More Consumer reports stupidity, Ford products make up 5 out of 10 least reliable cars

[silvrsvt]

http://www.leftlanenews.com/cr-lists-the-10-least-reliable-new-cars.html

 

 

 

The thing I don't get is why there are two models of the C-Max on there, and how can a single trim model like the SHO be picked out like that? Given the SHO sells less then 10K units about a year...I'd be willing to assume that the sampling size of CR would have pretty damn small to make that conclusion..

• Ford C-Max Energi Plug-In Hybrid
• Ford Escape (1.6-liter EcoBoost model)
• MINI Cooper Countryman
• Ford C-Max Hybrid
• Nissan Pathfinder
• Volkswagen Beetle
• Cadillac XTS
• Ford Explorer (V6 4WD model)
• Hyundai Genesis Coupe
• Ford Taurus (3.5-liter EcoBoost model)

[Hugh]

Dumb.

[RichardJensen]

CR needs to stay in the news.

 

What better way to do so, than by lambasting a car company?

 

Do you realize that CR was still referring to the '88 Suzuki Samurai in 2004?

[JasonM]

The results have to be understood in the context of CRs definition of predicted reliability. CR counts confusion over Infotainment systems as a 'reliability' issue. Most people would not define reliability in the same manner as CR.

 

CR is doing their readers, and themselves, a disservice by not better separating the infotainment data from 'real' reliability issues.

 

The good news is CR's Director of auto testing "Fisher said Monday that most of Fords problems are software-related instead of a nuts-and-bolts hardware issue which means the Dearborn automaker should have an easier time fixing glitches."

Edited October 30, 2013 by JasonM

[RichardJensen]

Right.

 

Except CU gets to decide what is a 'glitch', and I doubt that definition is static.

[jpd80]

The sad part is that "not recommended" is being applied to vehicles with what seems to be lesser problems than in the past.

Nuisance issues now seem to be replacing true mechanical reliability issues these days yet the casual observer may not realize it.

[RangerM]

According to the article, the results are survey-based.

 

"Consumer Reports says that the rankings are based on survey results covering 17 "potential trouble spots" and that they should be used as a forecast of how the latest 2014 models will hold up."

Edited October 30, 2013 by RangerM

[fordtech1]

I don't understand why the Taurus sho or Explorer are on this list. Especially the Explorer only with 4wd. Plus if the Sho was problematic, why wouldn't the flex eco be on it also? Of course it's like we have seen in the past. The Ford car be on the list but the Mercury cousin would not be.

The only two I understand to be on the list are the C-Max and Escape.

[chevys]

Interesting. I would like to know on each car what exactly dinged them so hard. If its the infotainment system then so be it. Its part of the experience and part of the car. I admit is kind of an odd assortment of Fords but it would be nice to have more information.

[akirby]

If its the infotainment system then so be it. Its part of the experience and part of the car.

 

But would you consider a car with some glitches with the radio to be "unreliable"?

[twintornados]

Consumer Reports is unbiased but very generic as well. Remember all the hoopla a few years back when Ford topped their lists? It's a topsy turvy world we live in and with modern social media, Consumer Reports is no longer the "gold standard" of judging cars, good or bad.

[akirby]

Consumer Reports is unbiased but very generic as well. Remember all the hoopla a few years back when Ford topped their lists? It's a topsy turvy world we live in and with modern social media, Consumer Reports is no longer the "gold standard" of judging cars, good or bad.

 

Everyone is biased to some degree, including CR. They're definitely biased towards safety and reliability (real or perceived). They're also biased towards gaining subscribers and sales since that's the only way they get paid.

[chevys]

 

But would you consider a car with some glitches with the radio to be "unreliable"?

I sure would. Its part of the car and if it doesnt work right or all the time its unreliable. Cars are the sum of parts and systems. They are only as good as the weakest link. Take MFT out of the Fords and I bet they would rank at least above average. I do believe CUE drug Cadillac down also and imo it was deserved.

[akirby]

To me unreliable implies frequent repairs and/or driveability issues. Not annoyances.

[NickF1011]

The only two I understand to be on the list are the C-Max and Escape.

 

But not one Mitsubishi, Land Rover, Scion or Suzuki? Those four brands are perennial losers in the JD Powers studies.

[akirby]

 

But not one Mitsubishi, Land Rover, Scion or Suzuki? Those four brands are perennial losers in the JD Powers studies.

 

But they don't have touch screen systems, which points out how silly this is. Would any potential Ford customer buy a Mitsubishi instead and believe that the Mitsubishi is more reliable?

[fordmantpw]

Since it is based on surveys, CR's sample probably isn't a representative sample, and they don't have enough data to make a prediction. If you survey 100 people, 2 of them have a Taurus SHO, and 1 of them has an issue, does that mean that 50% of SHOs are going to have an issue? No. Since there aren't many SHOs sold, if CR reaches a handful of them, who is going to return the survey? The 10 that had no issues or the 1 that did? Figure on 10% of the ones with no issues and 90% of the ones with issues. BTW, before you trolls get all butt-hurt at those numbers, I pulled them out of thin air to illustrate a point, but you know it's valid.

