It's because Buick starts with a B, while Caddy starts with a C and Lincoln an L. Old folks forget there are other letters in the alphabet so they just settle with the first one they see.

 

Seems some are having a tough time with Audi being #1.It's really not a big deal to me.
I really like Audi models but still wouldn't want to own one past basic warranty.

 

Yes.....PBS noted that last night when they did their nightly news show (which I usually watch). They noted the continuing popularity of some Jeep models despite low reliability ratings and test-scores.

Though the new Cherokee isn't bad in the way it drives (I've reviewed it), I myself think that the Grand Cherokee is really in a class by itself, and can't really be compared to any other Jeep. I understand why you and SW15LS were attracted to them. The other Jeeps, though, are generally cheaply-made and sometimes shoddy, though the Wrangler is admittedly excellent off-road.

One other (possible) reason for Jeep's high sales is the large, expensive, and impressive display they have at the major auto shows that is an indoor simulated off-road/obstacle course, with simulated water-crossings, logs, rocks, and steep hills. (I say it is expensive because this is in addition to their regular new-vehicle display in another part of the show...they actually have two separate displays). At the D.C. show, for instance, they typically have the regular new-vehcle display upstairs with other FCA (Dodge/Chrysler/Fiat) models, and the road-course downstairs. You wait in line (there's always a long line for the course LOL), sign up for Jeep info if you want it, and hop into the next available Jeep for a trip around the course with a company-rep.

 

What would be interesting is to see what people percieve as reliability.

For example, the lexus I had was flawless, literally nothing went wrong. Maybe a bit of squeak here and there from interior trims.

The LR (and aston) are quirky. The aston leaks a dribble of water from the driver side window if i spray my pressure washer at it. As for the LR (less than 2k miles), the nav crashes some times, if I try to roll up 2 windows at the same time from the master switch, only one window gets the auto roll up / down function (bad circuit design?).

But these to me are things that doesn't really knock on the reliability scale. I guess I am used to it having owned a few british cars.

Drive train failures, burning oil issues however are major deal breakers to me.

 

^ That was funny.

 

Cadillac and Lincoln both have sportier vehicles than Buick as of late and guess who drives them????. When was the last time you saw a 60 year old tracking or stancing a CTS or CTS-V ???

Now you know why Caddy and Linc are below Buick.

 

Why doesn't it work for Cadillac and Lincoln but work for Buick? I believe it is the expectations buyers have for expensive premium lines. Cadillac and Lincoln are the luxury lines for their respective automakers so buyers expect them to be more refined and more reliable than a Buick, which, while more expensive and more refined than a Chevy, is still not seen as a luxury brand.

Expectations may also be the reason for why Audi is doing so well. Buyers may now have come to expect Audi to be not very reliable, so any improvement is going to be perceived as a greater positive change than Lexus staying at its usual reliability levels.

I believe that CR reliability ratings cannot be beat because they are compiled from the real-life use by their members. But I do not trust their drive test rankings. It seems to me that CR's testers approach all cars with the same criteria, which seems to be that of a mid-size family car (such as the Accord or the Camry).

So compact and smaller cars are penalized for being too small and unrefined. The Jeep Wrangler is penalized for being too rough and noisy. Sporty cars are penalized for not being smooth enough. And refined, ultra-smooth large premium sedans such as the Lexus LS and Tesla Model S are rewarded for being super-Camrys.

 

Wow. Well said.

 

Its not that I hate Audi, its the fact that a cheating company should not even qualify.......period.

I guess some forget what "trust" really means...........at this stage consumer reports should not recommend anything from a cheating company. They fooled the world like that is not enough??

Audi paid CS to help their image.

 

I wonder if Subaru and Lexus paid lesser amounts for their #2 and #3 rankings.

 

It is indeed rare to see a older person in a CTS-V (it simply rides too stiff for most of them). But plenty of older folks drive the regular CTS models. I see it every day

No. It will take more than just one car (the CTS-V) to make a difference.

 

You have no proof they did. Though I totally agree they did. 100% recommended is such a BS, but paying enough Benjamin, anything is possible.

 

Come on. Get serious. That is not meant to be rude, but simply realistic. CR also has reported extensively on the diesel-scandal, so it's not like they are trying to protect anybody.


I understand your comment is facetious ....that's why I'll reply differently than I did just above. CR, of course, takes no advertising money or donations from any manufacturer. Their opinions and rankings are entirely objective.

 

What happened to Honda and Acura? Honda predicted reliability only average and Acura WORSE than average.

 

Starting at which model year have Audis improved in reliability?