CR - worst picks for new cars

Something always has to be at the bottom. From the tone of the article, it seemed to be trying to put a relationship between reliability and sales. Cars are much more reliable than they used to be especially in terms of maintenance thanks to government mandated laws and competition from the Japanese (and now Korean cars).
 
Was this based only on American vehicals or all of them? I didn't see a single word about Kia (killed in action) or any other overseas manufacturer. There is no way a Kia Rio is built better than a F250 or Caddy. Imo, this was just a jab at Detroit.
 
I believe it says in the article how the vehicles were determined. And yes, I think all makes and models were considered (at least the ones that met the specified criteria). Keep in mind, all these numbers and statistics can be construed to mean whatever the story writer wants them to say.
 
<<<<< :puterx:


Dang JP, You trying to get someone thrown off here today. I ain't biting on your threads :swirly:
 
black bart said:
CR should stick to testing vacuum sweepers they don't know S*#t about vehicles.
Click to expand...
Maybe they do and maybe they don't. I know this. Back when I was researching p/u trucks, there seemed to be a consensus about the twins Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon. And the concensus wasn't to go out and buy one.

And based on your comment in another thread it would seem you agree with their assessment of the Jeep Wrangler.

I sure wouldn't question their statement that the Escalade represented a poor value.

Now, your turn. Why don't you tell us why their picks in the article are wrong rather than summarily dismissing it.
 
I will say that I disagree with their evaluation of the F-250. I've seen too many around doing some hella hard work to write them off as a crappy car. The others, not so much.
 
As for consumer reports, CR does know about cars. I think they do a decent job reviewing them. I do not agree with their scoring system since it is not MY buying criteria...it reflects what they think is important. The data speaks for itself -- just ignore the conclusions.

CR has many vehicles on their "not recommended" list. The article writer chose to ignore the rest (many are Chrysler products). As said earlier, I think the writer had an biased (agenda) when doing the article.
 
I have not owned any of the worst vehicles mentioned but I have had friends that stayed in a Motel 6 with a Cadillac or a Canyon/Colorado sitting in the parking lot and those fellows said that the Cadillac worked fine(terribly expensive) but the Colorado/Canyon was a poorly built and underpowered piece of tin.

The Canyon/Colorado was never in my recent hunt for a pickup for that very reason. The Cadillac was to expensive. The Ford pickup rides to rough for me. It ended up being a Chevy. Mostly because I am a died in the wool Chevy man. But I certainly spent a good deal of time looking at all the others.
 
I think the CR Reports are like any other survey. People will extol it's virtues if they agree with it and disdain their conclusions if they don't agree with them.

I personally would never pick a car based on their conclusions, but I would definitely have serious reservations in purchasing a car that CR had concluded to have a history of technical problems. Seriously, would you still buy a car even if it's history has been checkered with a whole bunch of little CR "black dots"?;)
 
When I want to buy another vehicle the last thing I would do is consider buying because someone at Car & Driver or Motor Trend or worse yet would be CR said I should buy it..

Why in Gods name would you allow someone else to tell you what you need or should drive.
Their criteria is not what I want and no one vehicle does it all, that is why I own several different vehicles but a good SUV comes close to a vehicle for all purposes.

I remember when Ford changed the Explorer to integral power steering softened the ride and a few other changes to make it ride and drive better and a couple magazines said that the suspension was too soft it would not be as good off roader and that Ford had made a big mistake.

I told my buddy nearly all of them were driven in the suburbs and never leave the pavement and making them ride and driver better would increase sales.
I was right they sold much faster than early models.

What some young guy thinks is bad may be just what an older person is looking for.
 
While I wouldn't base a buying decision based solely on what anyone has to say, I think it's not very wise to completely discount others findings - especially folks who make a living driving and testing a wide range of vehicles. Same as with detailing products - word of mouth (and reviews and the like) can really help or really hurt.
 
JaredPointer said:
I will say that I disagree with their evaluation of the F-250. I've seen too many around doing some hella hard work to write them off as a crappy car. The others, not so much.
Click to expand...

I agree. Sounds like a semantics issue. I don't suppose that Escalade or F250 Lariat buyers are "value" shoppers.

Value would more likely be found in a Surburban or XL trim level vehicle, as opposed to the premium models. One could argue that "Quality" is only one of many components of "Value."
 
JohnHenry said:
I agree. Sounds like a semantics issue. I don't suppose that Escalade or F250 Lariat buyers are "value" shoppers.

Value would more likely be found in a Surburban or XL trim level vehicle, as opposed to the premium models. One could argue that "Quality" is only one of many components of "Value."
Click to expand...
Who buys a new car thinking it is a good investment. :crazy2:
Very few vehicles that do anything other than cost you a lot of money.

