According to CR's policy, a vehicle, regardless of its road-test or safety-scores, can lose its Recommended rating if the reliability record slips below average....which can happen from one year to the next. Conversely, a vehicle previously Not Recommended can get on the Recommended list if its reliability improves enough. And, of course, a poorly-performing vehicle on the road, or an unsafe vehicle in an NHTSA test, will not be on the Recommend list to start with, even if it is reliable.

For example, that happened with the Lacrosse (I have a second-year 2018). When the current-generation model debuted in 2017, it had a good road test and was safe, but it was given a poor reliability rating (only 1 out of 5 points), based on a high number of owner complaints about the shifting of the (then) Aisin-built 8-speed transmission, and complaints about the video-screens and electronics going blank or not functioning properly. The next year, 2018, brought a new GM-designed 9-speed transmission for the V6, and a new standard 4-cylnder hybrid powertrain with a 6-speed. The reliability of the new 2018 models improved to average (3 out of 5)...as did also the reliability of the then-year-old 2017s, which were then raised to the Recommended list. The 2017s, of course, are now two years old....and still recommended, as are also the 2018s.

I'm not saying all this to try and confuse you, but simply to try and illustrate how CR's reliability data operates. You have to understand their system, or else, yes, it can sometimes leave one's head scratching.

 

I think what Bit is trying to say is CR for a long time has rated cars based on guesstimated ratings of past models. He points out the first model had bad teething issues. So based on that, CR should have been more cautious about recommending the all-new baby brother. At least that's how I look(ed) at it.
Bottom line is Tesla is a brand that cannot be trusted for reliability on any new model. Two strikes is way too much out of the gate.
I look at Tesla as nothing more than a trend. Like when Starbucks first came out, everyone had to go their and tell a friend, "I was at Starbucks." Then Apple. Then skinny jeans. It's just whatever the latest trendy thing is, people jump on it despite credibility. In this case, it's cars. Then someone else will come out with something more chic and original, and Tesla will just be another word in a sentence. Repeat, rinse...

 

CL, in some cases, does caution against first-year models, except sometimes with manufacturers like Toyota or Lexus, which have a long record of above-average reliability.

 

That's actually not a bad example. Ask anybody with a larger family, and they'll say all 3 or all 5 of their kids are different.

I can name 2 products I purchased at the top of CR's lists, because my mom always gave me the rags when she was done. This is an older person's publication. Both products failed. A lightbulb turned on in my head, their ratings are neither reliable, nor valid.

I purchased a car in 12/06 that they placed on their avoid and most unreliable lists. Nothing really broke in 12 years (one thing did but the car was already 10 y.o. so nothing to do with their lists) except one thing. Actually, they removed said car by the 2009 model year. Does anyone really believe they have enough data to fine tune between identical cars, year by year? How about with beloved Lexus. Is there really a difference year by year on a LX570? Or are they all pretty much reliable?

They can't be trusted for anything, it's an older generation's thing, back when there was little information available to the average person. "Nothing sporty about the new GTI." That was such a laugh when they said that.

 

They should caution against GM models for the first 15 or so years....I mean to have a TSB cover like 1999-2012 is pretty funny (ample time to correct the problem rather than work around the symptom)....

 

It's been a while but I saw a copy of their new car guide and they had the GTI ranked at the top of the segment. Oh well these CR debates seem to come up every time they are referenced in the news.

 

LOL, Starbucks is a trend? that's one helluva trend....

...and continues to trend UPWARD!!!!

 

It's the monkeys throwing darts picking stocks conundrum. If one can simply change what one said and work backwards to the obvious results, well, that's fine. But they should say, "For Amusement Only."

Common sense says that a GTI is likely to be one of the sportier cars out there. Yet their editor said nothing sporty about it, as if he would know.

 

When we were in Seattle, of course, we had to visit the roastery and the original store, and my favorite coffee is Dunkin. The original store has as many people taking selfies as the place in Jupiter FLA where Robert Kraft was allegedly a very busy man despite the Super Bowls. Who can explain human nature.

 

what is there to be confused about? They dropped both ratings due to user reports of many quality issues. Same issues are mirrored across many different publications, forums, blogs, pretty much everywhere - literally worst produced vehicles in western world.

Yet people still like them because of tech and cool factor.

I really dont see any conflicts in these two opinions - Teslas are cool, they are very advanced vehicles, fast and drive nicely and at the same time badly made with many quality issues.

 

 

 

Maybe their a hankering for punishment? Its like the owners of Range Rovers....Constantly taking more time in service bays then on drives, yet Land Rover never has had an issue moving them off lots.

Again CR isnt wrong, tbh their an adaptable metric. Their dividing up long term short term reliability, likability, and usability based on owners of their vehicles just like Tesla is varying their quality on model 3s lol

 

Tesla has everything going for them except reliability. They need to steal a few production ideas from Toyota (along with some of their best people) to sort things out.