Forbes do not buy list

[Bubba1]

Forbes just published their list of 13 2016 vehicles to avoid buying. they not only rank below average in Consumer Reports reliability surveys PLUS all 3 JD Power surveys (initial quality, dependability, design/performance), but also their depreciation over 3/5 years are among the industry's worst. So if you buy one of these new, Forbes suggests you're more likely to experience problems with them and then might take a bath when you go to sell it. Yes, there are a two Nissans on the list. Ready?

13. Acura RLX
12. Cadillac ATS: on it's way to becoming the next Catera. To answer the expected question: no, they did not say anything about the V version.
11. Chrysler 200: unsurprising if you've been in one.
10. Chevy Suburban:
9. Dodge Journey:
8. Ford Fiesta: They did note the sportier ST version is peppier, but still on the list.
7. Ford Focus: they did praise the handling,ride and fuel economy, but poor reliability hurts it.
6. Dodge Dart
5. infiniti Q50
4. Jeep Cherokee: the V6 is evidently better than the base 4 banger, but both are on the list.
3. Jeep Compass:
2. Jeep Patriot: notice a trend?
1. Nissan Pathfinder: IMHO, what was once a reliable tank of an SUV has become an unreliable spongy car based grocery getter undeserving of the name.

Some notes:
the article noted that there were good things about these cars. for example. they liked the Pathy's interior, easy access, and handy 2nd row. It's that when you factor reliability and depreciation into the mix, they say they become less than desireable.

Interesting that almost half of the entries were Fiat Chrysler.

Thoughts?

[elwesso]

The ATS isn't a surprise to me. I remember looking at an almost new one a couple years ago (had like 4k miles on it) and the dealer had actually bought it back from the owner because the owner claimed something was wrong with it that they couldn't fix.. I'd be scared to own one.

Interesting that no VW/Audi products were on there, especially knowing all the shenanigans VW has suffered lately with emissions. Kind of seems like maybe VW is starting to make some fairly solid cars?

[PapaSmurf2k3]

I'm not surprised at all that there's so much FCA stuff on there. To be honest, I'm a little surprised there isn't more.
Pathfinder taking the blue ribbon though... didn't see that coming. I know the older ones have their issues though. Get your s*** together, Nissan.

[elwesso]

It'd also be nice if Nissan made a car other than the Z that was remotely fun to drive, but I guess we can't always have what we want.

[Jesda]

This list is so-so.

2013 ATS had a lot of first year issues but it's by far the best driving car in its class, period, full stop, zero room for argument. I know a few people who had to go through the buyback process. 2014 was just about perfect.

200 had a bad gearbox, nice body and interior.

Dart had all kinds of issues.

Compass and Patriot have all kinds of quality issues, mostly related to the suspension and a mess of squeaks and rattles from inside and outside the vehicle. They may not leave you stranded but you might wish they did.


The rest? Nah. I can think of a dozen VW/Audi and Land Rover products that belong on this list for poor mechanical and electrical reliability.

Quality and design are slightly different criteria and should be given less weight. The Suburban, for example, is often criticized by idiot consumers for poor fuel economy yet it delivers accurately on its EPA rating.

[Bubba1]

I was also surprised no German cars or Jeeeag/LandRovers made the list. It appears that while most did poorly for depreciation, their reliability, (for at least the first 3 years and initial quality) seems have improved enough that they scored better than the vehicles on this list. I still would not want to own a newer German car or Tata post warranty.

Regarding the Cadillac ATS, yes, it appears the '14 was significantly better the '13, but keep in mind this list is about 2016 models, not 2014. Also the fact it's a good driving car is irrelevant to the Forbes list. The in-car electronics seems to be the primary ATS villain. It's supposedly as bad, if not worse than as Ford's "Mybadtouch" was. And it appears enough ATS owners, who paid between $32K and $62K for their new ATS's expect that kinda stuff to work during the first year of ownership, and evidently have complained in their JCPower and CR surveys to rank the 2016 ATS below average enough to make this list. Then add in the worse than average depreciation, which is what it is. There is a bright side to being on this list. As a Cadillac fan who only buys older used ones, and I presume is willing to overlook bad electronics, Jesda can buy a used Catera...er...Cimarro...ahem...I mean ATS cheaply and still love it..

