So how do you explain a brand at the very bottom of the CR list for reliability can have the highest owner satisfaction rate (with Consumer Reports) every year since 2013?

 

Look at how they are rating Acura's, otherwise reliable cars but mainly because of the touch screen system which they and many owners dislike and the at times jerky trans that they mostly fixed for the 2016's Acura's have been getting really bad reviews, not recommended, terrible reliability when the overall cars are still solid and rarely have mechanical issues. The 2012 civic was massacred by CR because it took a noticeable downturn in quality of materials yet it was still a solid reliable well built reliable vehicle but if someone were to look at how it was rated they would think it would be unreliable, trouble prone. I believe it was put on the not recommended list. If you look at how they rate many German cars you can read the reviews where they heap praise on their interior/entertainment systems, engines, how they handle and give them high marks including high reliability, recommendations, despite them still being known to have expensive issues especially out of warranty. Not only that put CR is also pretty political and often interjects their pro liberal/anti conservative opinions in their magazines, often times flat out endorsing policies/attacking policies and choices, thought I remember reading them singling out certain people too.

 

Easy. I had that exact issue myself with my (full size) Range Rover and with my two Jaguars. Customers may well love them, but they are not necessarily the most reliable. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

You may be overlooking the broader explanation, though. Cars in general are more reliable than ever, so even the least reliable aren't necessarily all that bad in the grand scheme of things. Someone has to come last. And some drivers prize the capabilities of a car like say a Range Rover over absolutely dependability. Sure, it would be nice to have both, but for many owners the odd trip to the dealer isn't the end of the world. It just is what it is.

 

There's a lot of rewriting of history going on in this post. The 2012 Civic was rightly panned by the automotive press in general.

To correct your claims, CR specifically panned it because it exhibited:

- Choppy ride made the car jumpy and nervous.
- Lackluster handling produced reluctant response in corners.
- Vague steering, especially when Hondas used to have such good feedback.
- Elevated road noise created a loud, fatiguing cabin environment.
- Low-rent interior with drab materials and cheap plastics.

These were criticisms leveled at the car across the board by the automotive press. Honda acknowledged the mistakes and they were corrected. When they did that, CR recommended it again. I actually bought one of the corrected/redesigned Civics for my daughter as a graduation gift.

CR did absolutely the right thing. Honda cheaped out, and they got called on it. That they fixed the car so quickly shows CR and others doing their job is important.

I'm not going to get into what are probably the actual reasons for your position on CR which became reasonably clear as your post went on.....

 

Easy...those two things have almost nothing to do with one another. I love the hell out of my Surface tablets, despite the fact that one has a screen that likes to flicker when the backlight is set to anything other than the highest level, one has had to be completely replaced, and that it takes me 2-3 minutes of plugging/unplugging my docking station to get my external 49" 4k monitor working.

They are not reliable, but my owner satisfaction rate is very high. I will buy another one. Cars are no different. My RX was quite reliable (at least out of warranty). I didn't like it and won't buy another.

 

 

Interesting perspective. For me the 2 (reliability + owner satisfaction) are tightly woven together.

 

Yes, you can......absolutely, you can. Lots of owners are willing to put up with some unreliable vehicles, if, at the same time, it fulfills other wishes that they have. People put up wth unreliable Range Rovers just so they can make an image-statement at the Country Club, while having a posh vehicle that can go anywhere, anytime, under almost any condition......in comfort (Steve even considered getting one). People put up with unreliable Corvettes because, except for the discontinued Dodge Viper, it is America's only true sports car.....and many of the 'Vette customers are older guys in their mid (or later)-life crisis, who can still remember the original 'Vettes, the "Route 66" TV show, with Martin Sheen, that featured a 2Gen Vette, and tend to be Trump supporters in the MAGA campaign. Along a somewhat similar but slightly different line, many Dodge Charger and Challenger owners put up with their unreliable cars because they grew up (like I did) with the original lollipop/pastel-colored ones of the late 60s/early-70s "Scat Pack" and their colorful decals....and, with families, they are willing to accept even the 4-door Charger today. Chrysler 300 owners, of course, tolerate the unreliability because it is the only remaining large, V8, RWD/AWD luxury sedan done with an American nameplate....there simply is no competition.

