Without detail the entire study is meaningless. Nothing is defined.

 

It's funny how we criticize these reviewers but in the reality we are the ones that know/experience less about the vehicles. The most we know/experience is our own sample of one and hearings from others which IMO are more worthless than those reviewers. We also seem ticked off when reviewers say negative about our sample of one.

 

Not sure I agree. I think most people here are WAY more informed than most because of this forum giving us access to other owners of our same make, model, and year range. My issue with all of these reports are the terms "reliability", "dependability", etc. - how they are used by the publication as a bit of "bait" and some people seem to misinterpret these terms. Is a car model "unreliable" because people have issues with the audio system or infotainment? By definition of these studies, it would be reported as an issue that makes the car less reliable. I just don't see it that way. Below is a quote found within the "dependability" study by JD Power released Feb 2023. People who reported issues with bluetooth, voice recognition, and Car Play will result in that car being "less dependable." The data collection method is flawed, and the use of the terms is outright misleading (in my humble opinion of course).

"The study looks at 184 specific problem areas across nine categories, including driving assistance, infotainment, seats, exterior and interior. The survey found infotainment systems were the most problematic, with drivers reporting issues with voice recognition, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto connectivity, built-in Bluetooth systems and touch screens. Overall, the category averaged about 50 problems per 100 cars – almost twice as many as exterior, the next highest category."

 

The term "Reviewer", objectively, can mean little or nothing. I've seen "Reviewers" that IMO are truly excellent...(Alex Dykes, James May, Rich Ceppos, Consumer Reports, etc.....), those that are good (Doug Demuro, Savage Geese, John Davis, Patrick Bedard, etc...), and those who IMO are little more than clowns writing more for show-effect than factually and accurately (Jeremy Clarkson, Brock Yates, Scotty Kilmer, etc...)

 

It could be flawed, but the sample size is generally going to be large enough to be reasonably representative and as I understand it the problems are not weighted equally which is the common (and most likely incorrect assumption) many might make about surveys like this and the longer-term reliability studies. There may well be more reported issues with infotainment etc, but they probably aren't going to be weighted as heavily as major mechanical issues etc and will contribute less to the overall assessment. The real issue that the IQS highlights, IMO, is the poor job most dealers do on handover and the fact that no one reads the manuals anymore. You only have to spend a few minutes on a forum or Facebook group etc to see that people will invest more time posting about a problem than figuring it out.

Bit harsh on Clarkson IMO. He has his specific style, which I happen to like, but he's generally bang on the money with his assessment. He was involved with Top Gear back when it was much more like Motor Week than it ended up (and both show formats worked, albeit for different reasons) plus his printed work can be entertaining. Some of what he does is a bit problematic but he's done more than most to redefine the role of the car in entertainment. I quite like the Alex on Autos type detailed output too, but if that's what shows on TV were like you'd be reaching for the off button in no time.

 

Yes, I respect your view of Clarkson ......and he is great at what he does, IF you want to listen to automotive-entertainment. But entertainment is entertainment, and reviewing is reviewing.


Alex is a TRUE auto-reviewer. He doesn't get into agendas, personal biases, politics, showmanship, or attempts to use the camera to get on a soap-box. He talks about the vehicle, period.....from stem to stern. He covers virtually every square inch of the vehicle, and compares it to other vehicles in the class...more-so than anyone I've seen in the business.

Oh.....and I'd also add our own pbm317, here in Car Chat, to the list of who I'd consider good reviewers....he does a credible job.

 

There are many auto reviewers on YouTube. Some of the professional reviewers are paid sponsors (not disclosed). That's why they don't say much bad stuff on the vehicles. Doug Demuro pays his way to the events others are get paid trips by the car manufacturers. Biases are there.
Car Care Nut is honest with his reviews also.

Other less reviewers are from the owners or average Joes that gets the loaner to review.

 

Funny and true.
Greetings from Boynton (when we are there). NX is staying in Pa.

 

Thanks! I hope to add some more in the coming months!

Back on the topic, I know a lot of people gripe about the "quality" labeling here. Yes some the parts are actual build quality (fit/finish) but the others could be said to be quality of design/usability. So two types of quality.