From Consumerist:

I hadn't considered that.

Audi is VW like Mazda is Ford. They are owned by the same people but are not the same. Lexus are Toyotas in that they are just slightly nicer versions of Camry's and Avalons. Lincolns mimick the F150, Taurus or Crown Vic. There is no Audi that is a fancy rebranded VW like Lexus, Lincoln or Acuras are. FYI

eg

Ford is busy divesting itself of Mazda while Audi is 99.7% owned by VW.
And from time to time, Audi and VW build cars on an identical platform.

Right now, the A3 and the Jetta Wagon are built on the same platform.
Recently, the A8 and the VW Phaeton were built on the same platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi

Tesha

Audi's and VW's roll off the same assembly line, for the most part.

.

The US Focus, IIRC, is stil on the similar (but older) c170 platform.

Acura is not like lexus, lincoln, and infiniti. I find that with the latter three they are just fancier (leather, more automatic crap, better stereos) versions of the parent company models. Acura is not a fancy model of something sold as a Honda. In Japan, Acuras are called Hondas. They are Honda's top line vehicles, but are completely different models, unlike ford, toyota, and nissan luxury vehicles. My suspicion is that Americans who drive luxury vehicles typically feel the need to be differentiated from those that drive more economic vehicles. Thus we have Honda calling its high end vehicles Acuras.

2006 Honda Element EXP
2006 Nissan Altima limited SE
2005 Honda Pilot
2004 Toyota Camry
*outlier bought a used Buick Regal (regretted it from day one and is only car we lost money on at sale)
1999 Toyota Camry
1998 Honda Accord

I had previously owned Chevy's and Fords. Ford Escort wagon wasn't bad but wasn't great. Chevy Cavalier was a dog.

nt

I have the print edition.

I disagree about VW, i have a 2 year old one, i love it but it has had nothing but electrical problem after electrical problem. I won't be buying another VW.

VWs are known amongst other dealers as a lease return trade-in, because they have a reputation of being just great (and to a certain extent, they are) right up until their comprehensive 36 month/36K mile warrantee runs out, which is why a lot of folks lease them for three years, but don't go further than that.

The Fit, btw, is one of the most brilliant Hondas ever made, and that's saying something, even from me.

German cars are dead to me.

It was 4/48,000

a nice solid car.

I have a Honda Civic hybrid... nice car.

You should see the looks I get driving around OKC in my hybrid with all my pro-environment and liberal bumper stickers. I have a scratch down one side of my car that appeared around election time... those bible thumping right wingers are so considerate of other peoples property you know.

Wish Honda made a Fit Hybrid. I would definitely work the OT to get the 60 mpg or more.

:banghead:

I'm just waiting for the reference to the Powers surveys.

When I went to buy a used car, I checked Consumer Reports' survey of repairs. The 'dots' tell the story...

will be much better, you'll see, we promise this time, really. Have we ever lied to you?

I know--it will be different because our kids will grow up to be investment bankers and managers.

Political considerations aside, I know I just plain can't afford an unreliable car. I actually have and like a GM car, but since GM seems to be bound and determined to kill of their one nameplate that has reliably made reliable, drivable cars for the under 60 set, I can't really see myself buying another when I'm ready to replace it.

*That would Saturn. When they were semi-independent from GM they were the best value on the road- 90's Saturns are unkillable. As they started to get more parts in common with GM's typical shite they got much flashier but went downhill fast in terms of reliability.

the Koreans have come a long way since the Pony.

Sid

I was in the 209th MI Company (which is currently designated Company A, 524th MI Battalion) when I was stationed in Korea. We had three platoons--headquarters platoon, signal security platoon and counterintelligence platoon. The CI platoon had an office with from two to thirty agents on every US Forces Korea installation, and every office had at least one Pony. Aesthetically they were god-awful, but reliability was good.

They also seemed to get in a LOT of wrecks, but we put four or five thousand miles a month on each car in a place where driving is far more aggressive than it is in the US, so we expected that.

to Canadian winters. Maybe we use more salt on our roads than they do in Seoul, but Ponys seemed to rust out very badly around here. My wife's first car was an '86 Hyundai Excel, which was woefully underpowered, but otherwise very sound mechanically. Unfortunately, it too rusted out before the engine died.

