OK, so there's already a thread with the 2006 most reliable results. But here's the least reliable results, I guess CNN doesn't like to put this in their stories so it doesn't cost them any advertising money - you have to love the media's notion of reporting the whole story.

Least reliable

Vehicles listed in scoring order, starting with the worst score.

SMALL CARS: Chevrolet Cobalt*.

SPORTY CARS/
CONVERTIBLES/COUPES:
Volkswagen New Beetle Convertible, Mercedes-Benz SL, Mercedes-Benz CLK, Ford Mustang (V6)*, Chevrolet Corvette*, Audi S4.

SEDANS: Jaguar S-Type, Lincoln LS, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Saab 9-3, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, BMW 5 Series (V8), Audi A8, Chrysler 300 (V8)*, BMW 7 Series.

WAGONS: Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Volkswagen Passat (V6) (2005), Volvo V50*.

MINIVANS: Nissan Quest, Buick Terraza*, Chevrolet Uplander*, Pontiac Montana SV6*, Saturn Relay*.

SMALL SUVS: Saturn Vue (AWD), Hyundai Tucson*, Kia Sportage*.

MIDSIZED SUVS: Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Land Rover LR3*, Land Rover Range Rover*, Ford Explorer (2005), Mercury Mountaineer (2005), Jeep Grand Cherokee*, Ford Freestyle (AWD)*, Cadillac SRX, Volvo XC90, Chevrolet TrailBlazer (V8), GMC Envoy (V8), BMW X5 (V8).

LARGE SUVS: Infiniti QX56, Nissan Armada, Hummer H2, Lincoln Navigator, Ford Expedition.

PICKUP TRUCKS: Nissan Titan, Chevrolet Colorado (4WD), GMC Canyon (4WD).

 

OUCH. thats hurtful for MB and GM. And my mom really loves the CLK. Welp, scratch that off the list.

 

The asterisk ( * ) symbol means data based on one year only....usually with new or extensively redesigned vehicles. ( I am a regular reader of the Consumer Reports reliability data )

It will be interesting to see if the Hyundai Tucson and Kia Sportage improve next year. This below-average rating for them bucks the usual Hyundai and Kia trend lately of improving records. However, I am still impressed with their fit-and-finish and still have them on my list of recommended inexpensive snow machines....and their 10-year warranties will cover most drivetrain problems for a LONG time....important in AWD vehicles.

 

Everybody talks about Mercs reliability problems lately but it should also be noted that BMW is down there with the worst of the worst.

 

Yes and no. The new 7-series has been awful....as has the X5. The X5 has even had engine fires from defective fan switches. The new 5-series and X3 are only about a year old, so their long-term trend is unclear. The Z4 has not sold in large enough numbers to give a clear pattern. The new 3-series is just debuting now.

 

Is that really surprising to anyone? Sure Hyundai's been making vast improvements in quality, but the real strong performers as of late have been their cars, and these SUVS are still from the first model year of the new generation. In fact a lot of the vehicles are from the first model year. Honestly... who buys an American brand vehicle in its first year of production. My parents love American brands... and even they won't buy the first model year.

 

BM-TroubleU. There is a reason for that term and a reason for free maintenance.

 

See now I have a question for you MMarshall since you are a big CR reader.

I just went around to a few other Forums(mainly GM, and Ford) and it seems to me that those folks there are spewing the "bias towards Japanese imports" thing. Now its probably just their bias that thier favorite company is on the worst list, but to my understanding, isnt this survey calulated by people who actually own these cars?? Why would one report their car is inferior to other to make the Japanese look better??

For example....

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=21919

We have 4 pages of people saying the same thing.


Or these.....

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...175.A4733.html

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto...192.A4802.html

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

 

The CR data speaks for itself. New models get that asterisk because they are new models. And the three is, of course, a new model so CR will not have data on it until next year, but the three has been one of the better for reliability for bimmer. But the new five was doing pretty well and then started sliding again. A relative with a 545 has had bimmer live down to the worst that bimmer can be but she is stuck in her lease. Obviously, CR has limitations in their data but I prefer to let people read it for themselves and make of it what they will.

The data obviously says the 7 and V8 5 are not just below average, they are down with the worst of the worst. I was somewhat disappointed that the 300 and the Mustang made that list but once again, I think that for fairness people should just read the data and make up their own minds. CR puts their disclaimers on how they collect the data so those interested should go and read that for themselves. Volume sales makes a difference which is why other models don't make the list like Ferrari and I would expect the 6. They just don't sell enough to get statistically valid data. Which is also the problem with first year data. But the overall results are clear in the CR data, Toyota is a reliable mfr and Merc and bimmer are not. There is some variation on different models but mfrs make reliable models or they don't. I may post big about looking at merc or jag or even bimmer but when it comes down to laying down tens of thousands of dollars, it is hard to stray very far from Toyota.

Once again, this is a Car Chat thread but I am disgusted with the CNN story that was the basis of rominl's thread only cherry picking the most reliable models. No sense letting people know who are the least reliable models if it could mean Wolf might not be able to get that next beard trim. Disgusting.