[frapjap]

There is a bright side to being on this list. As a Cadillac fan who only buys older used ones, and I presume is willing to overlook bad electronics, Jesda can buy a used Catera...er...Cimarro...ahem...I mean ATS cheaply and still love it..

I thought Jesda wrote that for a second.

But yeah- an ATS-V or regular ATS with the badass Carmax warranty would be perfect for a few years.

[asoomal]

Exactly.

Just a few years.

[Jesda]

The in-car electronics seems to be the primary ATS villain. It's supposedly as bad, if not worse than as Ford's "Mybadtouch" was. And it appears enough ATS owners, who paid between $32K and $62K for their new ATS's expect that kinda stuff to work during the first year of ownership, and evidently have complained in their JCPower and CR surveys to rank the 2016 ATS below average enough to make this list. Then add in the worse than average depreciation, which is what it is. There is a bright side to being on this list. As a Cadillac fan who only buys older used ones, and I presume is willing to overlook bad electronics, Jesda can buy a used Catera...er...Cimarro...ahem...I mean ATS cheaply and still love it..

The early version of CUE in the ATS gets annoyingly laggy when you start navigating, using apps, making calls, and syncing contacts. It's very attractive and nicely arranged but it needed a ton of software optimization which did finally happen for the CTS and CT6. Same goes for MFT -- it was a pain to use but it didn't leave you on the side of the road, not like a VW with a faulty wire harness or an MB or Land Rover with a failed $4000 air ride component.

It's really stupid that this sort of thing carries the same weight in a survey as a Chrysler 200's faulty transmission. There is a difference between quality and reliability. Heck, the Chrysler 200 has the world's easiest and most dependable infotainment system and an elegantly finished interior. That doesn't count for jack when you're waiting for a tow truck.

This list is crap and Forbes sucks. Any site that makes you go through 20 clicks to read a short and shallow list should be targeted by ISIS. Thankfully, Joel is there to do the clicking for the rest of us.

[Bubba1]

Yep, and Jesda is there to worship Cadillac and despise Toyota regardless of what tens of thousands of actual owners report.

Fwiw, mon ami, I do agree with you that certain problem areas should carry more weight than others. But on the other hand, if you spend tens of thousands of dollars for a new car (something you don't do), call me crazy, but there's reasonable expectation that the car will not have to go back to the dealer repeatedly to fix things that should not fail so quickly. For example, My last new Chrysler went thru 5 power window motors over a 3 yr lease, all covered under warranty. (all 4 windows plus driver window twice). Did it leave me stranded as a result? Nope. Did it aggravate/inconvenience me that I had to return it to the friggin' dealer 5 times? Yep. Did it impact my decision to lease another one? Yep. My point is, when it comes to buying new, (not used, which appears to be your perspective) the little things matter more than you think.

[elwesso]

Yep, and Jesda is there to worship Cadillac and despise Toyota regardless of what tens of thousands of actual owners report.

Fwiw, mon ami, I do agree with you that certain problem areas should carry more weight than others. But on the other hand, if you spend tens of thousands of dollars for a new car (something you don't do), call me crazy, but there's reasonable expectation that the car will not have to go back to the dealer repeatedly to fix things that should not fail so quickly. For example, My last new Chrysler went thru 5 power window motors over a 3 yr lease, all covered under warranty. (all 4 windows plus driver window twice). Did it leave me stranded as a result? Nope. Did it aggravate/inconvenience me that I had to return it to the friggin' dealer 5 times? Yep. Did it impact my decision to lease another one? Yep. My point is, when it comes to buying new, (not used, which appears to be your perspective) the little things matter more than you think.

