Consumer Reports Releases Reliability Ratings

Ford’s reliability ratings jumped significantly, making it by far the most reliable American automaker, according to Consumer Reports, which released its ratings today. Those ratings can be found in the magazine’s December issue. With the exception of a few of its trucks, Consumer Reports says Ford’s reliability is equal to that of the best Japanese automakers.

Besides Ford’s success, the highest ratings went to traditional winners, including Honda, Toyota and Nissan. Last year, Toyota received below-average ratings for the V-6 Camry and Tundra, but now all 42 Toyota, Scion and Lexus models had average or above-average ratings. After many years of trouble, Nissan’s Titan and Armada and Infiniti’s QX56 improved their ratings, which jumped up to average this year. Hyundai and Kia also ranked with the better Japanese makers, with Kia jumping 12 spots in overall rankings in one year.

Comments

It's sad about Chrysler's reliability, but this explains why they are in a deep financial mess and why they are possibly being bought out. My question is why would any one car company be dumb enough to buy out Chrysler?

Reliability is interesting thing. Let me give you an example. When 92 Camrys came out and went on for 10 years without a problem many owners didn't even notice that their car became softer. Thats because struts on those Camrys were gone but people kept on driving them without doing a thing. Now, some other model might had $600 in repairs that were more obvious. So this other model is not as reliable as Camry in owner's view. But in reality that Camry is runing on unsafe suspension. Can we call that reliable? Hypothetically.

Yes. that was Tony

A car with bad struts cannot pass state inspection. Come back later for another dope-slap.

What CR doesn't say:

1. The data are already about five months old, and will be over a year old when many people use them to buy a car next summer.

2. The average problem rate isn't very high, probably around 18 problems per 100 cars for the 2008s (based on past years; they didn't have a number when asked this year). So the difference between the different "blobs" (their term for the black and red dots) is three or four problems per 100 cars.

In the case of both the average and the difference between the ratings, the numbers are probably much lower than many people think.

For a site that promptly updates its vehicle reliability information four times a year and posts the actual repair rates:

http://www.truedelta.com

Caz,
Yes it can. My '91 Maxima project car bobbed up and down for ages after dips- it passed texas state inspection.

Broq

A lot of states don't do inspections.

The data must be suspect when the virtually unchanged Armada and Titan can jump in ratings in one year.

Vehicles don't have to necessarily have visible changes in order to improve in quality.

Caz
you're best example of automotive illiteracy.
Some people already answered to you but here is the answer.

1. Each state has it's own inspection code or none.
2. Many times bad struts will pass because to fail they need to be leaky. In PA, for example, it is explicitly said in code that struts must have "leakage, not only dampness..." to fail inspection.

My personal suggestion to you - grow up, learn, research and stop being dilettante.

is it referring 2 the 2007 or 2008 CTS?

I've been in the automotive repair business going on 20 years and have never seen a shock fail were it wasn't leaking. While each state does have it's own inspection criteria the majority of them do check for suspension travel. One of the first things to look for is uneven tire wear and leaking shocks.

Tony, why are you so angry? You sound like an uneducated fool trying to come across as intelligent.

Jon Kylmer,
I am not angry. Pros don't get angry. I just gave guy a suggestion.
Saying more then was said already makes you look fool, not me.
You can work 100 years in auto repair business but it doesn't make you any better at the law. Because the law defines how you perform inspection and when car has failed, not the mechanics. Mechanics are just enforcing the law but if you tell me I need new shocks, I will send you to hell if there is no leak, in PA. Even if shock is traveling a lot. And I've seen many cars with lousy shocks and they all pass. You can look as much as you want at the thread. As long as there is 2/32 of an inch it passes.
Really, Jon, you do not need to say for majority here because you don't know. Nobody knows for all. You said your opinion and keep it at that.
Quote from Broq:
"My '91 Maxima project car bobbed up and down for ages after dips- it passed texas state inspection. "
I guess, this is enough to show that you are WRONG!
So, Jon, when you're ready to speak in a civilized manner, come back. We'll welcome you.

WOW why must one be so angry? Tony if you're not happy with your position in life then change it. It's no one's fault but your own.

I like how the knuckle head says he's not angry and then goes on to state, "I will send you to hell if there is no leak."

A true idiot in his own making.

If many of the '92 generation Camry's were riding on unsafe dampers, has there been a recall for failed "shocks"?? are dampers supposed to last 10 years or more? either dampers are supposed to last much longer and therefore should have had a recall (since it is, as Tony seemed to suggest, a marker of poor reliability of shocks when they failed prematurely), or that it's just normal wear and tear and thus it's the owner's neglect, not the car's reliability, at issue here.

Michael Karesh seemed to have made a point. however, the irony is that many of his pet site's data suggest similar conclusions (poor reliability of the CTS, excellent for the TL, etc). in addition, if you look at the sample size, it's pretty sad. statistics are pretty unreliable when your sample size is so small. standard error of means must be pretty large.

besides, car makers nowadays are much closer to each other in reliability, especially new cars. so who cares if the CR data is a year behind? the vast majority of the least reliable cars (by whatever your trusted rating source) do pretty well for the first year or two.

my point is, reliability is a tough statistic. CR's ratings benefit from its large sample size. you'll notice that makes with a small sample will be marked "not enough data." their data are never allowed to be quoted by car makers in promotions/ advertisements, nor do they receive any funding from any manufacturer, which makes me think it's relatively unbiased.

drawbacks are that it's a survey form, often without specific definitions. others here mentioned several other drawbacks. another example -- cars that tend to be driven hard, i.e. sports cars, will probably have more early problems and are reported as such. however, CR's surveys do not factor in owner abuse. etc etc.

but guess what? other reliability survey institutions have their pros and cons too. you choose what you think works for you. CR is just one often-quoted source ... for a reason.

My '89 Camry had a horrible suspension and it still passed inspection every year. I mean, the thing couldn't take a curve at 20 mph, the front tires spun around whenever you hit the has on a hill... it was crazy

The Enclave, Acadia and Outlook have poor reliability? Look, just because a vehicle has 3 recalls doesn't mean it's unreliable. And the CTS has 12 recalls, but my father's has been very reliable. I like Japanese cars, and I'm happy that the xD got most reliable. But CR thinks that squeaks and rattles make a car unreliable. So what?