 

 

I think the bigger question those who feel that CR defines reliability inaccurately due to high numbers in satisfication ie tesla vs poor numbers in reliability should ask about the top two rank holders Lexus and Toyota. How are they at the top on reliability but #18 and 8 respectively...Behind Chrysler (#3) and Lincoln (#10).....


I think, just like with any statistical analysis there are some hidden biases in the data....the only ones who might have a larger sample size would be mfgs who I doubt would hand over that data.


Fair enough, but as someone else mentioned promoting a brand depends on your personal motivation. I can be motivated to sing high praises for a brand due to monetary gain etc. Tesla Referral Network, Social influencers for free products etc In relation to the car biz, I`d wager that the reason behind a NPS would be a defining characteristic that no one else brings to the table. Vague but better with an example:

IE if a friend of mine asks that he or she wants to lease a luxury vehicle with bleeding edge tech and canyon carving features...I would recommend anything German, nothing from Lexus, Infiniti, or Acura...why cause they just dont have the features requested, and the prospective buyer is not looking to keep the vehicle past warranty. Owner would be "satisfied" to his or her primary needs.

IE if a friends looking for a keeper, the complete opposite would be true. Im promoting two hemispheres of brands, but for different reasons.

 

not true... CR is not scientific or transparent but is transparently flawed. they can't define reliability properly (it seems to be something subjective by those surveyed). satisfaction as you and some others have said, is entirely different. CR is one hot mess.

 

You've conflated customer loyalty with reliability and we all know cars are often an emotional purchase based on wants as much as needs. Not all of these buyers and owners are not going to tell you they bought a vehicle for its build quality and reliability. They bought it for other reasons.

Consumers use a whole spectrum of ways in finding a satisfactory vehicle: online reviews, JD Power, car magazines, friends, neighbors, family and CR. It's been known for decades that car buyers often tolerate a whole host of problems with their vehicles for various reasons.

CR is a consumer organization that measures how often and what sorts of issues car owners have had over a certain period of time. NPS is used by sales, marketing types to measure customer loyalty and what the consumer is thinking about a company or its products.

There is no discrepency here. Range Rover owners usually know that their car is not in the top ten reliability list, Camry and Accord owners do. Camry and Accord owners report back to CR that they have fewer problems than Range Rover or Tesla owners. What's the mystery here? NPS somehow shows loyalty and satisfaction because those owners are satisfied with other things than outright reliability or quality.

 

I recall a decade or so ago being surprised that the little Fiat 500 was a terribly-unreliable car according to the CR tables, yet it scored very high on the owner-satisfaction chart. Okay, that's not so hard to understand. The little thing was cute as a button and those TV commercials (the Fiat leaping off a cliff and emerging on a distant shore later) were funny and clever. Great marketing, cute car. Folks buying them were apparently willing to put up with mechanical issues. Heck, I remember a girlfriend absolutely LOVED her MGB-GT back in the '70s. Never mind that there was always something wrong with it.

EDIT: I would probably put myself in the CR respondent category. I want a car that very rarely needs a repair. I want just oil changes and wipers, with the very occasional brakes and tires. No squeaks, no buttons that no longer work, no quirks. I'm pragmatic, which is quite different than others who demonstrate a near-religious fervor for, say, Apple or Tesla. Or French wines. Or In-n-Out burgers.

Okay, I take the last one back. Those Double-doubles with grilled onions are really in a category worthy of the fervor. We're getting an In-n-Out near Salem this year. Will make the drive for a fix only 80 minutes round-trip instead of 9 hours from here in Lake Oswego, Oregon.

 

 

I've already told my boss that I'm done the day that In-N-Out Burger permits franchises in the midwest. Those places print money. One of the key criteria in planning our summer vacations is whether or not there is an In-N-Out Burger in the vicinity.