite the very different repair histories of the two transmissions and the different engines. They separate some engines but lump the 3.0 V6 oil-leaker in with the more reliable 3.3 engine.
David Ta wrote: "I'd expect CR to point me to those unique problem(s) from different make-model-year combination. Those CR reliability reports, regardless how they were done, did not reveal those problems. For example, 6 months ago, I noticed a bunch of postings on [Japanese SUV] problem of blown head gasket, within the first 70k miles. I checked CR report on [vehicle] and compared to CAA report on the same make-model-year. Not surprisingly, CR reported a under the "engine" category. And surprisingly CAA reported the same make-model-year a "much worse than average" two red-dots for that category."
Lloyd says that unreliable options or components are sometimes pointed out in the ratings. This is indeed true, with an emphasis on "sometimes." We have to trust Consumer Reports on that, which we'd rather not do, considering what they do not tell us. WhatCar? used to have a very consistent approach to this; and WhatCar? also used to point out what the manufacturer had done, or had not done, to solve the problem. (WhatCar? used actual repair records from vehicles leased in the UK.) ...
...
John Phillips wrote: "A few years ago, they had the [2 domestic nameplates and one foreign nameplate all of the same car] owner's satisfaction. The [domestic nameplate] had the least owner satisfaction of these three. Next was the [other domestic nameplate]. The best owner support was for the [foreign nameplate]. There was a fair spread between them. Funny thing: all of these are built at the same American plant, only varying, primarily, in "hood ornaments." How can the same car be perceived differently when the only real difference was the label?"
Chris Jardine wrote:
I've noticed a number of occasions where data they have presented simply CANNOT be correct. Example 1 - a few years ago I looked at their reliability chart for the [car and car with another engine]. They claim that exterior fit and finish was [good rating] on the [one engine] and [terrible rating] for the [other engine] . This translates to a 4 and a 1 on a 1 to 5 scale. Since these vehicles were produced by the same workers, tools, raw materials, etc [B]it is not possible for this to happen! I could buy a difference of one but not three between the two. A short statistical analysis lesson would be appropriate here. You can expect a variation of one when working with something like this. If you see the deviation that you do here you simply have not sampled the data properly! This is basic statistics. If this difference came in something that was not common to the two, like the engine, cooling system, transmission, etc. I would be able to accept the variation as correct. However, there is no way that this deviation from one to the next can occur with common items to the two.
Example 2 - [same cars, different nameplates]. There were major differences with the engine, electrical, fit and finish, etc. between these two. The only difference between them was the name plate applied near the end of the assembly line and a code in the VIN. There were differences in standard levels of equipment, but, that should not statistically effect what CR would have us believe it did. This is another case of improper statistical procedures.
For these reasons, I for one simply cannot believe much of anything CR prints as statistical data.
....
....Routine maintenance varies by vehicle Jim Eldridge essentially wrote this for us by example:
I have a 1985 Dodge Daytona that has 135,000 miles on it. It runs great. At about 85,000 miles the timing belt broke, stranding my wife. The maintenance schedule says nothing about replacing the belt. Dodge thinks it's OK to wait till it breaks and then replace it; the design is such that it does nothing bad to the engine. However, to my wife, the car broke down and had a "serious engine problem." [Note: the manual actually does suggest replacing the belt at 105,000 miles.]
My friend with a Nissan Maxima just had his 60,000 mile maintenance at the dealer. He had the timing belt replaced, the fuel injectors cleaned, oil change, etc. and a fuel injector replaced. Cost, $850! If he filled out the CR form, he would show no major problems, just routine maintenance.
He then told me he was considering replacing all of his shocks because "it was about time." No Dodge owner would ever consider replacing shocks before the car bounced down the road. All Dodge had to do was recommend the belt change at 60,000 miles to avoid a "serious engine problem."
Will Mast said, “A friend with a Toyota used to brag about how trouble free it was until I showed him all the repairs, including a cracked exhaust valve, that were hidden in his 30,000 mile "maintenance" visits to the dealer.”
The solution is to get far more specific - and perhaps, to be really careful, to find out something about owners' routine maintenance.
...