We've had an Elantra wagon as our second car for 8 years, and it's still going strong. No rust either!

Sid

The Elantra hatchback (2006) is a great small car. Hyundai just ripped off the Saab 93 line for line. I have had at least half a dozen people ask me when I bought the Saab. Only, it's better than a Saab, because it's not a Saab. It rides smooth and quiet, it has good power, it get's good mileage, and it's got a ton of room. I love it.

So, using our "loyalty" rebates and bonuses we decided to look at the new Santa Fe. This car is phenomenal. I love it. We have a friend with an Infiniti SUV who seemed outright pissed the first time he rode in our Santa Fe. It's got virtually all the same features as his Infiniti (except the big computer screen on the dash), but it cost 20,000 less. As Consumer Reports stated, if you're into brand names, you'll prefer the Infiniti or Lexus. But if you just want a quality ride, you'll save the 20k and buy the Hyundai. And their Vera Cruz crossover actually BEAT OUT the Lexus in Road & Track's head-to-head comparison.

Both the Santa Fe and the Elantra are in CU's top picks for new cars. Hyundai might not be in the top five "brands," but they own two of the top ten slots for vehicle classes. And watch out for the Genesis.

.

I was looking for a car a few years ago and the one I bought was considered a best buy (Mazda 3 hatchback). I did some comparison shopping but couldn't really find comparable American cars. The Dodge Caliber was too new at the time to have much in the way of ratings but I have driven Dodge trucks for years at work and THEY SUCK. I will never buy a Dodge or Chrysler product ever. I'd rather walk. Hell, if I bought a Dodge I probably would be walking most of the time.

Consumer reports is a very reputable organization. Because they take no ads, you can be sure their test are unbiased and the results can be trusted.

I don't see much of a future for GM or Chrysler; I think the Volt won't end up being anything but an overpriced gimmick, and Chrysler's just a mess. But I think if any of them are going to adapt, it'll be Ford.

Chrysler should just go. Worst reliability. Worst Scores. Nobody says "I want a Chrysler". On top of that they are in financial trouble with no end in sight.

GM can be saved but it will take hard decisions. They should have cut half the brands 5 years ago. Even now they are keeping Chevy AND GMC. They are clones. Keep Chevy and scrap GMC (or vice versa). Offer every GMC owner a non transferable cert worth an extra $3000 off a Chevy purchased in next 5 years when they trade in their GMC. Within 10 years would will have largely absorbed the GMC consumer base. I don't think GM leadership is willing to make the hard calls though.

Ford is moving in the right direction however they burned a LOT (and I mean a LOT) of consumers in the 90s. Just google "defective transmission Taurus/Sable". I owned a 98 Sable for 5 years and it left such a bad taste in my mouth. Now I am not saying I won't buy a Ford again but I bought a Honda and it has been great. No problems, great quality, good resale value still.

For Ford to win a sale from be again I would need a reason to ditch Honda. As long as Honda keeps making good vehicles the ball isn't in Fords court. I know I am not alone. Ford made millions of poor reliability vehicles in the 90s and that legacy will haunt them for a generation.

Chrysler has been making the same cars for years and years. They don't even bother to update their styling these days, with perhaps the exception of a couple of overpriced Dodge products. Now they wonder why people are instead buying the Japanese cars that are significantly refreshed every few years. Ford does seem to be aware of where it needs to go. GM might know that too but it seems too slow to respond, and all of its confused brand names doesn't help it. Chrysler is now nothing more than a failed bet made by private capital. Daimler AG must be so happy they were able to split from that crap. I am not sure what they saw in that merger to begin with.

I've never seen a Land Rover that wasn't driven by some self-absorbed jerk. According to the chart, Land Rover has the second worst test score and by far the worst reliability. Yet there seems to be no shortage of Land Rovers swerving through traffic with the driver yakking on a cell phone while balancing a latte and a crossant in the other hand.

