There is a subjective component it the reliability ratings, but I think it small. The ratings (E, VG, G, F, P) are based on the percentage of people reporting a problem, not the magnitude of a problem. So a very small speck in the paint might be reported as a paint problem by some, but not for others (hence the possibility of a subjective bias).

And if reported as a problem, it can bring the overall rating down even though a small speck in the paint would not stop anyone from buying the vehicle.

Whatever its faults, no one has yet to show me any sort of alternatives to CR's reliability ratings that are any more credible.

 

We're obviously deadlocked so we'll call it agreeing to disagree.

 

CR like so many other places that over reviews of vehicles, esp. trucks, should just stick to testing toasters...

thats what they know..

really bothers me listening to reviews done by people who obviously dont drive trucks or use them regularly..

 

You have to take every magazine publication or rating with a grain of salt. A good example was when a very well known and somewhat respected magazine crowned the Chevy Vega "Car of the Year" CR is a little different publication but the CR staff always struck me as California city folk with a love for Honda and little mechanical or technical ability.

 

I think there is potential sampling bias in CR's data when you compare gas to diesel pick-up reliability ratings. I do not think it has to do with their sample population. I think their results are confounded by mileage and usage variables. I have contacted CR and am awaiting their response. If they respond, I will post their response.

I do think they do a good job of being objective when conducting their own tests. I think the error regading reliability is due to a possible weakness in their surveys. Just my thoughts.

Steve

 

I think I have read CR for at least 30 years. Their testing protocol is solid. They set down what they are going to test, set the standards and how to measure. Then all cars, cameras, televisions and so forth are tested equally. That is a 100% objective procedure and yields data to make fair comparisons. Now their reliability ratings are more subjective because they are based on people who you could say are probably less objective. That would be the one flaw in all subjective comparisons. It can be negated by having a large enough sample. Nevertheless, over the years I have found their reliability ratings to be fairly accurate over time.

Example the trouble spot for the Ford Taurus transmission. Check the Taurus forums and there are many posts asking about transmission problems. Next cooling system problems with certain Taurus/Sable years. Again the forum is full of posts about their lack of heat and corroded water pumps. Same with the cam position sensor. The early Ford Focus had it's share of problems and the Focus forums do show a many threads concerning just those areas. So while their reliability ratings for new cars could be questionable and they many times will say they don't have enough information, their ratings over a period of say 5 years at least can be fairly accurate.

 

I agree with everything you say and also subscribe to CR. My questions to CR have nothing to do with their test protocol or their subject pool. My concerns have to do only with placing diesel and gas pick-ups in the same listing given difference in use and mileage that are potentially so great, the diesel ratings are weighted by artifacts in the design of their survey. Normally CR responds to questions about their data when posted in their forums almost immediately. So far it is three days and holding with no response.

The basic issue is this: For as long as I can remember, all the gas pick-ups trucks by a manufacturer have always been rated more reliable than their diesel counterparts. That seems curious to me and I believe it may be occurring because diesel pick-ups accumulate many more miles in the surveyed period and are subjected to much heavier use. I do not deny the diesels have required more service, when compared to gas, in the same period of time. The issue of substance is why that service was necessary. Were the trucks used for more miles and subjected to heavier use? If they were, diesel pick-ups need to be handled differently in the ratings.

Steve

 

Which is why I say that to dismiss CR comparison tests outright and not even consider them is just plain dumb.

 

I have tried to come to some understanding of Consumer Reports vehicle tests and ratings, and have come to the conclusion that unless you are looking for a plain vanilla family sedan, minivan, or crossover SUV don't bother with CR.

They understand transportation appliances very well, but for anything out of the narrow confines of a car platform designed to haul people efficiently with no fuss they are clueless. They will without fail recommend the most boring soulless cars on the market because they are reliable, quiet, and get good fuel economy. So if you're looking for a sedan to drive for a few years when you're in your 80's go with a CR recommended vehicle, it will prepare you for the boredom and silence of being in a coffin.

Give the testers at CR a sports car and they will complain about fuel consumption, exhaust noise, violent acceleration, a flinty ride, overly responsive steering and braking, and no back seat. You know, all the things that contribute to making a sports car what it is. Every now and again they will rate a sports car highly, but it is usually a fluke when one of their younger testers got to write the review.

They are equally clueless about trucks for some of the same reasons. Fuel consumption, flinty ride, etc. Also much like the sporting machines CR doesn't seem to realize that maintenance requirements for a truck are going to be a bit more rigorous than a Camry or a Taurus. If you are asking the vehicle to go 180mph and stop from that speed, and go round corners at speed you are going to be hard on tires, brakes, and the engine will need more frequent maintenance. Same for a truck you are asking to frequently tow 10K+ lbs of trailer, go off road, plow snow with etc.

 

Then you truly do not understand.

CR tests on an absolute scale. A Corvette does not ride like a Benz, so yes, CR will complain that the ride in the Corvette is relatively harsh. Ditto a Corvette is loud relative to the Benz.

But CR only comparison tests similar vehicles. 1/2 ton pickups, for example. CR then gives you (the reader) the objective data, its subjective impressions and an overall score all in a nice, tabulated form. You (the reader) can then look over the report and decide for yourself which vehicle is a win for you.

Why does it irk you that CR says the F150 (or the Ram 1500) rides harshly?

It does (compared to a passenger car).

Why are you perturbed when CR says pickups get bad gas mileage?

They do!

You should never use CR or Pickuptrucks.com or Car & Driver, etc. as your only source of info. You should review all the info available.

CR is just another available source. Why would you not want to at least look at what they say?

PS - It may come as a surprise to you that both the F150 and the Ranger have been CR's recommended picks in years past. Ditto the Expedition.