I guess for most consumers, I think a trip to the dealer for warranty work probably holds about equal value regardless of the repair... Meaning, that if I have to hassle with it, it's still a hassle regardless of what's being done (because I have no out-of-pocket expense). I think the only differentiation is if it leaves you stranded or not.

What I'm really taking out of all of this is that almost all new cars are becoming more like appliances and becoming throw-away items after a certain age. That makes me sad, because there's some really cool cars that have come out in the last few years that I'm concerned will get to the point of being un-fixable ..

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm still waiting for someone (including Acura) to explain to me exactly why the RLX exists...

[nissangirl74]

Greg's mom has an ATS. Her TPS light has been on for two months. She's been to the dealership 4 times. She's taking it back in tomorrow. She loves her car but she is getting irritated and it scares her a bit, TBH. She's over 70 y/o and has a heart condition. The possibility of breaking down in Phoenix in the summer worries her. She never had these issues with her CTS.

The Suburban surprises me. I always thought they were solid vehicles. Nothing else does though. I drove one of the new Pathfinders for about ten miles. I liked it but I've never thought it should have replaced the "real" truck platform based Pathy. It sucks that they couldn't get it right because there is a market for it, it just needs a different name.

The only thing on the market that I would be remotely interested in buying at the moment is a new Sierra - and there's no way in hell I'm forking over the cash for the model I want. There is nothing out there now that would even remotely tempt me away from my Speed3.

[MinisterofDOOM]

My experience with the Suburban (and all GMT K2XX trucks) has been almost exclusively positive. Great trucks. Of course, I haven't owned one long-term.

I'd love a regular cab, long-bed, 4x4, non-lux Silverado with the 6.2 in black or white.

I would NEVER spring for a Denali or Cadillac GMT vehicle. You get a marginally nicer interior and not much else for tens of thousands more than a regular Suburban or Sierra.

[Jesda]

Yep, and Jesda is there to worship Cadillac and despise Toyota regardless of what tens of thousands of actual owners report.

Fwiw, mon ami, I do agree with you that certain problem areas should carry more weight than others. But on the other hand, if you spend tens of thousands of dollars for a new car (something you don't do), call me crazy, but there's reasonable expectation that the car will not have to go back to the dealer repeatedly to fix things that should not fail so quickly. For example, My last new Chrysler went thru 5 power window motors over a 3 yr lease, all covered under warranty. (all 4 windows plus driver window twice). Did it leave me stranded as a result? Nope. Did it aggravate/inconvenience me that I had to return it to the friggin' dealer 5 times? Yep. Did it impact my decision to lease another one? Yep. My point is, when it comes to buying new, (not used, which appears to be your perspective) the little things matter more than you think.

But it doesn't make the vehicle "unreliable."
It does present itself as a quality issue.
Too often, surveys and reports blend the two as if they all carry the same weight. It's misleading and stupid and does a disservice to consumers and manufacturers.

There's a big difference between driving to the dealer and being towed there.

Modern Mitsus, for example, have lots of legitimate quality complaints and while they're crude, they're often among the cheapest and sturdiest cars you can buy, like old Hondas.


We've all taken a couple stats courses. Data are only as good as the information collected, and that information has to be presented in a fair and honest manner to have any meaningful value.

[RicerX]

The only reason why the Q50 is on that list is electronics, namely the damn InTouch system. Skip the goofy steering and don't buy a 2014 and you're set. I'm kind of surprised to see that so far up the list. Steering aside, I think it's silly to lump infotainment issues as equal in severity to mechanical breakdowns. The whole "reliability" system needs to be revised in how cars are assessed. It's not 1998 anymore.

The Pathfinder doesn't surprise me in the slightest. My stepmom is on her THIRD CVT before 70k miles on her 2013, and it's showing signs of s*** the bed. Too heavy for the transmission is uses, and it's asinine to think that Nissan markets this thing with a 5,000lb towing capacity. The CVT can barely get the car itself down the road without exploding, but I guess it's convenient - you can always use it to tow a car that doesn't use a CVT so you are NEVER STRANDED. Maybe they were thinking that through moreso than I gave them credit.