When I buy a vehicle I drive it until their is nothing left so resale is not a consideration.

I guess for those who enjoy making car payments all their live should consider what they will get for their vehicle that they will trade in as soon as they get it paid for.
 
LOL I got a buddy that uses CR to buy EVERYTHING. If they say its the best, he falls for it and can not be told otherwise...
 
black bart said:
Who buys a new car thinking it is a good investment. :crazy2:
Very few vehicles that do anything other than cost you a lot of money.
Click to expand...

You are 100% right about that. I love to have friends tell me that their car is their second biggest "investment." :)

black bart said:
resale is not a consideration.
Click to expand...

I can't say that I follow that line of thinking. Given the choice between two nearly-identical automobiles, wouldn't you rather have one that holds a higher resale value longer?

Take my case when I wrecked my 2005 Tacoma for instance. I had no intention of getting rid of it, but due to the fact that it held it's value so well I got a settlement out of the insurance that wasn't very far away from what I paid for the truck brand new. And I had had it longer than 4 years at the time. Had I purchased something that didn't hold the value so well, I might have been SOL when it came time to get something else. Resale is a pretty viable factor in purchasing a new car for a lot of people, and not always because you just want to trade up. Unexpected job loss, wrecks, thefts, etc are all reasons to seek out a vehicle whose worth doesn't plummet on a short time line.
 
In the late 80's, Consumer Reports couldn't get enough of the GM A-bodies. My parents bought their 1986 Celebrity and 1992 Century based on CR recommendations. By the end of the model run, it was suddenly a model to avoid. That two-faced BS right there is why I have not (since about '94), do not, and will not read CR or take any of their drivel seriously.

They ranked our TV as one of the worst, too. 32-inch Toshiba CRT. Manufactured in 1998. Crisp and clear as the day it was new and cost us a mere $75 used. I'd like to see a modern LCD TV last that long and look that good.
 
JaredPointer said:
You are 100% right about that. I love to have friends tell me that their car is their second biggest "investment." :)



I can't say that I follow that line of thinking. Given the choice between two nearly-identical automobiles, wouldn't you rather have one that holds a higher resale value longer?

Take my case when I wrecked my 2005 Tacoma for instance. I had no intention of getting rid of it, but due to the fact that it held it's value so well I got a settlement out of the insurance that wasn't very far away from what I paid for the truck brand new. And I had had it longer than 4 years at the time. Had I purchased something that didn't hold the value so well, I might have been SOL when it came time to get something else. Resale is a pretty viable factor in purchasing a new car for a lot of people, and not always because you just want to trade up. Unexpected job loss, wrecks, thefts, etc are all reasons to seek out a vehicle whose worth doesn't plummet on a short time line.
Click to expand...
Yea your probably right on that but in my 60+ years of driving I have never had a vehicle stole or wrecked.
I buy a vehicle and keep it until it is no longer worth keeping it going and get rid of it.
Saves thousands over buying new every few years but I do my own work not everyone can do that so for them it would not work as well.

In all the years that I have been driving I have never took my vehicles in for repairs
.My Father ran and independent garage all his live, we have always had a garage in the family and you not only get to see the models that have problems but at what mileage it occurs and what the cost is.

That is the biggest difference some cost much more for the same repairs.

I get my parts at way less than what you would pay and do my own work so repairs are cheap for me.

My daily driver is a 92 Explorer and in 18 years the only expense has been battery's and a set of spark plugs it has had NO REPAIRS I have not even bought tires for it

The original tires had 52.000 miles on them when I got a letter from Ford telling me to take it in for new tires.

I ran those for about 6 months and got a letter telling me to take it in for new tires.
I had 1 year before the offer was void so I waited till the year was up and took it in and got 5 new Michelin LTX free and they are still on it so I have not even had to buy a tire for it in the 18 years.

Total cost for upkeep in 18 years 10 bucks for a set of plugs and bought 2 battery's at dealer cost.
It is now getting to the point where items like brakes and exhaust will need replaced but I can do all of that for a couple hundred dollars and that would not buy the plates for a new one.

I know my situation is unique and I'm thankful that I do not have to rely on a dealership and pay those prices to keep my ride running.
 
That's pretty nice not having to buy tires for 18 years. :) And I do (or have done up to this point in my adult life) all maintenance and repairs on my vehicles as well. Not only is it good to know, but it does save you some money.

I've seen your Explorer, and for sure it is in top notch shape. How many miles you got on it?

And I am to the point where I agree with that was posted above regarding buying new. I don't know that I'll ever buy another brand new one. Especially since the last one I bought using the internet was such a good experience. You can pretty much find exactly what you want, not have to put up with the dealer BS about options and such, and have it delivered right to your door. Not to mention getting one that's already had that first year drop in retail value.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top