Consumer Reports Annual Car Reliability Survey (updated October 2011)
Honda reliability has always ranked among the top according to CR. However, my experience with Honda is far from it. I am only listing the big ticket items that I have had with my hondas
1. 01 Accord - Dead AT transmission @ ~75k miles
2. 01 CRV - AC compressor failed prematurely and had a major head job for burned valves.
3. 05 S2K- 1st & 2nd gear synchros replaced due to it poping out under load so the transmission had to be removed and fixed. Sure I tracked it so did my 00 ITR. The ITR was abused much much more than the S2k but never had a problem.
4. 08 S2K CR - is beginning to experience the same problem. It only has 9K miles on the clock and I have only tracked it a few times. Yes, I do know how to drive a stick.
So, you see why I use CR as toilet paper?
2. 04 Accord EX-L I4 5MT: Bad navigation unit @ 55K (replaced courtesy of Honda), bad power window regulator @60K. Lots and lots of rattles.
The idea that a Honda is trouble free "because CR says so" isn't true for everybody. With that said, I still see the two cars as reliable for the most part. No bad engine sensors, no sorts of suspension issues, and no electronic problems (beyond navigation computer).
No rattles or any other issues with it at all.
Last edited by I8ABMR; Oct 28, 2009 at 05:50 PM.
Last edited by I8ABMR; Oct 28, 2009 at 05:51 PM.
That is correct. Although there have been some transmission issues in the past, the average Honda/Toyota product, if serviced properly, lasts a good 200K miles, and usually doesn't need major repairs before 100-150K. Honda and Toyota did not get their good reputations just out of thin air....for the most part, they earned it.
Last edited by mmarshall; Oct 28, 2009 at 03:44 PM.
Because CR reliability is provided by the CR subscribers, the data is inherently biased to its reader base, which for years has been very pro-Japanese. That doesn't mean the data isn't accurate, but it does give reason to pause and evaluate CR's data in conjunction with other publications like JD Power or True Delta. If an auto company scores well in multiple surveys (e.g. Lexus), it's probably a better indication of reliability than say one that has fabulous scores in one yet abysmal in another (e.g. Scion).
What CR should do is provide (and perhaps they already do) the exact breakout of their data. So if they say the GS AWD has terrible reliability but the RWD has great reliability, how many vehicles (AWD and RWD) is that based on? The other flaw with CR is there is no data validation. A survey taker can put in information on multiple cars, even on a car that person doesn't actually own.
My point really is CR's data is flawed, but no more flawed than anyone else's data, so take it with a grain of salt. It doesn't hurt to compare it with other reliability surveys.
Because CR reliability is provided by the CR subscribers, the data is inherently biased to its reader base, which for years has been very pro-Japanese. That doesn't mean the data isn't accurate, but it does give reason to pause and evaluate CR's data in conjunction with other publications like JD Power or True Delta. If an auto company scores well in multiple surveys (e.g. Lexus), it's probably a better indication of reliability than say one that has fabulous scores in one yet abysmal in another (e.g. Scion).
What CR should do is provide (and perhaps they already do) the exact breakout of their data. So if they say the GS AWD has terrible reliability but the RWD has great reliability, how many vehicles (AWD and RWD) is that based on? The other flaw with CR is there is no data validation. A survey taker can put in information on multiple cars, even on a car that person doesn't actually own.
My point really is CR's data is flawed, but no more flawed than anyone else's data, so take it with a grain of salt. It doesn't hurt to compare it with other reliability surveys.
these CR survey results appeal to those who end up ranked highly
, those who spend money to subscribe to CR, and those who consider themselves 'sensible' and would subscribe to CR, but for whatever reason, don't.in other words, i think CR's survey is not worth a great deal.
but i do agree with their one finding... chryslers are junk.
but bmw's aren't that bad.
I thing CR does a much better job when they rate things like appliance and tires where they actually test the product in their lab, but obviously, they cannot buy a million and test it. Never the less, they should really improve the way they conduct their car survey.
Celebrating Lexus & Toyota from Around the Globe
Much more credible than word of mouth reports from my sister's boyfriend's parents, a friend of a friend etc.
I look at them for things that are of interest or important to me, and make my own decisons. Just one part of the fact finding process.
Much more credible than word of mouth reports from my sister's boyfriend's parents, a friend of a friend etc.
I look at them for things that are of interest or important to me, and make my own decisons. Just one part of the fact finding process.
And I've put the individual model charts to the test by comparing it to actual cars that I've owned and found my experiences closely matched what they were reporting.
And for that reason I'm not bothered by CR's biases.
And for that reason I'm not bothered by CR's biases.










