Fizzboy7

Here we go again, with Consumer Reports tanking an entire car based on one category rating. According to my recent car issue, they state worse than average reliability with the on-board electronics. I would assume they mean the navigation, or audio adjustments. As much as I can't stand the frumpy, dumpy, metro-sexual bobcat styling of the new Civic, the interior interface can't be that bad- at least from other reviews I've read. In fact, I've heard no one complain about this area from those I've talked to. And the turd car is selling like mad. So unless I am mistaken, why put a thumbs down on a normally very reliable car based on some high-tech electronics that some people didn't get? I'd like to hear other people's opinion on this. I feel it's important considering how popular this car is and how long Honda has had a high reputation of reliability. I am a supporter of CR, but I feel ratings like this do a disservice to the community by not reporting things accurately.

mmarshall

I just got the Annual New-Car Issue from CR, and, checking the data for the new Civic, you are correct...virtually all nice green marks in the 2016 reliability chart except for a red warning one for in-vehicle electronics. Whatever those electronic problems are (and it doesn't elaborate much beyond the standard icon-marks), they must be serious. Otherwise, I don't quite understand their conclusion, either.


CR usually (probably 98-99% of the time) does an excellent job, but sometimes, once in a while, they will come out with something questionable.

Fizzboy7

Is it from not having a volume ****, like on some other Honda models? I thought they started adding it back in. If it's all based on that, that's certainly no reason to belittle the entire car. It also should warrant some sort of story or explanation. Proper journalism is reporting on a story that breaks tradition or is a surprise to people. Very disappointing.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

exactly what CR wants you to think, to reinforce their mindshare as 'looking out for loyal subscribers' but as you say, without specifying what the problems are, it's ridiculous.

good job obviously 98-99% of actual consumers don't read CR as the civic is selling like mad.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

but that's not CR's goal. it's to get 'headlines', clicks, attention, and 'scare' people into believing they must have CR to avoid being one of those people who bought a supposed lemon.

mmarshall

Well, we do know, for a fact (not just conjecture reading person's minds), that several German carmakers, for a number of years, in the late 1990s through the late 2000s, produced very unreliable electronics that seriously damaged their reputation (yet a lot of people sill kept buying their products). I'm not necessarily saying that it's Honda's turn now (only time will tell)...but this is not the first report I've seen (or just from CR, either) of declining reliability in Honda products. Yet, when brand-new, straight out of the factory (and I saw this again with me recent Ridgeline review), they still seem as well-screwed together, or better, than from any other automaker.



Can't necessarily pin (or not pin) sales figures on CR. Many vehicles that CR is criticized for poor reliability have sold quite well. Just recently, the Charger and Challenger (not to mention your own Jeep Grand Cherokee, though, from what you have told us, yours has been reliable so far).......and they all have very high customer satisfaction ratings despite questionable reliability.

mmarshall

Fizzboy has a point. Another good example is when the 2006 Camry V6, with its defective automatic transmissions, caught CR off guard after years of recommending the (usually) reliable Camrys. CR is generally a lot more careful now of simply recommending by tradition.

situman

Is that based on one sample size or multiple?

mmarshall

Well, I've been reading the magazine almost 50 years....since the late 1960s. I'd say that's a pretty good history of samples.

UDel

If people are really annoyed by a confusing needlessly complicated touchscreen interface and loosing intuitive buttons and ***** they will give it poor marks just for that and then the whole car suffers. The car can be reliable with everything else but that one thing can ruin its ratings.

Wandl

Remember the new Honda's as of late has had a rash of issues, I point to not only the Civic but the Honda Pilot as examples of the stellar brand's latest stumblings. Checking out Edmunds on the 2016 Pilot (my wife considered one) is plagued with VCM issues, shuddering, and the hated audio touch-screen interface (which they altered in 2017 by adding the volume button). Keep in mind the 2016 Civic, while welcomed with early good reviews, had a stop sale during the 2016 calendar year because of the 2.0L http://www.consumerreports.org/civic...6-honda-civic/

While I assume manufacturing shortfalls not being able to keep up with demand led to reduced 2016 Pilot sales, an article somewhere (I think KBB or something) actually insinuated Honda was dissapointed at the units volume of the 2016 Pilot

MattyG

Every two or three months the usual suspects show up posting a CR bashing thread. I don't know who forces anyone to take one organization's opinion as the truth while subscribing to it. Informed consumers always use multiple online sources as well as anecdotal opinions.

OP, you forgot one important detail in your rant against CR. You didn't post anything about vehicles the organization recommends and other vehicles CR is also not recommending. Context is everything.

Here's Autoblog's article on this issue:

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/10/24/c...s-honda-civic/

Fizzboy7

The reasons CR listed are absolutely pathetic within the big picture. You don't completely cut down a car based on a volume ****, lack of options/packaging, or availability. As I suspected, CR's ratings for the Civic are unprofessional, irrational, and inconsistent with other judging. Very much like their pathetic rating of the current IS. I take this magazine, like I have been since the beginning, with a grain of salt. Thanks for the link evidence.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

decided to do some googling on CR...

looks like they've lost tons of experienced talent and staff have wonderful things to say like:
http://www.alternet.org/media/expose...nsumer-reports

their subscriber base is shrinking and aging...
but from the same article, a brighter note... they bought consumerist.com in '08 which appeals to a younger audience, but as far as i can see, only provides revenue through donations.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business...review/477108/

the biggest issue CR has though is simply the vast number of consumer-provided online reviews that are free... sure some are sponsored, and some are fake/fraud, but nothing's perfect.

my big beef with CR is flawed methodologies and conclusions that don't make sense from very limited data, or stale data (e.g., trending a rating of a car or brand that has been completely replaced in recent years).

Aron9000

I still think the best way to research reliability is to search in a forum like this one. Go look at Cadillacforums.com, compare the number of *****/complaint threads vs clublexus.com and you can come to an obvious conclusion about which late model cars have fewer problems.