So with the baby due in 2 months, the evil side of me catch up again and I have been thinking about german SUVs, mainly the X5 or the Q7. Of course reliability and quality has always been a concern regarding these brands, so I tried to look them up on the internet.

What I found was pretty "confusing" results, hear me out... Let's say on 2007 X5 and Q7, reading reports on various places, they all they these cars are not reliable, have poor reliability, and their scores are "below" average. But looking at the actual scores, while the industry best (I think it's the RX?) is at around 88 points (excellent), the X5 and Q7 are around 75 points (iirc) while the lowest score was high 60s (iirc). And 75 point is actually rated as "very good"!!!!!

So I was sitting there wondering, how does this work? These cars get poor reliability (words), but from the points they are "very good", isn't that very confusing and somewhat misleading? In fact, when googling, the first thing I found was reliability on the cars is very good and I was surprised (from the chart), until I read more into the articles.

The sensible side of me of course say the 2010 RX (either 350 or 450h), good size, decent price, reliable, but when it comes to more driving dynamics, more sporty, of course the Q7 and X5 pop up...

Sigh...

The good thing (and the bad thing) about Consumer Reports is that it's reported by consumers.

And although consumers to have first-hand and long-term experiences with the cars they buy, they are still not experts. A lot of their reports/findings are opinion based; most grades are provided subjectively.


For example, Toyota has had about three cars (IIRC) that were taken off of their "Highly Recommended" list. Although nothing has changed with the cars, their "reliability" was tainted by an opinionated consumer market, even though experts (and common knowledge) state that there is nothing wrong with the cars, and the cars have not changed since being redesigned.

Consumers Reports to me is great for toasters and such and not great for vehicles.

Do you get the hardcopy CR magazine? The "Annual Auto" issue has useful reliability charts showing reliability by category (such as Engine-major, Engine-minor, climate control, suspension, etc.) and the data is surprisingly accurate. The rest of the stuff on cars by CR has very limited value, if any.

I also have considered a late model X5 for my #3 vehicle/bad weather SUV. But in looking at the reliability charts my expectations are low. I had a 06 ML350 with similar stats shown by CR, and it was truly mediocre (at least it wasn't horrible) from a reliability standpoint. I'm leaning more towards GLK or Venza for my purposes possibly (but I don't need baby/kid room, etc.)...

Note: Having driven the new RX, it's quite a step-up from previous gens and should be considered for the purpose, especially for those of us that have other more sporting premium cars in the fleet.

no i didn't get the hardcopy, but maybe i should go take a look

it's just such a tough call. the new rx is nice and overall i think it's a great choice for transportation use. i can get a new one for low 40s plus ttl. but i was also looking at the 07 q7 3.6 and they are going for low 30s, which really surprised me. 07 x5 3.0 is going for around 40s now as well. that's why i sort of consider them as well, but reading all the articles online, i don't know what to think. seems like it's still hit and miss, though i do see more on the miss side. whereas say for example my m3, it's been really good and overall i see more positive reviews than negative ones.

Reliability is just one aspect of the score. A car can score off the charts in comfort, features, handling, safety, fit and finish, but have a high number of recalls or repairs, and have below avg reliability. If a car has below avg reliability, no matter how well it scores elsewhere, they won't recommend it.

So this car is going to be a buy and not a lease? I'm a bit hesitant to buy any used luxury cars. More electronics = more potential problems regardless of brand and no (or little) warranty to protect you

For many buying late model used lux cars, CPO often is the only choice for the reasons you mentioned (specifically addressed by the long factory-backed warranties and customer service being the same as new cars).

As I've mentioned on the boards occasionally, CR has altered its editorial emphasis in recent years, with more subjective opinions in reviews than cold hard data...they also focus on main model, not model variants. Anyhow, their own individual staff reviews account for much of the "road test" score.

However, they still have their reliability data set and consumer survey results. That accounts for the "reliability" score (red circle to black dot). That is the most valuable aspect of CR information to most; for more detailed and meaningful reviews you can find them in magazines, online, from actual owners, etc.

A high-scoring vehicle can also lose out the "Recommended" rating because of bad reliability scores (just as the recent iPhone 4 got high test scores but was not recommended because CR didn't like the 'antenna issue' -- which many now think to be bogus--but again it's where CR catered to that opinion).

Regarding reliability, it's also useful IMO to check out JD Power, although their findings are completely based on owner reports.

JD Power
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/Audi/Q7/2007/SUV/
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X5/2007/SUV/
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/Lexus/RX/2010/SUV/

Happy hunting!

ah, thanks encore, definitely need to pay attention to the jdpower more to read for sure!

regarding buying vs leasing, here's my take. this car is going to be a trash car (kids) and just to carry people around, it's not going to be a car we really "care" or "enjoy" for that matter. with that in mind, buying new or leasing is much harder to be justified for their high cost. so buying used (or cpo) would make sense to drive it for a few years and then sell / trade and lose maybe half of what i would pay for lease.

of course, the rx would be the exception. it retains value well, and price for new is much more affordable than any of the other choices i have on the table

Yes, I agree. Reliability, it seems, is open to interpretation by the owner. Somehow, some consumers mistakenly believe that as long as their car never fails to start or never leaves them stranded, it is a totally reliable car. Everything else in the car could be broken, but as long as it starts and gets them where they want to go, it's reliable. It works the same way in the opposite extreme, also.

Well, a little humor to this. It's probably graded on a scale then.

so, if 75/88= 85%, then it's very good for them

and 60/88= 68%, D+



I see you guys are still adamant about not having a minvan

To try and make it as simple as possible, Henry, it goes like this: To make CR's Recommended List, a vehicle must pass CR's review, road tests, Government crash-tests, AND have an (overall) established reliability record of average or above (That's an overall record, not just one or two components or systems).

An all-new or extensively-redesigned vehicle, of course, can pass all of the tests with flying colors, but if it is brand-new to the marketplace (or substantially different from the previous model), CR will not officially recommend it until it has been on the road long enough to gave a good reliability rating, in the hands of customers. If it gets a below-average rating, no matter how well it performs in tests, it is not recommended.

CR used to recommend all-new or extensively-redesigned models, without waiting for reliability if they passed all the tests and the previous model had been reliable. But, that went out the window when CR recommended the 2006 Camry V6 and Tundra, based on the good reliability of previous Camrys/Tundras, and then those new models had trouble.
CR was embarassed by that, and now EVERY new model, regardless of brand/model, has to FIRST earn its reliability before it goes on the list.

I have to (somewhat) disagree. Though CR's reliability system is not perfect (no system, of course, is), from what I have seen (and I've been following it, with its updates/improvements, since the 1960's), it is far and away the best system available to general consumers. And newer Camrys and Tundras, in fact, have had trouble...it's not just in people's imaginations. Even over and above the reliability issue, When I first saw the present-generation Tundra, I was appalled at the cheapness/flimsiness of many of its parts.

lol, with sienna and odyssey? no, it's not happening