[weiweishen]

I doubt the reliability of CR's report. It is just a magazine. Soon or later such rating agencies will be kicked out of business by more accurate online rating system. Who still read CR? 70 years old or 80 years old. I have never read one issue of CR in my whole life. None of my friends has ever read CR either. Is that odd? Anyway, my fusion is Really Reliable. Seven years later, it is still good as new without any sign of retirement. The allocated cost for this car is really low now. During the past 7 years, except the routine maintenance, I only spent $ 600 for a fix of oxygen sensor. Time for me to pick a new Ford car or truck based on my own judgment. Now it is information era, people can get reliable information from various sources. Why do we have to be fooled by few people's ratings that are obtained by just few test drives.

[4d4evr-1]

I don't understand why the Taurus sho or Explorer are on this list. Especially the Explorer only with 4wd. Plus if the Sho was problematic, why wouldn't the flex eco be on it also? Of course it's like we have seen in the past. The Ford car be on the list but the Mercury cousin would not be.

The only two I understand to be on the list are the C-Max and Escape.

I have a 2013 C-Max SEL but do not subscribe to CR so my voice is not counted.

 

WE LOVE OUR C-MAX SEL WITH MYFORD TOUCH.

 

Now I feel better. We also get better than 47MPG since purchase.

[4d4evr-1]

I sure would. Its part of the car and if it doesnt work right or all the time its unreliable. Cars are the sum of parts and systems. They are only as good as the weakest link. Take MFT out of the Fords and I bet they would rank at least above average. I do believe CUE drug Cadillac down also and imo it was deserved.

 

WE LOVE OUR C-MAX WITH MYFORD TOUCH

[RichardJensen]

Subscribe to CR and give 'em a piece of your mind on their next survey!

[shaggy314]

It seems you are falling victim to the same thing you are accusing them of, sample bias. "I've never had a bad Ford, therefore they are full of poo." "I disliked an article about the FlowBe, therefore all of them are biased."

 

Instead of doing the same thing you accuse CR of, check, how many responses. I'm sure it is there report the number. If it was a low production vehicle, and an expensive one at that, you should get them at a higher quality. It's the only Taurus that easily cost more than my Fusion Energi. I had concerns about getting it based on what I was reading about the CMax 12vt battery issues, lower than estimate fuel economy, seeing Ford address the issues put my mind at ease. Fixed now doesn't mean fixed then. I would guess the 2014s will have better scores.

 

I subscribe to the online CR and since they accept no advertising, believe a little them a more than most places. Also, Ford owner and shareholder, I would take the criticisms to heart and fix the issue vs. the messenger. It's ok to question their methodology, but to dismiss them out of hand seems sour grape-y.

Edited October 30, 2013 by shaggy314

[Extreme4x4]

The problem is, the only way they can fix the issue with CR, is to pull MFT out of all vehicles.

 

CR is counting unfamiliarity................. which is often a byproduct of doing nothing to find out how something works................. as a reliability issue.

 

They are now going one step further, and stating that bad reports for infotainment systems is actually underreported due to the fact that not everyone uses every feature of their infotainment system. That is incredibly stupid. Everyone uses features differently. You cannot declare a reliability issue with something that someone isn't even using.

 

Talk about puffing up your own chest.

[RichardJensen]

It seems you are falling victim to the same thing you are accusing them of, sample bias.

 

As it relates to the SHO and your response, I don't believe the issue raised was sample bias, I'm fairly certain it was sampling error.

 

Regarding CU's methodology, I have only this to say:

 

It is in CU's best interests to aver that their methodologies are superior to other methodologies, therefore those assertions should be greeted with the same degree of skepticism that would be accorded any other unverifiable claim by any other organization.

 

While one may criticize JDP for merchandizing its awards, the transparency of their vehicle rating protocols leave CU in the dust. With access to the RL Polk database and the JDP questionnaire, any one of us could repeat the JDP IQS and VDS tests and verify the accuracy of their reports.

 

Compare that with CU, which does not provide the thresholds for their circle ratings, and which does not discuss sampling error either in the size of the response, or the fact that they do not poll a representative sample of new car owners.

 

You could take a random sample of vehicle owners and the CU questionnaire, and you would still be missing several necessary bits of information required to produce the CU results.

Edited October 30, 2013 by RichardJensen

[silvrsvt]

It seems you are falling victim to the same thing you are accusing them of, sample bias. "I've never had a bad Ford, therefore they are full of poo." "I disliked an article about the FlowBe, therefore all of them are biased."

 

Instead of doing the same thing you accuse CR of, check, how many responses. I'm sure it is there report the number. If it was a low production vehicle, and an expensive one at that, you should get them at a higher quality. It's the only Taurus that easily cost more than my Fusion Energi. I had concerns about getting it based on what I was reading about the CMax 12vt battery issues, lower than estimate fuel economy, seeing Ford address the issues put my mind at ease. Fixed now doesn't mean fixed then. I would guess the 2014s will have better scores.

 

That's the issue...take a already small sample size then half it, then add in that most people who have a good experience with the product won't respond, you get artificially high numbers that aren't necessarily correct