26th Jan 2009, 12:08
"NO magazine does real research on frequency of repair records as such. J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports do surveys on vehicles within just a few months of purchase. Some magazines do what are (laughably) called "long-term" tests of various vehicles, none of which are usually driven more than a few thousand miles. Neither method tells us ANYTHING about REAL "long term" reliability, just little nit-picky stuff that people may find in the first few weeks".
That is true of "JD Powers" but not of "Consumer Reports". Consumer Reports actually does ONLY long term tests. In fact if you'll actually crack open their "Buying Guide" you'll find that they don't even typically rate a vehicle for two years. So in the 08 buying guide you'll only find info up to 06 because they need time to compile data. Next, they continue to compile survey results for eight years. In the 08 buying guide you'll find data going back to 1999 models. And, yes, that is based on actual data from owners who fill out the surveys. These surveys are annual and reasonably comprehensive. I've filled them out before, by the way, and the surveys include far more than just autos.
26th Jan 2009, 12:50
Since there is some confusion on this thread about "Consumer Reports" -- its mission and method, here's their FAQ page: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/auto-test/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-8-06/overview/0608_consumer-reports-carreliability-faq_ov.htm#1.5
Hope this helps. I learned a thing or two myself.
26th Jan 2009, 14:59
It doesn't matter what the one domestic fan believes. He/she asked for frequency of repair records, and was given them. It's called: Consumer Reports. Guess he didn't like the results when he was proved wrong. Toyota's and Honda's break down less. It's simple, it's fact, and it's documented. Believe it or not, it's still true.
I guess if I were a Ford or Chevy owner, I'd get upset too when I read proof of how mediocre at best they usually are. The funny part is, real world experience backs it all up. Toyota and Honda owners already know this.
26th Jan 2009, 15:50
22:31 I am in full agreement and was wary of buying a Tundra, plus driving one did not impress me with its ride, handling as well. Some will seem likely that a small Tacoma owner will say the Tundra does not have any problems. The problem I also have with it is limited applications, but to date I must be the only one that buys applications and utility when I buy a full size truck. All that is thrown out the window; it's carlike, small vehicle owners that apply that analogy to full sizes. Yet they do not own one. My theory on that is that they do not need one either. Yet most of us do that buy full sizes must have applications for them.
26th Jan 2009, 17:45
"Truth be known, imports were NEVER that good anyway. Millions of dollars in ad hype created a false impression."
Again... WHAT imports are we talking about? Alfa Romeos? Yugos? Fiats? Toyotas? I assume you mean Toyotas since that's how this topic has been going.
I mean - cmon'... are you seriously comparing a Ford Taurus, or a Chevette, or even a late 90's Chevy Malibu to a Toyota Camry or Corolla from the same vintage? Well I'm sorry but my family grew up with both, and back then the difference between what the Big three produced and what Toyota offered was so night and day it wasn't funny. Even as a kid I couldn't get over how utterly poor the quality was of the vast majority of the junk spewed from GM and Ford. They just looked cheap and shoddily manufactured.
Even today, when I go look at newer GM or Ford cars ands trucks compared to the two Toyotas I drive, the quality is still miles from being the same. The Big three skimp and cut corners at every single chance they get, whether it's making flimsy and overly plasticy interiors, to sloppy welds and frame hardware, to crudely cast engine blocks.
The argument that GM and Ford products are better will never hold up. Sorry, but that's the honest truth. Don't get me wrong - nothing would make me happier to see GM and Ford get their act together. But what they produce is hardly world class, and until they are, they will continue to lose market share.
26th Jan 2009, 19:16
I really felt let down by Consumer Reports giving the redesigned Camry "better than average" reliability ratings for a full two years, even as they must have been receiving data indicating that something was going amiss. I feel like they abandoned their mission to always be looking out for the little guy who doesn't have a lot of money, and who has to be careful how he spends it.
I enjoy reading Consumer Reports tremendously, and I keep all my old issues in the garage. So I went out and checked. Sure enough, in the 2006 and 2007 Buyers Guides, there are those red half circles for the Camry meaning above average. Then in 2008 it says "Reliability of the V6 dropped to below average and it is no longer recommended." No explanation, no apologies.
The other thing I felt so let down by was Toyota rushing vehicles into production before they were ready just to be the biggest car company in the world. I used to feel like they really were a different kind of car company that cared more about giving us something dependable all the time, and in an environmentally friendly way. Then they brought out that global warming monster V8 Tundra. And they sold V6 Camrys that took 9 seconds to go 0-60 mph, supposedly so the transmission software would get better fuel mileage. Didn't anyone at Toyota think maybe some one buying a V6 expected the car to go at least a little bit faster than the 4 cylinder?
I never thought both Toyota and Consumer Reports would disappoint me the same way in the same year.
25th Jan 2009, 22:31
"Toyota had a very long stretch of reliable models so Consumer Reports started to base recommendations of new models upon old ones. In this they were caught by surprise. The new models of both the Camry 6cyl and the Tundra were rushed in their release and had flaws that were widespread enough to cause them to no longer be recommended"
This statement is true, however NO magazine does real research on frequency of repair records as such. J.D. Powers and Consumer Reports do surveys on vehicles within just a few months of purchase. Some magazines do what are (laughably) called "long-term" tests of various vehicles, none of which are usually driven more than a few thousand miles. Neither method tells us ANYTHING about REAL "long term" reliability, just little nit-picky stuff that people may find in the first few weeks. Usually even Toyota's defective engines will run up to 20,000 miles before seizing up (my neighbor's actually made 30,000). The real test is how many of these cars come in at 40,000-60,000 miles for transmission replacements or major engine repairs. Sorry, but ONLY records showing that kind of data can or should enter into a discussion about reliability. Provide those and we'll listen.
As for large trucks, Honda has no place in a discussion on ANY kind of truck. The Ridgeline is a Pilot SUV with the rear of the roof removed. The rear side panels are so high that loading anything from the sides is impossible. In addition, the problem-plagued Honda automatic transmissions can't deal with the type of loads a real truck is designed to handle. The Tundra would be a good truck if it weren't for the defective engines, brakes, steering, front suspension, transmissions, electrical system, and fuel system. Other than that it is not too bad a truck.