 

Yes, magneto..........I'm aware of the criticizm both in support of and against Consumer Reports. I also read the four-seasons tests in the auto mags where they keep a car for a whole year, put 40,000-50,000 miles on it, and report on the experience, and I actually am a regular J.D. Power focus group auto panelist......they regularly involve me in surveys and focus questions about various automotive issues.

To be honest, whan you take everything combined......my own experiences, those of others, back-up data from other sources, concurring experiences from other magazines...yes, there is sometimes conflicting data, but I am convinced that Consumer Reports does a better job reporting auto reliability on a large scale than any other source available to the general public. And all that Consumer Reports does is report on what actual owners report.....their own experiences. From 600,000 to 800,000 people report on their experiences to Consumer Reports every year....more than any other single magazine.

And......unlike what people in those GM forums you posted would have you believe.....CR is NOT either biased OR unbiased toward or against either domestics or imports. They simply report what they find...period. This "CR is biased" stuff, as far as I'm concerned, is a bunch of nonsense.

That's not to say that CR's data is perfect. There is obviously a time lag between surveys and results, and tabulating and printing them takes time, so the data will never be 100% up to date. And the number of vehicles sold in any single model makes a difference, too. And...last, things can sometimes change very quickly. The Subaru Baja and Toyota 4-Runner V6 had significant problems in their first year (uncharisteristic for both companies) and earned low reliability ratings...only to see both vehicles rebound spectacularly in their second year.

 

In one thing you are absolutely correct, the CR data comes from owner surveys, not mmarshall's opinion after a test drive or Jeremy Clarkson's witty analysis after having someone give him a car for a week or two or from my experience with bimmers ten years ago, it is from owners living with new cars. My wife and I have both gotten CR questionairres over the years, like I assume many hundreds of thousands of other people have. Bimmers are wonderful driving experiences and are superior in that respect to Lexus but living with them is a real pain. We may argue over CR results when they do a comparo but this is just a statistical exercise. And one of the strengths of CL is that we do tend to be a bit more open minded than other car sites and I think that for the majority of us who have owned a lot of cars from a lot of different mfrs, we really don't have any argument with who wound up on the most reliable list and who wound up on the least reliable list. Now, if you want to talk about how poor reliability has cost Detroit untold sales while bimmer, merc, jag, et. al., have not only similar reliability but also are able to improve it about as fast as the General but can explore just how fast they can get a midsize V8 5 series to $100K. It sure is good for bimmer and merc that there are more people willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars on fashion statement than they have combined brain cells for how to value shop. That may or may not be the end of the rant. I am very disappointed that Detroit has gotten to the awful state of automotive mfr that they have and I am getting just as disgusted with merc and bimmer. I would definitely like to get a bimmer again because Lexus hasn't gotten the ride/handling to where I want it, I am just not their target customer. But I refuse to spend tens of thousands of dollars to find out if the service writers at bimmers kids have graduated from college yet.

 

True, you cannot accurately predict a new vehicle's long-term repair record from just one inspection and test-drive, but you CAN get a general impression of the fit-and-finish, overall build quality, and general competence. For instance, not even the first ten minutes with the Dodge Magnum R/T showed a good, solid chassis, well-designed gauges, and a powerful engine, but complete JUNK for hardware and paint / trim.

 

Before this maybe gets hijacked over CRs validity I would like to make a couple of points. The models that I can vouch for on both the most and least reliable lists are in the right place. If we are going to pat Toyota/Lexus on the back for the results of the most reliable survey, we shouldn't try to rationalize the mfrs/models on the least reliable list. I am disappointed that some mfrs haven't improved because I think this is more mfr driven than model driven. I also believe that for the vast majority of people here, we really don't have any substantive areas of disagreement with the CR data.

 

Here at CL, 1SICKLEX ( Mike ) also does auto reviews...his are in some ways better than mine.
He is also a good judge of a vehicle's build quality....as is jet864. flipside909, and yourself. But obviously none of us have the data to work with that CR does.

 

Absolutely agreed which is why I STRONGLY argue that anyone interested in a certain model needs to go drive it themselves and not take anyone's opinion for anything other than the compilation of the list of cars you are interested in trying out yourself. I see quite a few people that 1) look for somebody to tell them what to buy or are buying image and could care less what the actual car is like or 2) somehow think a mfr that makes poorly screwed together cars will somehow make one model that is above average. Yes, it does happen but the odds are against you. I have driven the 300C, Magnum R/T, and the Charger in both hemi and SRT8 flavors and no, the interiors do not impress. But then again, the Charger SRT8 is around half price of a 550 and that does enter into it. But, once again, this is just about the CR data. I don't think anyone here really has to defend it. Anyone interested can go over to the CR site or buy the doggoned magazine to find out the details of how they do the survey. And also, once again, I doubt that anyone who has been exposed to a variety of cars is very surprised by the results. I doubt merc or bimmer will be using this data in their advertising anytime soon.


BMW, the ultimate driving experience. We now produce vehicles that you can actually drive in to get fixed instead of having them towed.