27th Mar 2011, 14:57
I agree that these ratings can be useful, but it takes some thought to decipher some of these.
I'm also looking at the Consumer Reports issue for best and worst 2011 cars. There are a couple of things to note.
First, don't confuse the "road test" rating with which car is actually best. For instance, those who actually want a real 4x4 to go off road would be sorely disappointed in following the "midsized SUV" recommendation, which would have them in a Toyota RAV4 instead of a Toyota FJ Cruiser or Jeep Wrangler. In fact, the "road test" puts Jeep Vehicles dead last in every category, but for people who are looking for true utility, the Consumer Reports "road test" rankings should be reversed.
The same goes for the "compact pickup" category. The Honda Ridgeline is #1 and the Ford Ranger is dead last. Good luck to you if you actually needed a real 4x4 pickup. I would look only a reliability ratings, and ignore the more subjective ratings such as "controls." Looking at low-points like engine noise and acceleration can be interesting, but really "fit and finish" is in the eye of the beholder. The "hard plastic" is panned by the reviewers, but on the other hand, it's a lot easier to clean up than some kind of felt or velour.
As an example, consider the Dodge Caliber, which is rated lowest in its category. However, on p. 88 when you see the breakdown, CR gives the Caliber the highest marks for engine, transmission, drive system, and shows improvement to better than average for electrical, paint, power equipment, and audio system. That, to me, makes it sound like a decent car that would do everything that a car ought to do. So why don't they like it? Because it doesn't handle and brake like a sports car, apparently. Somebody who just wants a good car to drive to work and haul a few things like in a station wagon would be perfectly happy with this car, and yet just looking at the rankings overview would dissuade them from buying it. Does that really make sense?
You can use these ratings as a guide, but they are not a substitute for choosing the vehicle that works best for you.
26th Mar 2011, 12:02
The myths just keep rolling. The most reliable cars in the world are made by Ford. The Lincoln brand has (as of March 2011) surpassed Lexus as the world's most reliable car in long-term reliability surveys. These surveys are based on three-year-old-cars and the issues reported by their own owners, so media bias and fraud are not possible. J.D. Power long-term reliability surveys have shown that GM's world-class Buick line was swapping places every year or two with Lexus for the number one spot for the past decade or so. Now Ford surpassed both of them. Since these are LONG TERM reliability studies (based on 2007 models), it clearly shows that even BEFORE the recession and Toyota's downfall Ford clearly was building superior cars.
In terms of initial build quality, which is based on the number of problems encountered in new cars purchased (again, as reported by their own owners) Ford tops both Honda and Toyota. In fact, Toyota has dropped to 21st place out of 33 car makers, so it falls into the bottom third of all cars in build quality. Hardly "better" unless you have a very odd definition of "better".