Consumer Reports Annual Car Reliability Survey 2009 - Page 3

newr · 10-28-09, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmarshall

While you, of course, are entitled to your opinion, most of us feel that CR is one of the best sources out there (if not THE best) for auto reliability. True, they don't do the same kind of sport-oriented testing that the enthusiast mags do, but that is not their purpose.

What I said previously was based on my experience, NOT my opinion.

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?

FKL · 10-28-09, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newr

What I said previously was based on my experience, NOT my opinion.

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?

1. 2002 Accord EX V6: Dead AT @ 60K. Dead AT @ 98K. Bad power window regulator on Drivers side @80K, bad alternator @95K
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).

mmarshall · 10-27-09, 05:32 PM

If you look at the actual RANGE of reliability (from best to worst) instead of just the overall brand rankings (which, of course, are based on the median for each company), you will see that VW has some of the most unreliable vehicles out there.....and the Touraeg is at the bottom of those.

[/quote]

MPLexus301 · 10-27-09, 05:51 PM

The only car to come out since they changed hands is the XF, correct?

FisforFast · 10-27-09, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MPLexus301

The only car to come out since they changed hands is the XF, correct?

And the new XK as well, at least the new powerplants. And I don't know if the new XJ (X351) is out yet. Regardless, Jags have always been exceptionally well built - the attention to detail is staggering, and you simply can't deny that. Their motorizations have always been quite reliable, but as with all European cars it's the electronics that fell short.

encore888 · 10-27-09, 06:08 PM

This is now several instances where the ranking for TMC has been Scion-Toyota-Lexus; sometimes it's been Lexus-Toyota-Scion, and perhaps another combo as well. But I'm wondering whether the more mechanically and electronically complex luxury vehicles, in general, are having a harder time topping the charts (with the addition of cameras, sensors, multiple infotainment, more and more speakers, etc). Moreover, the point about range was made...one can see that Honda, Toyota, Lexus, and Mercedes reach the highest points on the % more reliable range, but overall the average ranks them differently to certain degrees.

GS69 · 10-27-09, 07:29 PM

Interesting to see how high Mitsubishi is. Correct me if I am wrong, but did they not, a few years ago, hire the guy that helped turn Hyundai around? If so, interesting that Mitsubishi is now 2 spots higher than Hyundai.

The differences w/ J.D. Powers is also of note: Subaru did not do so well on this one .........

FisforFast · 10-27-09, 07:32 PM

Subaru never does very well because they don't make cars that appeal to a broad audience.

mmarshall · 10-27-09, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FisforFast

Subaru never does very well because they don't make cars that appeal to a broad audience.

Subarus, mechanically, have been better-than-average for years, though there were some head-gasket and rear-wheel-bearing issues up until about 2003, mostly with the N/A 2.5L. A few wheel-bearing issues remain, but Subarus are still clearly a good bet in the reliability field. In 2004, BTW, Subaru was CR's top-rated overall brand for reliability......with Honda/Lexus tied for second place.

And, as far as appealing to a broad audience, Outbacks/Impreza Wagons are one of the best-selling AWD wagons on the market, far outdoing the Audi All-Road, Volvo XC70, Ford Freestyle, Toyota Venza, and similiar vehicles.

I was so impressed with the Outback that I bought one myself. And the WRX has a huge following in this area......I don't have hard figures, but the WRX seems, right offhand, to be outselling the base Imprezas.

ivanz · 10-27-09, 07:38 PM

Just saw this on the news. I have no idea how the GS AWD is any worse than a regular GS (not that the GS has many issues either way). There is no issue with the AWD system (unless you count not able to lower it as much as a RWD as a reliability issue).
What shocked me most was the following:

Quote:

Even good brands falter. Among the least reliable vehicles in their respective classes are the all-wheel-drive Lexus GS, the Nissan Versa sedan, and the Subaru Impreza WRX. The Lexus GS AWD is the only Toyota mod*el with below average reliability.

Source

How is the GS worst in the class? I guess the 5 series or equivilent Mercedes (E? class) aren't rated in order for this to be true. As they have actually issues that make the car not work.

I do admit the GS has issues, but nowhere near the issues that other cars in the class have.

Pure B.S. Lexus should sue them and force them to do a fair comparison of cars in the class.

FisforFast · 10-27-09, 07:41 PM

The equivalent 5-Series from BMW or E-Class from Mercedes-Benz, or even the A6 from Audi, surely can't be as reliable or dependable as the GS from Lexus, whether it be AWD or RWD. This is why these reliability rankings should be taken with a grain of salt.

ivanz · 10-27-09, 08:06 PM

Ok, just found this for the GS AWD

Major brake issues? I've never heard of anybody complaining about the brakes apart from dust.
Fuel system? Audio? Did they just fudge these??

I think the issue is the GS fell through the cracks so to speak. According to the site, there are only 2 GS: GS 300 and GS 450h. Yes, that's right, all of them are GS 300 even for 2008!
Also, the GS RWD is above average and recommended! WTF?

The G Man · 10-28-09, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivanz

Ok, just found this for the GS AWD

Major brake issues? I've never heard of anybody complaining about the brakes apart from dust.
Fuel system? Audio? Did they just fudge these??

I think the issue is the GS fell through the cracks so to speak. According to the site, there are only 2 GS: GS 300 and GS 450h. Yes, that's right, all of them are GS 300 even for 2008!
Also, the GS RWD is above average and recommended! WTF?

I had a 2008 GS350 AWD last year and did extensive research on the GS's reliability. The Consumer report's much worst than average rating for the GS350 AWD and above average rating for the RWD just did not make sense since the AWD system in the GS is pretty relaible. So I research some more and found a link where one editor ask CR why the rating were so different between the 2 version. The CR editor’s respond was the AWD version have extensive interior panel integrity issues. I assume they meant to say the dash rattles. The funny thing is that both the AWD and RWD share the same interior panels.
Other things on CR's report that made me think twice about CR's ability to rate anything except for household appliance is that they claim the GS have major brake issues. As far as I know, there is only a dust and squeaks problem, which are not Major brake issues. Also, as ivanz said, it seems like they just tested the 2007 GS300 and the GS450h and use the same report for all 2008 and 2009 GS350 and GS V8.

LexBob2 · 10-28-09, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The G Man

I had a 2008 GS350 AWD last year and did extensive research on the GS's reliability. The Consumer report's much worst than average rating for the GS350 AWD and above average rating for the RWD just did not make sense since the AWD system in the GS is pretty relaible. So I research some more and found a link where one editor ask CR why the rating were so different between the 2 version. The CR editor’s respond was the AWD version have extensive interior panel integrity issues. I assume they meant to say the dash rattles. The funny thing is that both the AWD and RWD share the same interior panels.
Other things on CR's report that made me think twice about CR's ability to rate anything except for household appliance is that they claim the GS have major brake issues. As far as I know, there is only a dust and squeaks problem, which are not Major brake issues. Also, as ivanz said, it seems like they just tested the 2007 GS300 and the GS450h and use the same report for all 2008 and 2009 GS350 and GS V8.

The '07 GS AWD was rated Below Average under Body Integrity, Power Equipment, Audio System and rated Average in two other areas.

Not sure of the details included in each, just reading off of the report.

FisforFast · 10-27-09, 08:26 PM

I did not say that Subarus were not reliable, I said that they did not appeal to the broader population. They are not necessarily affordable, they are very expensive to maintain for cars their price, and they aren't exactly pretty. A brake job on a WRX around here is in upwards of $6000 when all is said and done; I reckon a brake job on my R8 is cheaper. They also have sub-par automatic transmissions, which in this day-and-age is unacceptable.