Although it's had better-than-average reliablity for the past couple years, the Colorado performed so poorly in CR's latest 5-way compact-truck comparison that they didn't recommend it. Get the latest issue and read it for yourself. Although CR regularly removes vehicles from their recommended list for poor reliabilty, this is the first one in a VERY long time that they shot down because it had NOTHING going for it. Oh, and they went ga-ga for the Ridgeline (big surprise). Other trucks in the test were the all-new Pathfinder(2), Tacoma(3) and Dakota(4). Sorry, no Fords tested this time.

 

Ever since looking at the CR rating of the new F150 and the comparisons to other trucks, I don't have much faith in Consumer Reports anymore. I haven't even looked at my last issue yet. I suppose I should before whining anymore, eh?

 

That's kinda how I felt about it. The engine and handling was pretty good. But it felt cheap, flimsy, uncomfortable, and uninspired. And the frontal looks... yuk.

 

If CR doesn't like it then I want one. In 1986 they did have much good to said about my 86 F250 4x4. 170,000 miles and it is still running strong, and has been pretty much trouble free. In 1979 I bought a CK20 Chevy Truck and according to CR, I wasted my money, rated bad, bad. 340,000 miles later was still running the engine was never touched except for a timing chain. 2-clutches, 2-sets of brakes, & regular service.

Ford isn't on CRs best list either, but the imports rate up top all the time.
If anyone believes CR they need to buy an IMPORT

 

Other than it's 4WD ability, Car and Driver didn't care much for the Colorado either. (June 2005 issue) As they said, Chevy has had many years to develope this truck and it isn't up to the competition in their opinion. (Note low power, "thrashy" engine, no better mileage than the sixes)

 

I've felt that Consumer Reports has had a very strong Japanese and German bias since at least the 1970's. I generally but little to no value in their recommendations. It's almost as though the have an anti-USA bias. I can't remember when they last recommended a US car or truck as the best overall. I'm sure they must have at some point, I just don't remember when.

 

The Honda had won that contest before they ever saw it. Sorry, but if you read closely, they give passes to the Honda and usually Toyotas too that they won't give the american cars. They said that most testers thought the steering wheel was too far away (and not adjustable, apparently), but didn't mention that as a "low". Yet they seemed to mention every irritation they had with other vehicles in the "lows" for them. Hell, the Tacoma beat it handily in the avoidance manuevers, so they had to say it was numb or something....

They also neglected to mention that the shape of the bed rails makes for a higher lift of anything in the back as you get closer to the cab. You can't put everything all the way in the back by the tailgate if you are hauling more than a couple things. I'm betting they didn't even haul anything in it...

They also said that the gas mileage of the dakota and/or the colorado, I forget which (I don't have the magazine here) had terrrible mileage, but it was only 1mpg overall worse than the allstar hon-duh. Give me a break.

Oh, and one more thing. If this was a comparison of the "mid-size" or compact trucks or whatever, why did they give a comparisson of the overall ratings with the full size rigs?? Just so they could rub it in the face of the big 3?? You have to wonder. I don't recall seeing them do that with full size and midsize cars. I could have missed it, though.

My next truck will definitely not be a Honda.

 

Honda makes a truck? I thought somebody put a bad body kit on an Avalanche.

 

Am curious, because we don't get "Consumer Reports" could someone explain to me what does it actually measure?

 

"Consumer Reports" measures the gullibility and ignorance of the magazine buying public. It works well for people who have little faith in their own judgement and is the same people who trust J. D. Powers.

 

Ok, so now I know what it actually measures
But what it is it supposed to measure?

 

> Am curious, because we don't get "Consumer Reports" could someone explain to me what does it actually measure?

Consumer Reports used to be (maybe still is) a useful resource for buying used vehicles. In it you can see a broad picture of repair histories fairly quickly.

Nowadays, you can get that info on the internet, though you might have to sift through lots of noise to get to it...

 

[QUOTE=GaryJ]
Oh, and one more thing. If this was a comparison of the "mid-size" or compact trucks or whatever, why did they give a comparisson of the overall ratings with the full size rigs?? Just so they could rub it in the face of the big 3?? You have to wonder. I don't recall seeing them do that with full size and midsize cars. I could have missed it, though.QUOTE]

I thought that was odd also. Their breakdown;

Going from Worst to First, here are the test results:

12 - Chevrolet Colorado

11 - Dodge Ram

10 - Chevrolet Silverado

09 - Ford Explorer Sport Trac

08 - Dodge Dakota

07 - Nissan Titan

06 - Toyota Tocoma

05 - Ford F-150

04 - Chevrolet Avalanche

03 - Toyota Tundra

02 - Nissan Frontier

01 - HONDA RIDGELINE

 

As a point of reference, Consumer Reports couldn't say enough bad things about the Aerostar in 1993. I bought a used one in 1994 and still have it with over 200,000 miles. I have to say their analysis of the Aerostar proved to me that the magazine does not reliably assess cars that are "good" or "bad". I wonder what they had to say about the 1978, 1979 ford trucks?

 

Ok, so these are based on feedback from the owner within a certain timeframe, as to how dependable the vehicle has been, and whether it has had to return to the dealership?
Is that correct?
And how long is that timeframe?