Where's Darwin when you really need him?

We have friends who always go to consumer reports before they buy anything and they go from one fuck story to the other one. seriesly!!! I shit you not

And have for quite some time. I quite reading CR years ago because of it

that answers the questions of why Consumer Reports regularly states Japanese autos are better, why popular perception is that Japanese autos are better, and why American automakers find themselves slowly losing market share to Japanese autos.

Japanese autos, for the most part, are better.

i am considering buying an american car next but only if it passes muster . . . which will include the hardware (door handles, mirrors, etc.). i drive a 14-year-old camry. i have had to fix the electric in the front doors (probably because of salt - i live near the ocean) and my radio button just broke. the rest of the accoutrements are solid (knock wood). can you say the same for american cars? do the seats and dash and headliners last as long?

ellen fl

We're back to the "everybody knows" style of data that CR relies on. Self-selected surveys are not scientific.

>Japanese autos, for the most part, are better.

We drove a Focus for almost a week while our '94 Sentra (yes, you read that right,) was in the shop. I'd buy a Focus. I was pleasantly surprised and impressed with the car.

At the same time, our Sentra has a little over 150,000 miles on it. Besides brakes, a clutch, and the usual tires and oil change maintenance, it's run like a top for the past fifteen years. We have put this car through everything you can think of, and it keeps going. We'd like a newer car (we'd like some airbags, for instance,) but a car payment's out of the question right now. Hopefully, we'll get several more years of use out of the Sentra.

There is a small risk that the American car may cost you more money in repairs. There is a certainty that the Japanese car will take jobs, opportunity, and capital out of our country. Some people just don't know how numbers work.

a) buying a Japanese car that's well built?

b) buying two American lemons?

Where are they going to work when they grow up? Who's going to fund your Social Security??

Smart kids.

Sleeping well?

It's a damn shame.

Good thing people aren't wasting their money buying shitty cars. They really need that money.

I think American workers are ill-served by buying poorly designed cars.

If you want to blame somebody, why don't you blame the executives who drove their companies into the ground by exploiting their customers with planned obsolesence and phony appeals to patriotism.

Blame the smug buyers who have to bash domestics just to reassure themselves and prime their egos.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5146979&mesg_id=5149220

That's the kind of stupidity that drove US car companies into the ground.

Do you know where those Toyotas were built?

:o

but...I can't.

Our GM plant was moved away even though the light trucks made here were selling well. Buying a US-company vehicle doesn't keep the jobs here. If they're profitable here, they can still be more profitable elsewhere, and they could still move.

Honda's been telling us to fuck off for decades

Pricing? Quality? Your company's unwillingness to
accommodate their product requirements? Honda is
a rational corporation so surely they had reasons for
rejecting your products.

Tesha

You know, the companies who dumped tvs in this country for decades to knock off RCA, Zenith, Motorola, Philco,...

That's the management and director's fiduciary responsibility; not loyalty
to any given keiretsu. American companies *DO* win contracts to supply
the Japanese when the specifications, quality, and price are right.

Tesha

Further, you don't know shine about what happened when Honda located in Ohio.

American customers and manufacurers having loyalty to American companies = good. Japanese customers and manufacturers having loyalty to Japanese companies = bad. Got it.

An "American" car built in Mexico or Canada doesn't employ many American
autoworkers, does it? And a "Japanese" car assembled in America employs
at least a few American autoworkers, even if they aren't UAW.

Nothing in the real world is as clear as some on DU like to present it.

Tesha

The Japanese have scant research facilities in this country, for that matter, and hardly have the employment impact of the domestics. Do you know anybody with an engineering degree who works for the Japanese? Not too many of them.

By the way, even though my response is in a form to jibe yours, you may
want to study the difference between capital flows and cash flows.

Tesha

not mine

and if the American auto manufacturers would have got on the fuel economy band wagon before the mid 2000s maybe the impact of global warming wouldn't be quite as devastating and maybe they would have sold more cars in recent years.

:hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

She was written up in the WSJ for a networking group that she started at Toyota for parents of special-needs kids.

http://www.cerebral-palsy.net/headlines/parentsarticle.html

She has worked much too hard to be insulted by the likes of you.

We have a Denso plant nearby and I know several engineers who work there.

I used to know hundreds of people who worked for GM, but then they moved the plant to Mexico.

All the high value added work is in Japan. Just count the number of design and test facilities in Detroit and see.

I used to work with Denso. They really screwed up our project and then pulled politics to cover up. I really got to hate them and that was the main reason that I swore I would never buy another Japanese car.

Honda, I would say that buying a Honda is the best thing in my family.

People have this misconception that American car companies hold all the automotive jobs in this country, and believe that every part put into a Ford, GM or Chrysler is built here in America.

The fact is, Japanese companies employ, directly or indirectly, just as many Americans as an American auto maker does.

It's not that I am against Ford, GM, or Chrysler - but unless you want an SUV or a really lame looking compact, more people will continue buying Japanese.

American companies are hoping that you will buy either substance or style, but they fail to recognize that the Japanese are producing style and substance in the same package.

and no one sends any profit overseas, it all goes back to the employees and consumers.

This, despite the fact that Toyota has had the highest # of recalls in the recent past.

Gee, think they are related?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/business/worldbusiness/17auto.html?ex=1350277200&en=ea157afd47320398&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/10/consumer-reports-toyota-quality-sees-cracks-in-its-armor.html

and likely even incomplete. Toyota's 'automatic' recommendation was simply an assumption that a new or designed Toyota model would be reliable, not that it would necessarily test well. The removal of this assumption meant that at least one year of reliability survey dated was needed before a Toyota could be recommended, similar to most other manufacturers.


http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm

but given your lack of understanding of CRs methods that's hardly a surprise.

And I'm a CR subscriber. :hi:

I'm still searching for where I said they test some of the cars they rate. Now regarding their recommendations, turn to page 37 of the November issue.

"To be recommended, a car must be a good overall package: It must score well in our testing..."

That indicates to me that the won't recommend a car they haven't tested.

Uh-huh. They admit in the first sentence that they they compile quality data from user generated surveys. Oh, and they took a road test in a few cars!

This is nothing like a comprehensive (or scientific) test of the quality of these vehicles, and you've misunderstood it if you take it to be so. I can't explain it any more plainly to you. :hi:

that their RELIABILITY ratings were based on anything other than a user survey? Now try to address the point in my post. The won't recommend a car unless it has TESTED well, has done well on the reliability survey, and has done well in government and insurance industry crash test, which I readily admit they don't perform themselves, which I can also readily understand.

Who ever said they test EVERY model from every manufacturer? That doesn't mean they don't, or shouldn't, include them in the reliability survey, if they can get enough responses. It does mean they won't recommend a model they haven't tested.

And here's a good quote from your link

"A Japanese nameplate doesn't guarantee that a car is reliable or scores well in our testing. Although most models from Honda, Subaru, and Toyota are very reliable, the Honda Element, Mitsubishi Eclipse, and Toyota Yaris all score too low in our tests for us to recommend."

I've already mentioned the Yaris elsewhere.

Tesha

and in their comprehensive tests.

i can't think of a time they steered me wrong.

But you sound like Republicans talking about climate change. Fact - Toyota/Honda make a more reliable auto and have for a long, long time. Their growing dominance is largely based on word of mouth from their incredible reliability.

we're happy with them.

Consumer Reports does not conduct scientific quality surveys.

Look at the website carefully, somewhere it will say current ratings are based on past performance because at some point they decided the car maker itself was so wonderful it wasn't necessary to actually test anymore. They stopped testing Toyota and Honda back in the 80's and have just kept assuming they top the reliability charts.

However, the editor of CR was forced to admit on Rachel Maddow a few weeks ago that Ford and GM reliability is now at or better that of Toyota and Honda. He also admitted they no longer test Toyota or Honda based on their great performance in the 70's and early 80's. Now they use data provided by the carmakers themselves.

