Their “reliability figures” at one time were very useful, and statistically valid. In the 1970s the typical American car had around 750 defects per 100 vehicles or 7.5 defects per vehicle, on average. The typical imported Japanese quality leader Toyota had only 350 defects per hundred vehicles, or 3.5 defects per vehicle on average.

Thirty five years later, every manufacturer has improved quality. American manufacturers had to discard all their old, proven but over sized technology and replace them with new down-sized versions. Some of which frankly, were not very good, leading to a reason for a good part of the quality differences seen then of 350 versus 750 defects per hundred vehicles.

Today Toyota, the perceived quality leader has around 110 defects per vehicle or 1.1 defects per vehicle, on average. The typical American vehicle has around 120 defects per hundred or 1.2 defects per vehicle, on average. Is there still a valid statistical basis to project reliability difference of greater than 60% or more, that Consumer Reports insists that there is?

NO! Since most of the difference now is due to the fact that Toyota starts building the first year versions of its new models in Japan and so Americans don’t see the new car teething problems. With those “teething pains” gone that biases the Toyota statistics, as slightly better.

Does CR understand this? If they do so, they ignore it, so the answer is NO. They insist that still are dramatic differences in quality even when comparing second year production models which presumably have the ‘teething pains’ resolved for all manufacturers, and these in fact do show, no statistical differences.

They persist with this nonsense when they evaluate Used Cars. Their wrong quality ratings help set resale values, driving down the value of essentially equal vehicles which don’t have their wrongly assigned superior quality ratings.

They still recommend that their consumers waste their money on hater over reported initial quality vehicles, instead of purchasing “more car for the money”, as they continue the scam and urge their readers to overpay for the quality differences which just are not statistically there. Consumer Reports has its consumers needlessly overspending to purchase perceived “quality” that is not statistically there at all, except in their imaginations and unsupported by proper statistics.

The question is WHY ???

If I were a cynical ambulance-chasing lawyer, I could argue they do that to preserve their “consumer reliability studies” and the reason why consumers purchase their magazines in the first place. So its G-R-E-E-D. Million of $ is in the balance, a class action suit is more than OVERDUE !

I actually enjoyed this years auto report becuase it shows how bad they actually are doing. They have some cars with horrible ratings, yet they recommend them…HUH! Yes they seem to throw in some weird data that they have yet to disclose that bumps certain cars into the category. My guess is they want all american companies to go belly up…oops, butnot FORD…notice how they recommended them over GM and Chrysler as if to help them and only when they are in real bad shape. I’ve argued with some that some owners don’t go into shops reguarly and some import owners get everything done even if it’s not needed. Which tells me that one group is spending more than they should to keep themselves happy

This years issue was an eye opener. Goes back to the basic sense of avoid the first year of a model and buy what you like.

In a couple of clicks you can find many different blogs about ones car. For some vehicles there are more then one blog and for other vehicles there are are hundreds.

So, I went to the site and checked out a blog for a Commander Limited. IMO, the blog was a bit biased towards the vehicle. The person obviously just bought it, was very excited about it, and rated it 10/10 in every category he mentioned.

But is this persons comments about the vehicle wrong? No.
Will he feel the same way about his Commander 6 months from now? Maybe.

Anyway, the point I was trying to get at with this blog was that CR distorts its reporting about the vehicles they survey. To me this is not only wrong, it is inexcusable. Your first year science teacher (high school or college) would mark you down a grade letter if you did that in his/her lab.