Step,
Like you, CR's reporting is not without flaws. The first issue with CR is that they switched from an absolute scale to a relative scale. The problem with a relative scale is as the entire market's reliability has become good, the difference between above average and below average is rather small. It might be only two small repairs over 5 years. That might make me pick A over B if the two cars are otherwise equal. However, if B drives much better I might overlook those extra repairs. In the 80s the difference between reliable and not was rather large. Now I figure even the below average cars are probably more reliable than many of the "reliable" Japanese cars we were buying in the 1980s. Why should I avoid a somewhat below average car when in fact that below average car would have been recommended using CR's older absolute scale. I suspect CR was afraid they would lose relevance with the buying public if they simply said 75% of the cars today are so reliable that we recommend them.

The other long time issue with CR was that customer perception does play a part in reporting. In the past when sibling cars were reported separately you would often see a difference in the problems reported for say a Toyota Corolla vs the Chevy Nova (a Corolla clone) or the Ford Escort vs the identical Mazda 323. Now you could argue that because say Ford used a different engine that resulted in some reliability difference. However, when the cars had identical hardware yet CR's readers said the Ford's doors didn't fit as well (yet the fit was identical) you must conclude (if you aren't an idiot) that customer perception plays are part in the reporting. CR, rather than explaining this, simply grouped the two cars so the information was lost. I've always thought it would be interesting to see what an independent review of CR's data would say, how the conclusions would differ.

I don't totally disregard CR's data but I do look at it with a bit of a bias filter. I guess what I believe to be a reliability bias. In general I figure people assume Hondas to be reliable so they are more likely to forgive a problem or see a problem as dumb bad luck. They are more likely to see domestics or European cars as unreliable so the same problem is seen as an affirmation that a car isn't reliable (I have done this my self). Because of that I tend to assume that an average score for an unreliable brand is probably a bit better than the same score for a reliable brand. In a sense I am trying to take the benefit of the doubt bias that older CR reports showed toward some brands back out of the data.

Anyone who believes that CR's data collection method is unbiased is a fool. It's not useless but it's nowhere close to perfect.

 

I use consumer reports for a lot of stuff, right now I am looking to buy a new dryer and it has some great info without having to search the web for hours.

I think it is funny that the Titan has lower reliability since mine is at the dealer at the moment getting two recalls taken care of and they are trying to diagnose a squeaky belt tensioner. Side note, anyone else find it frustrating that a service manager won't actually listen to your diagnosis of a problem despite the fact that you might actually know what you are talking about?

 

[QUOTE=NuncoStr8,Dec 27 2010, 11:26 PM] My mother is over 60 and she asked me, "Who reads Consumer Reports?"

Don't be so ignorant and naive?

Consumer Reports reflects the attitudes and opinions of its subscribers, nothing more.

 

A few surprises on that list. The A6 3.0T appears to be abysmal. Also, the M3 is BMW's most reliable model? I wouldn't have seen that coming.

 

Nobody thinks CR's (or even JD's or another publication's) reports are perfect. However, I always find it laughable that some people seem to think there was some kind of conspiracy going on against American cars - an Americans-on-Americans conspiracy. All those American publications must've hated America so much that they HAD TO find faults to criticize. But nowadays, their patriotism is turning around and they're beginning to praise American vehicles. It it not that fact that they're finding American vehicles have improved and thus, are praising and scoring them higher.

If you were to take every Asian-American adult in the U.S. and branded them as a subscriber to those publications, the number would still be a small percentage compared to the white American subscribers. But in reality, I'd venture to say that 1% or less of Asian-Americans do actually subscribe, and thus, that number is extremely and insignificantly small compared to the majority of subscribers. However, some people seem to think that Asian-Americans were somehow controlling those American publications and their opinions/findings. Or that the majority of white American subscribers were somehow easily brain-washed into unfairly dissing the American and European vehicles in such reports.

The simple truth of the matter is, in the past, American vehicles had more faults than the Japanese counterparts, but nowadays, they've improved greatly and thus, gained higher ratings and such. There wasn't any American-on-American conspiracy or brain-washing going on.

 

You are correct it wasn't a conspiracy. However, as I pointed out the information provided by CR was not unbiased either.

Edit now that I have a bit more time to reply:
The racial stuff you threw seems to again reflect on your own issues with race rather than anything related to what people have been saying. Perhaps you might try dropping the racial chip off your shoulders.

 

pretty much anything made by audi is not reliable.

 

How did Asian-Americans enter into this at all. I don't think he was saying anything about them or their influence at all. I could be missing it, but I think you're responding to a phantom issue.

 

Not to him specifically, but to the people in the past who indicated that somehow, these AMERICAN publications were brainwashed or in a conspiracy against their own domestic vehicles. Also, they seemed to mean that somehow the results were affected by some sort of scheme by the Japanese government or Asian-American subscribers. That's why I brought up that MOST, by far, subscribers have always been white Americans and they had voiced their own opinions based on their own experiences. No one brainwashed or tricked them.

Instead of just saying American vehicles had more faults in the past but have improved greatly within the past few years, hence garnered more praises and higher ratings, they chose to pick wild theories out of thin air, e.g. conspiracy and brainwashing. It's similar to the "the media is controlled by the Jews" conspiracy.

P.S. Remember how every publication slammed Hyundai for being crappy and unreliable in the '80s and even '90s? It wasn't a conspiracy either. Nowadays, it has improved so greatly that its vehicles have garnered praises and high ratings not only in the U.S. but also in Europe. In Germany, it was picked as the most-reliable brand or something to that effect. That could also be like the Detroit automakers.

Also, another conspiracy theory I find laughable is that C&D, MT, etc. are paid by BMW and Honda to garner so much praises over the years.

 

step, step you must live in a very sad world to see so much through such racist eyes.