(hint: self-selected surveys and "automatic" passing grades do not produce valid statistical data) :hi:

and now you want to change the topic to the reliability survey? I see.

Only you are denying this. :hi:

because you have about as much proof of that as you do of your other claims, which keep changing.

Rachael Maddow seems to have exposed the whole ball of crap.

any specifics on what smoke was blown, how it was caught, and what she exposed? Likely not, only unsupported generalizations.

The test both a Honda Fit and a Toyota Yaris, as part of a report on small cars. Surprisingly, to some people anyway, the Yaris is not a model the recommend.

As far as an editor of CR admitting that Ford and GM reliability is now at or better than Toyota and Honda, they've been saying for some time that Ford, at least, has improved greatly.

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2007/10/ford_reliability_rating_improv.html

In their past buying guides, they've always indicated the issue in which they tested vehicles.

like it was easy for me to prove that they do test Hondas and Toyotas. The OP doesn't mention vehicles, it mentions manufacturers.

for YEARS they gave Toyota's their top rating without even testing the cars, and I recently posted the article referring to this policy.

the Allpar article, which in it's opening section tries to make an issue about the response rate the CR gets to its survey, without considering the sample size even a 6% response rate generates.


Show me where Consumer Reports itself says its policy is or was to give top ratings to any vehicle it hasn't tested. If your source is not CR, tell me how this policy came to be known.

http://hcnew.blogspot.com/2007/11/dings-and-dents-of-toyota.html

But the effort could not head off the decision by Consumer Reports magazine last month to no longer automatically give new or restyled Toyota vehicles a recommended rating. That leaves only Subaru and Honda with those bragging rights.

Like I said, bias.

Apparently, the V6 version of the Toyota Camry, a long-time resident to Consumer Reports' "Annual Car Reliability Survey," is no longer welcome around those parts. And it's not just the Camry, but also the new bigger-than-big four-wheel-drive V8-powered Toyota Tundra and the Lexus Gs. All three of these vehicles "declining reliability" has canceled the "automatic recommended" rating given to the Toyota, Scion and Lexus brands from CR.

http://jalopnik.com/cars/vehicle-quality/toyota-drops-in-consumer-reports-annual-car-reliability-survey-ford-improves-311751.php

or at least spreading falsehoods they don't bother verifying for themselves? Like I said in post 36

****
Toyota's 'automatic' recommendation was simply an assumption that a new or designed Toyota model would be reliable, not that it would necessarily test well. The removal of this assumption meant that at least one year of reliability survey dated was needed before a Toyota could be recommended, similar to most other manufacturers
******

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm

that's quite a ways from giving 'Toyota's their top rating without even testing the cars.'


-

Tell me something, do you CR bashers hate Car and Driver this much too? They've done more than their share of Detroit bashing too, as well as being big global warming deniers.

I stopped reading C&D in the 90's when they started to have sex with Japanese cars. JUST the fact that Consumer Reports ASSUMES an automatic recommendation for an auto maker's vehicles is bias, period.

And don't come here and think you are going to stink up the place by claiming those of us who have been fighting the fight a very long time aren't fighting for the future. You need to get your shit together first

Oh and PS, I belong to the UAW. Fuck the transplants and imports.


"

The removal of this assumption meant that at least one year of reliability survey dated was needed before a Toyota could be recommended, similar to most other manufacturers

"

If that isn't an automatic recommendation where they now HAVE TO HAVE ONE YEAR OF realiability reports, you're blind and biased.

That was the intent of the original post, which wasn't mine by the way, to bash Detroit. :eyes:

Like I've already proven, there was never any 'automatic recommendation'. But apparently the distinction is too much for you to grasp.

So, keep fighting for our future. But don't think you're going to come here and post demonstrably false statements without being countered.



On edit: Since you see fit to alter your posts well after the fact in a weak attempt to try to cover up that you've been proven wrong, no that ISN'T an automatic recommendation. CR does not recommend a vehicle, even one with enough reliability data, unless that vehicle HAS ALSO TESTED WELL. The reliability is only on part of the recommend procedure.

what the hell is wrong with you? You can read the article any way you like, but the facts are, from the links Ive posted, CR IS biased, and your defense of them is to say the least, troubling. Check on their 'recommendations' for baby seats.

