Consumer Reports names best and worst cars by brand

[Rogue One]

Consumer Reports names the best and worst cars by brand
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-re ... 00958.html

Make: Infiniti
Best: Q70 (M37, V6)
Worst: QX80 (QX56)

Make: Nissan
Best: 370Z Touring coupe
Worst: Versa SV sedan

[Dattebayo]

Does anyone know why the Tesla S was rated below average for reliability? I hope it's not consumers being stupid...

[Bubba1]

Does anyone know why the Tesla S was rated below average for reliability? I hope it's not consumers being stupid...

It appears to be limited to the 2013 model year. CR did not provide details in the issue. the reason why they were rated that was because a larger than average % of 2013 Tesla owners reported having problems that required repairs. That's not being stupid, buddy. FWIW, the same survey shows the 2012 Tesla with much better than average reliability.

[Dattebayo]

the reason why they were rated that was because a larger than average % of 2013 Tesla owners reported having problems that required repairs. That's not being stupid, buddy. FWIW, the same survey shows the 2012 Tesla with much better than average reliability.

Well from what I remember, it's not always a clear-cut case with this mag about what qualifies as "repairs" that would affect reliability. Interior? Transmission? A silly bit of flotsam that isn't important? I'm assuming from what I've seen from them in the past all those potential issues are all mashed together, therefore I am asking because some of that could be very stupid indeed!

[MinisterofDOOM]

Right. Surveys are a demonstrably s$%tty way of gathering information, because they're dependent upon too many external (not part of what's being measured) variables. Was the survey written well? Were the respondents reading properly?

CR's results are observably broken much of the time. Defending their methodolgy is like defending focus groups. Lots of people saying the same thing doesn't make it true. It makes them dumb.

Science is not a room full of survey respondents.

[Bubba1]

Right. Surveys are a demonstrably s$%tty way of gathering information, because they're dependent upon too many external (not part of what's being measured) variables. Was the survey written well? Were the respondents reading properly?

CR's results are observably broken much of the time. Defending their methodolgy is like defending focus groups. Lots of people saying the same thing doesn't make it true. It makes them dumb.

Science is not a room full of survey respondents.

So by your logic, if 75% of a group of 20,000 2013 Ford Taurus owners say they experienced problems with their myfordtouch over the last year, if CR concludes Myfordtouch in the 2013 Ford Taurus is unreliable, it's probably untrue and they're dumb?

I don't understand what you mean by "broken". I guess I'm one of the few NICOnauts that subscribe to CR and have actually filled out their ownership surveys. If you were to examine their surveys, you would find their surveys are well written, their instructions are simple and cover many different areas of each car. And when you ask thousands of owners of the same make/model/year vehicle to identify problem areas they've encountered in the last 12 months via the same consistent format, it's rather easy to extrapolate which cars tend to hold up better than others and identify any weak areas.

Are there subscribers that do not answer the surveys truthfully? I'm sure there are a few that respond more positively or negatively. But given the sheer size of their surveys, (clearly not a focus group) you can still determine trends as it seems unlikely that enough subscribers would go to the effort to organize/collaborate with enough other subscribers in an evil conspiracy just to manipulate overall data maybe a tiny fraction. I've always answered their surveys truthfully and have never been approached to alter my responses. And unsurprisingly, for the cars I've owned, many of which I bought new and kept a long time, the CR owner reported problem areas for my model cars are more often than not similar to my own experiences.

I think one drawback to owner surveys, especially for older vehicles, is that so many have changed hands, many several times. That means folks could be experiencing problems that were the result of poor maintenance/abuse by a previous owner (in addition to themselves) and not the result of a poor design/build quality. But the survey is meant to be simply a source of insight, not gospel. And for what it is, I think CR does a reasonably good job of that despite your disdain for it.

[float_6969]

For the Tesla, IIRC, it was a simply program issue with how the computer was handling electrical drains while the car was off. It had a nasty habit of leaving some un-needed stuff on and the battery would drain quickly when you ran into the gas station to grab a drink or something silly like that. The owners had to have the ECU re-flashed with updated software and the issue was resolved.

[Dattebayo]

Thank you very much! That's all I originally wanted to know, not to have some argument about CR's practices or whatever... but you asked back! My opinions about them are hardly singular, so I defend my belief that they are often stupid. And as referenced, consumers complaining about a software malfunction that is obviously now fixed is hardly a reason to call it a reliability issue IMO. Especially if all is well now.

[MinisterofDOOM]

We've done this dance before, Bubba. Neither of us is budging. But I'll address one point:

So by your logic, if 75% of a group of 20,000 2013 Ford Taurus owners say they experienced problems with their myfordtouch over the last year, if CR concludes Myfordtouch in the 2013 Ford Taurus is unreliable, it's probably untrue and they're dumb?

It's not the conclusion that's the problem. It's how the conclusion was reached. If you ask a broad enough pool of people about something, some of them are going to be dumb enough to have problems with it REGARDLESS of whether that something actually has problems of its own.

That said, MyFord Touch is legitimately garbage, and that kind of feedback is (should be) valuable to Ford for improvement. But it's only valuable if it's earned in a way that's demonstrably legitimated and not just Bob McKlutzington having trouble figuring out how motor skills work.

Software user experiences PARTICULARLY are very much subjective, and what are reported as "problems" are more often PEBKAC.

Surveys are stupid.

Reality is much simpler.

Science is not somewhere in between.

[Rev_D21]

Well I can imagine the Versa SV sucking balls but my 5speed S is good s***.