5th Mar 2009, 15:18

Thankfully they also stopped recommending new models on the previous model's reliability as well. That reflects well on them too.

My biggest single problem with their data handling is that the final symbol given is based on much below average through much better than average without ever telling us what average is. For all we know the very worst to the very best is an insignificant margin. Maybe the very worst are still extremely good. We should be made more aware. Truedelta helps in that regard.

5th Mar 2009, 15:47

Do you think this includes simply failing to report problems or, worse yet, reporting problems that didn't occur? I ask this because, as I recall, there were no questions like "how would you rate this car on a scale from 1-10". All the questions were objective: What do you own? How many miles are on it? What went wrong?

It would seem unlikely that a respondent would become flustered and *create* a problem with their car (or someone else's). That would seem to be more of an issue if the survey was done via phone. Was that the kind of surveying you did (do)?

When I received my survey, I owned an 04 Honda Civic EX that wasn't screwed together too well. There were several rattles and the B pillar trim kept coming off. I was interested in filling out the survey, in part, so that my experience would help to AMEND the results as displayed in the magazine.

I wasn't interested in being a "yes man". I was interested in getting my more negative experience included in the whole. That kind of response, if typical, could skew the result the other way (the other way from saying that "all my cars are just wonderful") and help to mitigate the errors. The other net effect it could have is that it could make all vehicles look more troublesome --- if only those driven by poor experience respond.

Anyway... it's too bad no one from CR could respond to these comments to further enlighten us.

5th Mar 2009, 20:19

This is typical of the brainwashing job Japanese companies have done on our media. Only recently has ANYONE really bothered to see if these supposedly "superior" vehicles are all they have been (erroneously) portrayed to be. It turns out that not only are Toyota and Honda (and Nissan) building much lower quality and more unreliable vehicles, but domestics (Ford especially) are literally running rings around all of them in quality, reliability and performance. Any time ANY American automotive publication publishes ANYTHING remotely complimentary about a domestic vehicle, you know that the real truth is that the vehicles are really about TWICE as good as the media outlets claim.

Even when Honda was replacing transmissions at 30,000 miles in many of its vehicles Car and Driver was STILL fawning over them and ignoring the problems. Motor Trend hastily jumped to name the 2007 Camry "Car of the Year" just because Toyota FINALLY had built a V-6 engine for it that could actually do 0-60 in UNDER 10 seconds. They never bothered to look into the dozens of issues Toyota was having at the time with reliability problems.

6th Mar 2009, 09:20

20:19.

The data isn't skewed. GM agreed that they had fallen below industry standards for both quality and innovation. Everyone isn't just "brainwashed" into thinking that the Japanese vehicles are more reliable. The automotive media isn't telling lies, but domestics (Ford especially) are NOT literally running rings around all of them in quality, reliability and performance.

The 07 Camry goes from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds according to Edmunds (and just about everyone else), not 10 seconds like you incorrectly infer. The 06 was also far quicker than 10 seconds too.

Nearly every company replaces transmissions in vehicles before 30,000 miles --- transmissions are complicated and they sometimes present troubles in varying measures. It's unlikely Motor Trend KNEW that the 07 Camry had any issues since they likely made their selection in 07.

6th Mar 2009, 12:20

"Nearly every company replaces transmissions in vehicles before 30,000 miles --- "

Yeah, none of our domestics ever needed a transmission within 30k miles.

6th Mar 2009, 15:11

"Yeah, none of our domestics ever needed a transmission within 30k miles."

You owned all of the cars they ever made? None of my imports did either, but that doesn't mean that some don't. Your (or my) experience isn't universal.

6th Mar 2009, 15:21

I tow and absolutely none of my full size domestic pick ups has ever needed a transmission in 30,000 miles ever... A simple solution is to have every manufacturer warranty their vehicles to standard 100,000 miles with proof of oil filter and transmission scheduled changes. I always do mine at the dealership during the warranty periods. Many mfrs have very weak warranty periods and for some unfathomable reason many consumers have the blind faith it will never happen. How about making it a reality? If it's never used (or supposedly never needed) it will not cost a dime to offer it.

6th Mar 2009, 15:51

Wow, that is a statement from a hardcore Toyota apologist! "Oh, everybody has to replace transmissions within 30,000 miles! What's the big deal?!" These people are missing out.

I agree with the other guy --- the only one of the dozen American cars that my family has ever owned that had a transmission die was a 1999 Pontiac 6000 that had 210,000 miles on it. I also had a '73 Dodge that had been heavily abused, and drove it with a slipping transmission for 30,000 miles, at which time it had about 160,000 miles on it. Had it rebuilt for $500, and it's still going.

6th Mar 2009, 19:11

Something is wrong with the editing on this site. If I say something using the exact same phrase as someone else but simply change the assertion, their post will get printed, but mine won't. I'm not sure, but I suspect that some of the commentary is coming from editors. When someone was obviously irritated and saying rather incendiary things, I've tried to say that they shouldn't be irritated. His irritation gets posted. My attempt at quelling it won't be. One person asserts that American vehicles are twice as good as imports. I respond that they are half as good. His post is printed, mine isn't. They were equal opposites. It was a good test.

I don't expect this to be printed but, to whomever is reading this, you should consider the possibility that this site's approach to commentary isn't even-handed.

6th Mar 2009, 22:51

If you had actually read my comment, you would have noted that I said that the Camry was chosen in 2007 because it had finally (IN 2007) built an engine that could do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds. The pre-2007 Camry V-6's took about 10 seconds 0-60 according to most sources, and I know this is about right because my 4-cylinder Grand Am will beat a pre-2007 V-6 Camry by about 10 car-lengths in a typical block. CR lists the 0-60 time for the post-2006 V-6 Camry as 7.5 seconds (provided it can be kept running for 7.5 seconds, which has been a bit of a challenge for many of them).

"Nearly every company replaces transmissions in vehicles before 30,000 miles --- "

Well, DOMESTIC companies DON'T. I have NEVER had a transmission replaced (or even worked on) on any of my numerous domestics, including some that made over a quarter of a million miles. If I EVER had a transmission fail before 30,000 miles I certainly would never buy another car from THAT company, foreign OR domestic.