Haven't the time to detail on this but I think you are confusing two separate items at CR, testing and reliability data.
The data comes from people who bought the cars. Period. Staff content-zero.
Testing is done at CR, they have their standards, and I think they are consistent within those and state what they see regardless of the badge on the front. I don't always agree with them (or any other testers out there) but they present consistent viewpoints that give me information.
I like the Yaris myself, but it scores to low in their ttesting so they can't just give it a pass-that would be bias.
You missed the point on the BMW owners-the point is that the reliability data is provided by people who liked the cars (for whatever reason) enough to buy them, not by people biased against them. I think on theis point I was addressing someone other than yourself.
As for your thought that only mechanics know about cars...wow. I have met plenty that are pretty ignorant and full of unsupported bias.
Notice that you didn't address the loss of your 5 year point on the data.
Bunter, sorry, but I have to disagree with your second post even more.
Sure owners can like a car enough to buy them, but that does not mean they don't dump them at the first sign of a problem, and move on a newer prestige model, something most people do not do. They do not have to be typical owners, just an owner, and I know lots of BMW owners who are ignorant, uninformed, and arrogant. Liking a particular car model does not mean they are informed.
And sure Consumer Reports does sometimes downgrade Toyota or other Asian models, while praising some European models like Ausdi, but that just proves my point. It is the low end they pan, and the high end they praise. I happen to know the Yaris is actually a pretty good car, and I would never buy an Audi, (I have worked on them both for years). So all you have done is shown that both you and Consumer Reports are not that well informed about cars.
Frankly, the only people who can tell you about the pros and cons of different cars, are mechanics, not designers, writers, or even drivers. Consumer Report is not worth the paper it is printed on, because it employs no one who understands what consumers actually have or will have to deal with.
Bunter, engineers from the auto industry would not necessarily be good advisers on the long range experience car owners will have. It is very easy to engineer a car that performs well, but is a terrible purchase because it is nearly impossible to repair or maintenance. Other cars have weak links that don't hold up. But no engineer familiar with cars could possibly approve of air bags or even ABS, so it is pretty obvious they either are incompetent or pandering. You say Consumer Reports buys their own test vehicles, but the reality they often buy direct from the manufacturer, and get discounts even from the local dealers.
If they were giving fair appraisals, they would downgrade fragile things like variable valve timing, lockup torque converts, remote start, computer climate control, keyless entry, ABS, airbags, traction control, or dozens of other expensive and complex systems that I personally have observed to have regularly malfunctioned with extremely negative consequences. You put that many delicate and unreliable systems in a car and you pretty much guarantee a bad owner experience. Curent cars are not only likely to fail, but are assured of it. In general they are horrific. And we have entirely the people like Consumer Reports to blame for it, as they express their enthusiasm for systems that engineers know are junk. Cars sit outside in temperature extremes, vibration, humidity, etc., while being worked on by the less than stellar, if maintained at all. The only thing the original designers could be thinking is how to get people to sell every 5 years. But Consumer Report is support to be on the consumer side, and they aren't. Otherwise they would pan these unsupportable features.
CRs ratings do cover 10 years. The data out to that point actually tends to indicate that Toyota and Honda vehilces have an even greater advantage in the second 5 years over domestic and European vehilces. Some other japanese cars do not, Subaru in particular shows a big jump in engine problems in the 6-10 year period.
To those trying to make a case out of the surveys going to CR readers being a bias consider this-GM owners surveyed liked the cars enough to BUY them. BMW owners liked their cars enough to buy them. Etc. All of these owners had a preferance of some sort toward the cars they reported on-enough of a preference to spend their own money on them.
Maybe these people just-gasp-reported the problems they actually had!
BTW-some of you have clearly not read CRs tests, they have praised many domestic and european cars (love Audis big time) and have trashed numerous Toyotas (see Tacoma, Yaris...), they reamed Honda on the 2012 Civic.
Get over it.
It always amazes me how the same misinformation comes out everytime CR is mentioned anywhere.
Surveying owners would be fine, but they survey their readers, not car owners in general, so their statistics are skewed. Japanese cars are not reliable for the first 10 years, but only the first 5. Japan has a huge tax on cars over 5 years old, so they have no intentions of driving them 10 years. That is why there is such a huge availability for low mile engines from Japan, cheap. Euopeans want cars to last over 10 years.
Rigby, you are correct that Consumer Reports and JD Powers know little about cars, but what they are doing is surveying owners. The owners may also know little about cars, but their perception of reliabiliity (or any other attribute) should be taken into account by the designers, since they are the customers. I think most people would agree that reliability in the first ten years is more important than reliability in the years thereafter, no?
LOL how about XXX model designation and make it a three seater like the old MATRA from once upon a time made in France, and show it of with "old" guy with two barely legal beauties, of course the steering needs to be in the middle !!!
Come to think of it, should the car also be "top-less" ???
You are 100% correct time and time again even J D Power shows the same BIG difference in cars made at the same factory and only having the badge difference, it was especially true about Chevy and TOYOTA mande in Freemont CA NUMI factory, a night and day difference in ratings and satisfaction for 98% identialc car, where only the badge and wheels differed.
Same discrepancy also exists in Insurance rates, examples are Chrysler versus Dodge mini vans and in the past Camaro versus Trans-Am.
Apparently a totally different breed of people buy the "differing" brands and never "cross-shop" and do nto even have a clue that the two clones are more or less identical.
The BIGGEST differences exist on GMC and Chevy trucks and vans that are identical.
Some cars are more reliable than others, but even the vehicles at the bottom of this year’s Consumer Reports reliability survey are vastly better than those of 20 years ago in the key areas of powertrain and hardware, experts said this week.
As it does every year, Consumers Union recently surveyed its members on the reliability of their vehicles. This year, it collected data on approximately 1.1 million cars and trucks, categorizing the members’ likes and dislikes, not only of their vehicles, but of the vehicle sub-systems, as well.
A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.