Consumer Report's Most Reliable

[TSX69]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/10/26/cr_most_reliable/index.html

Consumer Reports: Most reliable cars '06
Nissan, Hyundai have models in both the highest and lowest ranks; hybrids do well.

October 27, 2005; Posted: 10:22 a.m. EDT (1422 GMT)

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Consumers can't just put their faith in a trusted brand name when it comes to looking for a new car.

Nissan and Hyundai had models in both the highest and lowest rankings of Consumer Reports predicted-reliability survey this year, according to the magazine.

Nissan's luxury brand, Infiniti, had two of the most reliable models -- the Infiniti M35 and M45. But four Nissan cars -- the Nissan Quest, Armada and Titan and and Infiniti QX56 -- landed on the list of worst for predicted reliability. (Click on car names for vehicle details and images.)

For Hyundai, Consumer Reports predicted, the Hyundai Tucson SUV will likely have poor reliability, while theSanta Fe SUV and and the Elantra should have average reliability. Reliability for the newly redesigned Sonata remains unknown.

"The message to consumers is clear: You can't gauge reliability based only on a nameplate. Some automakers do have a better track record but individual models -- especially newer ones -- can have some problems," said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center, in a statement. "New-car buyers should always check our reliability rating for the model they're buying."

Of the 31 cars that earned the top rating, only two were from U.S.-based manufacturers -- the remaining 29 vehicles were from Japanese automakers, and none represented European brands. Almost half of the top 31 -- 15 vehicles -- were manufactured by Toyota.

Of the vehicles with the worst reliability, 22 were from U.S.-based manufacturers, 20 from European brands, four from Japanese makers and two from South Korean companies.

Hybrid models turned in above-average results, despite their complex mechanical drivetrains. Hybrids use both gasoline engines and electric motors that run on batteries charged by the gasoline engine.

Consumer Reports surveyed the owners of more than a million vehicles. Owners were surveyed through the magazine's Web site and through surveys mailed to subscribers. To calculate predicted reliability for 2006 model-year vehicles, the magazine averaged overall reliability scores for the last three model years, provided that the vehicle remained substantially unchanged over that time. For vehicles that were new or substantially redesigned during that time, data from the just one or two years was used.

Best predicted reliability:

(As calculated by Consumer Reports)

Small cars:

Toyota Echo

Honda Civic (2005)

Toyota Prius

Honda Civic Hybrid (2005)

Toyota Corolla

Subaru Impreza (non-turbo)


Sporty cars/Convertibles Coupes

Honda S2000

Mazda MX-5 Miata (2005)

Lexus SC430

Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2005)


Sedans

Lexus GS300/GS430*

Infiniti M35/M45*

Lexus IS300 (2005)

Honda Accord Hybrid*

Toyota Camry

Honda Accord 4-cyl.

Lexus LS430


Wagons

Toyota Matrix


Minivans
(None rated "Best")


Small SUVs

Toyota Rav4 (2005)

Honda CR-V

Honda Element

Subaru Forester

Mercury Mariner*

Mitsubishi Outlander


Mid-sized SUVs

Lexus RX400h (hybrid)*

Toyota Highlander

Toyota 4Runner (V-8)

Infiniti FX35


Large SUVs

Toyota Land Cruiser


Pick-up trucks

Honda Ridgeline*

Toyota Tundra

[Kanon23]

no Acuras? Damn

[Duke]

"The message to consumers is clear: You can't gauge reliability based only on a nameplate. Some automakers do have a better track record but individual models -- especially newer ones -- can have some problems," said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center, in a statement. "New-car buyers should always check our reliability rating for the model they're buying."
Then why does Consumer Retards always rate every Chrysler product ever made as "Unreliable"?!

I freaking hate that magazine. They are absolutely the most inaccurate, biased pieces of journalistic corn that ever existed. The fact that they are so self-righteously smug about just makes their hypocrisy all the more infuriating.

Remember, these are the people who rated the Toyota Corolla as "far superior" to the Geo Prizm, when both cars were made simultaneously on the same assembly line. They are also the people who called the Isuzu Rodeo's interior "cheap and dated" while praising the Honda Passport's interior as "rugged". And as we all know, the only thing Honda engineered on the Passport was the hood ornament.

If I was shopping for a car, I would read Consumer Retards reviews just to be sure that the car they hated most was the one I bought. It would probably be perfect for me.

[ChinchillaX]

I remember the roll over test contraversy in the late '80s for the Suzuki Samurai. They intentional tipped it to boost subscriptions and attention to their magazine. I don't buy this magazine since they are too biased. They like Hondas and Toyotas, thinking they are the most superior cars when others are just as good.

[AcidLotus]

Then why does Consumer Retards always rate every Chrysler product ever made as "Unreliable"?!

Because they are :wall:

[Duke]

Because they are :wall:
You can prove that by Consumer Retards but you can't prove that by me. I've had 5 Chrysler products over the last 15 years, with a total of about 650,000 miles on them, and not one of them has ever stranded me; not once, ever.

The 1990 Grand Caravan needed a transmission rebuild at about 200,000 miles. Both the Neons popped their headgaskets; both were totally driveable and I only noticed it because I knew what to look for; both were fixed by Chrysler, well out of warranty, at a cost to me of $100 each, even though I was the second owner on one of the Neons.

Other than oil and brake pads I've hardly spent anything on maintenance. My ACR is strong on the original clutch at 95,000 miles; I got 50,000 miles out of the fronts and 90,000 miles out of the original rear brake pads, including autocross and track days. I'm just one person but that's 5 separate vehicles with an average of 130,000 mostly trouble-free miles on each of them. Hardly what I would call "unreliable".

My belief is that one Chrysler CR test car once broke down and stranded the chief editor of the magazine somewhere inconvenient, and so they've never forgiven Chrysler. It's common knowledge that they hate all American cars, but Chrysler definitely takes it on the chin from them.

[sjlee]

Even though the Camry and Accord are considered "reliable", I don't think you can say that 100% of them will never have any problems. Just like saying all Chrysler vehicles will always have problems. I think a lower percentage of Toyotas and Hondas have problems than other makes. With any vehicle, I think having regular maintenance done is key to minimizing problems. Once in a while you hear of people neglecting their cars, then accusing it of not being reliable.

I agree about Consumer Reports though. I even emailed them about why they automatically give new models poor reliability ratings for some brands, while others they label as "New"... meaning they do not have enough info to rate the reliability. Their response was basically that "historically" cars from that maker were unreliable, which I think is crap. I do think, however, that things are slowly changing... I noticed that they actually gave a Buick model good reliability ratings.