We're done. I can see where this may wind up going, and you aren't worth a fucking tombstone chucklenuts.

You haven't proven shit.

I've got a low tolerance for people who continue to hold on to their preconceived notions even when they're proven worng.

NO AUTOMATIC RECOMMENDATION. Unless a vehicle did well in Consumer Reports TEST, it wasn't recommended. By your poor excuse for reasoning, EVERY vehicle Toyota in a given year would be recommended without any test. That was never the case. But you probably don't believe that either.

As far as tombstones, I think you'll be safe. If the 'freeper troll' line one of your cohorts tried didn't earn a banning, I doubt if 'chucklenuts', as pathetic an attempted insult that is in its own right, will.

The removal of this assumption meant that at least one year of reliability survey dated was needed before a Toyota could be recommended, similar to most other manufacturers

Goodbye asshole, you got the X from me.

I never would have bothered posting that if I didn't read it. Thanks for using my links. I take that as implicit recognization that my sources are better than yours.

Now, if you bothered reading Consumer Reports instead of AllPar or some blog with third hand information, you'd know that consumer reports DOESN'T recommend simply on reliability. They recommend on reliability as determined by its survey, the results of its TESTS, and performance in government and insurance industry crash tests.

So no, that ISN'T an automatic recommendation. If a Toyota didn't test well, it didn't get recommended. So keep trying with the half-truths, your not fooling anyone but yourself.

P.S.

'A-hole' isn't going to work either; too tame. Seems you're no better at insulting than you are at correct thinking.

Maybe one or two that were explicitly "not recommended". All of them gave me largely trouble-free service. If I want car information, I read car magazines.

The constant appeal to CR to slam domestics is getting quite tired.

Outscored both Benz and VW in both categories.

Benzes are expensive, but give credit to them for pushing the envelope, and VW consistently puts out interesting/desireable new cars. They both suffer a bit in the reliability department and people know it - and buy them anyway.

Porsches are great, but they've stuck to a very conservative approach of evolving their models for a long time, and really ought to be scoring better in the reliability department imho.

The 911 has been around for 40 some odd years. I think that it, like the Corvette are purpose cars and will never be truly "reliable". I also think Porsche's more recent offerings like the Boxster and that ridiculous Cayenne SUV have hurt their reliability more than helped.

quotes Consumer Reports to him when discussing cars, he knows instantly that they know nothing about cars--he's right. They're full of shit.

Consumer Reports reliability ratings for cars, trucks, and minivans: are they reliable?

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html




http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/newdots.php

Change, but not for the better:
Consumer Reports' new ratings

Oh how the tables have turned.

Volvos have a reputation for being some of the safest cars on the road. Hyundais have reps for being the car most likely to catch fire as it's being driven.

The Hyundais of the 2000s are nothing like the 1990-era Hyundais. I know; I own one.

they're no moresoe than any of similar Honda or Toyota.

In terms of comparable reliability, and the $$$ required to fix them, Volvos aren't in the same league as Hondas and Toyotas, and Mazdas and Subarus, for that matter.

Germany has the top three.

Fiat is going to pick Chrysler's bleached bones.

Hidden recalls, the "free maintenance" program hides huge amounts of problems. And why does such a reliable vehicle need so much maintainance anyway?


Read betrween the lines.

and NONE OF THEM owned ANY year of a BMW, NONE. And the service lot was filled daily, and where I work, you could see the tow trucks bringing cars in constantly. They had 8 bays, and the non-emergency appointment wait was upwards of a month. There are three other BMW dealers within 10 miles, so it isn't a lack of service bays.

they have a lot of foreign workers coming and going. When they head back home (usually Ireland) they have to sell their cars. Most often they sell them cheap just to get rid of them.
You don't have to bargain, the price is usually well under blue book value.

I didn't realize the "I knew these guys once" methodology was considered superior.

always a Subaru owner. Great vehicle.