RON430

The issue with the full story is out now. It is pretty much as reported from the original press release except that they name names a bit more. They have two major categories and each has two subcategories. They are:

Newly Recommended

Improved Reliability
BMW 7-series
BMW X3
Cadillac STS (V6)
Chrysler 300 (V8)
Dodge Charger
Ford Explorer (V6)
Ford F-150
Ford Mustang
Jaguar S-Type
Jeep Commander
Kia Sportage
Mazda RX-8
Porsche 911
Saab 9-3
Volkswagen Jetta (5-cyl)
Volvo S40 (non turbo)

Enough reliability data to recommend
BMW X5 (6-cyl)
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 and 2500
Chrysler Aspen
Ford Edge
Ford Expedition EL
Ford Explorer Sport Trac
GMC Acadia
GMS Sierra 1500 and 2500
Hyundai Elantra
Hyundai Santa Fe
Jeep Compass
Kia Optima
Lincoln MKX
Lincoln Navigator
Mini Cooper S
Mitsubishi Outlander
Nissan Altima
Nissan Sentra
Nissan Versa
Saturn Aura XE
Saturn Outlook

No Longer Recommended

Worse Reliability
BMW 6 Series
Chevrolet Suburban
Chevtolet Tahoe
Chrysler 300 (V6)
Dodge Ram 1500
GMC Yukon
GMC Yukon XL
Hyundai Entourage
Kia Amanti
Kia Sedona
Lexus GS (V6, AWD)
Pontial G6
Toyota Camry (V6)
Toyota Tundra (V8, 4WD)
Volkswagen Passat (V6)

Enough data to say they're unreliable

Audi Q7 (V8)
Chevrolet Avalanche
Dodge Nitro
Mazda CX-7
Mazda CX-9
Mercedes-Benz GL450
Mercedes-Benz S550
Saturn Aura XR
Saturn Sky
Volkswagen GTI

mmarshall

Well, how about that? A newly reliable Jaguar......just in time for the car to be redesigned.

It's also good to the the Saab 9-3 finally doing well. That car has been well below average for years....and one reason, among several, why it has not sold well.

Also, remember.....the cars on the recommended list need only have average reliability, not necessarily better-than-average (the exact placing, relative to average, is shown on other charts and graphs). They must also pass CR's road tests and have at least moderately good Government crash tests. SUV's must also pass a CR-specific flip-up test not necessarily sponsored by Government figures.

JessePS

wtv same **** different day.

I'm sticking with J.D Power

mmarshall

CR sure tastes good for being ****.

Well then, so long. Have fun.

encore888

That's disappointing, particularly for the Audi and Mercedes on the list. These cars were already not recommended based on the overall brand issues with quality. Lots of buyers have been hoping that changed with the new models.

mmarshall

There is some evidence, though, that several Audi models are finally improving. If we don't see it in the December CR issue, we may see it in the April New-Car issue. Even some Mercedes models may have finally bottomed out and began a slow climb. Look at the BMW 7-series, for example. Several years ago, like Mercedes, it was the very definition of unreliability......now it on the Recommended list.

Why the Mazda CX-7 and CX-9 are below average in reliability while their Ford counterparts, built on the same platform, are notably better is an interesting question.

And another puzzler: The Chevy/GMC full-size pickups are newly recommended, while the Avalanche, which mechanically is pretty much the same vehicle with a couple of trick folding and removable panels behind the seats, isn't.

RON430

I couldn't agree more. The S550 was very high on my list for a post new year purchase but my concerns about spending a lot of time at the dealership with a 100K car are going to be too much to make the buy. One day MB is going to wake up and find out there aren't as many people interested in the snob appeal of their cars as their are people who don't like investing big bucks in something with the reliability of a Chevy Avalanche. And I don't need any lectures about putting up with such poor reliability because of advanced technology, it won't get me to sign a check.

Sorry about the Q7, I had hoped Audi could do better. At the same time, godd for bimmer improving the 7, I might put up with the iDrive. The old saw says either buy a car the first model year or the last and I guess bimmer is trying to keep it alive.

mmarshall

It's amazing that this has not happened yet. M-B reliability, though possibly having bottomed out and starting a slow rise, has been in the toilet for a decade now....yet people still keep living back in the 1980's and flocking to M-B showrooms.

Incendiary

I'd be interested to see where the new C-Class falls on the CR list when they have enough real data to analyze it.

newr

I've been using CR mags to wipe my behind the last couple of year. My 01 Accord blew its tranny @ 78K miles. My 05 S2K is going to the dealer to have its 1st and 2nd gear synchro replaced this Monday. Both cars were really high on CR recommended list.

Incendiary

Well, could be coincidence...

BTW, what's the car in your sig?

newr

It's an old 560SL.

RON430

Personally I don't take any one recommendation from any source and make a purchase decision based on it. I would never simply buy what CR recommends. But I wouldn't ignore it either. For one, you would be amazed how resale can be affected by their ratings. If I get a lemon, I like to know I can still get a decent amount of money out of it because some other fool really wants it. CR reliability ratings are overall guidelines as far as I am concerned. I have found much more agreement with their findings than disagreement. You can get a lemon in any brand but you try to get what info you can and make your choice. If you read the CR ratings, still decide to get that S550 and it ends up spending a week a month at the dealer, you really don't have anyone to blame. And for a 100 large, that is not a risk that I feel is offset by the car. But I will think again about a 7. At least bimmer appears to be trying while MB isn't. I would also recommend you try TP, it's cheaper and gentler than using CR.

RON430

Actually it's the spare you used to get with the 560SL.

Incendiary

Huh?
.