IS-SV

I agree that CR today is the best source for reliability data in a usable concise format. Of course no survey is perfect, because it's based on a survey (with the inherent weaknesses of a survey).

CR's reliability data helps give auto shoppers substantial information to assist in the selection process.

CR reports are not the best source for information on instrumented accelerations/braking/handling comparisons and they lack appreciation, knowledge and experience with more sporting premium vehicles.

mmarshall

Correct. CR has an auto test-tack, in Connecticut, but they don't slam their cars around it or drive as aggressively as, say, the guys from Car & Driver, Road & Track, etc..... trying to get absolute maximum-performance figures. The average American driver, under most conditions, doesn't drive that way. So, CR doesn't (intentionally) do crazy stuff like drifting, powerslides, tire-burning max-launches, etc.....They test, basically, for normal and emergency handling. But they DO test for minimum-distance braking figures on wet, dry, and split wet/dry surfaces...in an emergency, a car may have to stop as short as possible. And they DO test high-stance SUV's, (with special side braces attached to them) for roll-over resistance with abrupt steering manuvers..

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

That is no fun... Cars are meant to be driven. But we must bear with the auto testers from Consumer Reports guys.. It is not easy..

mmarshall

Yes and no, DASH. Autocrossing and SCCA-sponsored events on a track are one thing. Everyday driving is quite another matter. Cars are not meant to be driven that way on public streets, especially in congested areas. Those who may not agree will sometimes get a little persuation................

malmon

I would put more weight on actual owners discussing problems over any magazines, popular or not. It will be a costly mistake to rely heavily on CR, which in my opinion has false data regarding the Pilot.

malmon

Exactly my point, CR is not infallible.

mmarshall

I respect your opinion (and experience) with the Pilot, but for every Pilot that was troublesome, many more were not. That is why CR gives it such a high reliability rating.

Look, the same thing happened to me. When I bought my first Japanese-designed and built vehicle in 1984 (a Mazda GLC), which I generally liked, it was partly due to my previous very poor experience with the American-built cars of the late 70s and early 80s, and partly because CR generally gave Mazdas better-then-average reliability ratings back then. Many Americans back then, like me, were switching over to try and get something reliable. Hondas and Toyotas, back then, were just too expensive out the door.....they all sold for sharp mark-ups because of import restrictions, and none of them were built here at home like they are now. So, I bought a Mazda GLC for list plus a very small mark-up (considered a good deal for a Japanese car back then). It was a little better than the average Detroit junk of the period, but still had a number of problems with pinging, emissions plumbing, wheel balance, and transmission shifts that took a LONG time to get out (almost a full year).....and that was with an excellent, Master Technician working on it (one of Mazda's best in the region). After that, it was fairly reliable up to around 100,000 miles, despite an ultra-lean carburator that caused a lot of weak throttle response. But it was like the experience you went through with your Pilot....CR generally rated the Mazda GLC reliable, yet my particular car had some repetitive problems for the first year. So.....did THAT make CR's data uneliable? No....by no means. My car was probably unusual for a Mazda of that period.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

CR surveys are a joke, not scientifically sound, preaching to the choir, rearward lookng and so only of value if you want to buy a used car.

mmarshall

Show me a better one, and I'll buy it. I've been looking for 40 years.....and haven't found one yet.

IS-SV

Of course CR reliability charts are not flawless, since they are based on surveys. But they are reasonable for approximating reliability of specific models. And some serious flaws or failures impacting a relatively low percentage of the owners will not always show in the charts.

And CR is not an enthusiasts publication. Other sources provide more consistent reviews and instrumented testing for comparison purposes. The purpose of instrumented testing and track testing is not to "slam cars around on public roads". The written feedback and data is useful for comparison purposes.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

ok, 2 better sources.

1) long term tests by magazines and tv's MotorWeek.

2) the internet! yes, many problems can be overblown, but the internet itself tends to sort out 'complainers' and 'exaggerators' from real trends. if i was in the market for a lexus model i'd trust reading a few hundred posts on ClubLexus over CR's results.

back on CR's survey - have you ever filled one out? i wonder whether the participants get objective criteria on the full red circles through full black circles? and CR doesn't publish sample size, so MOST model results probably rely on extremely small sample sizes.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

i don't know if there's a statistical term for this besides bias, but i bet many people owning highly praised brands (for reliability) like honda and toyota exaggerate how good their vehicles are and downplay problems because they don't want to feel like they made a poor choice buying one. i'm not saying honda and toyota don't deserve their reputations, but as we see on car forums, some people believe certain brands are flawless, never making mistakes.

LexBob2

I agree. They may not be perfect (no one/nothing is) but try to find something better with more actual data compiled.

mmarshall

I read them. In fact, Autoweek magazine, in the past, has published a number of my comments. I also know John Davis, Motorweek's host, but just casually, not very well...I talk to him at auto shows.

There's nothing wrong with Long-term/Four-Seasons tests.....but they are, generally, only for one car (sometimes more than one). That is hardly a measure of a car's general reliability in the hands of consumers. CR receives....and processes.....thousands of results for just one make and model alone, particularly for mega-selling vehicles like the Camry, Accord, Ford F-150, and Chevy Silverado.


You're right...many Internet forums can be overblown. That's one reason I like Club Lexus...and have stayed on for so long. CL's car forums are definitely better than average. But even Club Lexus doesn't have over a million people responding to surveys. Our membership may be one-tenth of that (you, as a moderator, probably have access to the exact figure; I don't)

I've done a number of CR surveys. Also some from J.D. Power. I was on a long-term J.D. Power auto focus group for some time.

IS-SV

The junk on the internet forums certainly does not replace the CR reliability data, despite it's weaknesses.