Autoblog

just because they don't directly compete with each other doesn't mean they can't receive the same score.

although I'm a little confused as to Buick's lower rating compared to the Toyota.

The Taurus X may not be on everyone's shopping list, but that doesn't mean its bad. just means its bland and doesn't stand out.

↓↑report

Apart from the fact that its ugly, the Taurus X is a great vehicle. It's extremely fuel efficient and doesn't way 4000+ lbs like the Buick. Plus it seats 7 and has a IIHS top pick safety rating.

↓↑report

The Taurus X is extremely efficient and seats 7.

Yes, the Taurus X AWD gets 15/22 mpg. Obviously EXTREMELY efficient.
Whereas the Enclave AWD (which has 3 row seating up to 8, BTW) gets 16/22 mpg. What a POS.

(The FWD versions of both cars get 16/24).

The Enclave does weigh 1,000 lbs more than a Taurus X.

↓↑report

But Tylenol, Band-Aid and Coca-Cola still advertise... I'm in the ad industry, having a good product means you SHOULD advertise it since it can carry your brand and help bring people in the door. The idea that a good product will bring in buyers is a dying concept. Gone the way of the poodle and your primitive notions of modesty... Good products sustain brands and people respond to ads especially in cars among the hotter segments despite them actually being in the market for a minivan or midsize sedan.

↓↑report

America is the Marketers dream. Good products don't always sell themselves. Branding is paramount. Look at how Toyota had to create Lexus and Scion. You have to be able to market to the crowd and create an image. Advertising works thats why we get so much nice things today like Autoblog and many other websites and tv shows. You're just being very naive.

↓↑report

You've missed the point.

Consumer Reports ONLY uses past history for ONE very specific criteria, and then only in certain cases.

A. Reliability is ONLY estimated for completely new model vehicles. That is, vehicles which are not based on a previous year's model or are entirely brand new models.

B. Even then, this estimate only applies to the Reliability portion of a vehicle score. All other portions of a vehicle's score are based on the direct merits of that specific vehicle as tested.

So why estimate? Because Consumer Reports vehicle reliability scores are based on polling of owners of that specific model. When a current model is entirely revamped or is a completely new entry, there is no reliability data at all.

So in this one specific case (brand new models), and only for the Reliability portion of a vehicle's score they use the statically proven method of estimating reliability based on the overall reliability of the manufacturer.

For what it's worth, Consumer Report's reliability estimates have been proven to be very accurate indications of a vehicle's future reliability.

↓↑report

As an owner of a 2000 Audi A6 I laugh my ass off at your last sentence. CR recommended! C&D's 10 Best! Mechanical disaster.

http://www.postgazette.com/businessnews/20000929wheels2.asp

↓↑report

@

What are you trying to prove? That statistics work?

Did you miss the part where Consumer Reports clearly labels these reliability estimates as 'Estimates'?

Or how about the part where Consumer Reports prints a full disclaimer every time they use these reliability estimates?

Statically, Consumer Reports is guaranteed to have a few misses when performing estimates based on past data. A few aberrations don't prove anything other than statistics work and estimates are called estimates for a reason.

The fact is that Consumer Reports reliability estimates have been overwhelmingly accurate predictors of future reliability.

↓↑report

Michelle, you are wrong.

Consumer Reports uses the reliability of PAST models to PREDICT the reliability of NEW models. You can't do something like that with a product that changes as much as cars do from old models to new ones. Most of the car is substantially upgraded, so if the past one was good, it has not merit on whether the new one will be good as well. You said:

"Reliability is ONLY estimated for completely new model vehicles. That is, vehicles which are not based on a previous year's model or are entirely brand new models."

Let me focus in on this one point: "That is, vehicles which are not based on a previous year's model or are entirely brand new models." Like I said previously, how can you predict the reliability of a completely new vehicle based off a completely different old one? They should just do what they do for most cars, put in a NO DATA NEW MODEL stamp on that year until they can get actual data.

You also say:

"B. Even then, this estimate only applies to the Reliability portion of a vehicle score. All other portions of a vehicle's score are based on the direct merits of that specific vehicle as tested."

I can tell you that you are wrong there too. I bought the 2008 New Car Preview issue of CR. In it the Toyota FJ is rated excellent in every single category. EVERYTHING, it has the red circle with the white dot in the middle. Well, I was in Barnes and Noble the other day, and I saw a newer 2008 car ratings issue, so I flipped to the FJ, and guess what? A lot of those excellents have been changed to average or above average in things like Paint and Body Integrity. If you like I'll go buy the newer issue and scan in the pages.

I'm also looking through the issue I have, and not to pick on Toyota, but I looked at the Tundra. It's predicted reliability is Above Average. The Camry Hybrid (which has the NO DATA NEW MODEL in it's reliability history) is also rated Above Average. Now we all know the Tundra turned out to be a mistake and in the newer issue of CR it was rated poor reliability. But how can they predict the reliability of the Camry Hybrid WHEN THERE HAS NEVER EVEN BEEN A MODEL BEFORE TO PREDICT THE RELIABILITY OFF OF? I just don't get it.

Bottom line, consumers read CR to get info on future cars they will be buying, and for CR to recommend a car or truck, like they did with the Tundra, based off past performance, only to find out that the car/truck actually isn't as reliable as they thought, is giving false information to the consumer. CR is giving false data to the consumer, and that in my opinion is inexcusable. Maybe if they spent less time trying to play Jenga while driving in a Town and Country, they could fix their flawed system to better serve the consumer.

↓↑report

Very annoying to be sure. Were they expensive repairs? I only ask because I remember an independent study a few years where they took an '02 Intrepid, Camary, and Accord and looked at basic maint.

None of the cars had major problems, and although the Intrepid had more minor issues, those same ''problems'' were routinely fix/replaced during recommended dealer checkups with the imports. In the end, although the Dodge/Chrysler was 'less reliable', the imports ended up costing quite a bit more during those routine checkups, while generally having identical work done anyway.

I guess my point is, unless its something like an engine exploding, I'm not going to NOT buy a car because its brake pads fade quickly or a starter needs to be changed every 100,000km. It's annoying, but its not a deal breaker. Even a headgasket, a 100$ job in my personal garage, won't keep me away from a car I like. I know not everyone knows how to fix their cars, but buy a Hayes manual at your parts store and learn how to do basic stuff and that will keep your car lasting a very long time.

↓↑report

Since both are brand new cars they have to replace/repair it under the warranty.. There no way that the strut of a 4 month old car needing replacement this early, and the car doesn’t even have 3000 miles on on it.. The Corolla is 6 months, but how can the brake drums be so flimsy from the get go?

↓↑report

Because he drives them like a monster truck.

↓↑report

I'd second George's experience with quality problems discovered immediately after buying a new Toyota. My 2007 Toyota Pruis spent 22 days in the shop and required a $5,406.73 warranty repair due to a manufacturing defect. I relied on the J.D. Power quality ranking as well as Consumer Reports Customer Satisfaction Index only to find out first hand that 2007 is a really, really bad year for Toyota.

↓↑report