Hey guys I was at the store and picked up the consumer reports magazine for most reliable and unreliable cars/trucks. I was surprised to see that the f250 diesel is the most un-reliable full-sized truck. All the other fords did well, top of the list but all were gas. Is the 6.4 that bad???

 

It is mostly the old 6.0. That engine did unimaginable harm to Ford's reputation.

 

As I recall, everyone's diesel gets a bad rating and has for years. Their current rating is on the 6.4, but if I remember correctly no one's diesel has ever had a good rating in terms of reliability. As an aside, I have found Consumer Report ratings to be worthless in a number of situations and would suggest it be used only as one of many sources of information.

Steve

 

+1 on that. CR doesn't tend to be the best source of information when it comes to trucks. They tend more to the yuppie crowd and the tree huggers. I have found it very useful as a pan liner in pet crates though.

 

I gave up on CR some time ago. They seem to take their reliability stuff from their members. (I don't like their tests either, but that's off topic)

Trouble is, it depends on how many members have specific vehicles, and, to some extent, how they feel about them.

To be fair, they do seem to require a minimum number of reports before they use it. However, the actual number still varies considerably.

I'm beginning to believe that forums such as FTE ( and it's much poorer imitators ) , are among the best sources. You can not only poll owners, but just reading about the various issues gives a sense of the types of problems frequently encountered. (I did have to learn to discount the ones that mentioned "I buried it pretty deep, and it didn't run quite right after my buddy yanked it out" )

 

Sigh.

All of CR tests include both subjective components and objective components.

Subjective components include opinions of ride quality, fit and finish, ease of entry and exit, etc.

Objective components include acceleration, MPGs, braking, lane change speed, interior measurements, etc.

While you might take issue with CR's subjective opinions, ignoring the objective data is just plain dumb.

 

A statistically significant number is sufficient. That might be only a few hundred reports.

If 200 are enough, then 200,000 does not make your prediction any more accurate.

And I am one of those who turns in those surveys. I am very critical.

And the last time I hugged a tree was last week when I was planting a nice 45 gal. red oak in my front yard.

 

Forums such as FTE are probably the least accurate, least predictive and most bias source of information you can get.

 

As you suggest, it is possible their date base is biased confounding their results, but there are two important factors in reliability ratings I am not sure they consider, at least when it comes diesel trucks.

1. A large percentage of folks buy diesels for their towing and hauling ability. They often are worked and perhaps over worked more often than gassers. That is not to say gassers are not used for work, many are, but if a higher percentage of diesels are hauling and towing, they are operating under different conditions. That would mean they are more likely to feel the effects of use. They could appear less relaible simply because they are used in a different manner.

2. In other situations in which I have tabulated statistics comparing gas versus diesel drive trains, I found diesel owners averaged almost exactly twice as many miles per year than gas owners. If that is also true in the Consumer Reports data, it would mean the results are comparing apples and oranges. Folks who invest in diesels do so because they intend to use them and the diesels may be on the road more miles per year than comparable gas trucks. If that were the case, the only way a comparison could be done would be to compare gas with diesel in the same year with the same number of miles per year. I don't see an annual miles factor in the Consumer Report data.

Naturally I am not sure about either of the above factors, but if I am correct, those issues could automatically invalidate any conclusions made from the surveys.

Steve

 

The problem with the objective components you're citing is that they are only accurate in the CR world using their equipment. You can pick up any other publication testing the same vehicle in a similar environment and under similar conditions and see varying results. Much of that also depends on the driver of said vehicle as well as test equipment used.

As for you're last statement, I refrain from labeling members and visitors on here and see that you obviously don't. Sooooo we'll just call you the pot and me the kettle.

 

Powerstroke72 "I have found it very useful as a pan liner in pet crates though." I laughed for like ten minutes when I read that! A lot of people have told me that CR is bull crap. Just wanted to know. I thought the 6.4 was doin ok.

 

Glad you found the humor in it as it was intended. I probably should have put some smilies with it to signify the intent. The biggest issues I've seen out of the 6.4 have been cracked DPFs and radiator problems. Otherwise, it seems to be doing pretty well. I think the single biggest complaint I've read here and elsewhere is related to MPGs. However, the reported fuel mileage on these is all over the place.

There is a thread running about a 6.4 with major issues right now in the 6.4 forum and the SD forum where the owner had a no start situation. It ended up at the dealer and they found ice in one of the cylinders upon initial inspection, then more as they dug further into it:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...-now-void.html

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/9...-warranty.html

Lots of reading and speculation as to the cause. I wouldn't let it deter me though if you find one you like as it's very likely an isolated case. Get an OASIS report if it's used and go from there. Good luck.

 

Agreed. But CR does not test in a vacuum. The run the same tests at the same time using the same people and the same equipment on similar vehicles. In other words, a comparison test.

So when CR says truck X stopped 10 feet shorter than truck Y. Or accelerated to 60 mph in 0.5 sec less time, that is very useful objective data. I would not compare it to tests run by other people at another time. Apples to oranges. But the comparisons made within the test are useful.

You are perhaps too much of an FTE youngster to remember the threads from several years ago, when CR tested HD pickups and the F250 came in last in almost all of the objective categories. From the comments, you would have thought CR kicked everyone's dog. They all dismissed the hard, cold data as just another example of the CR "bias" (never mind the fact that although the Chevy "won", CR did not like it very much either).

Like I said, just plain dumb.

 

A friend compared his 6.4 to his old 7.3. His complaint was that the power came on in a big rush as the turbo spooled up and that there was a lot of extra expense in maintenance (fuel filters, etc.).

 

I would suggest there are two issues here. One is how CR tests and I agree with your comments. The other is their reliability ratings, which I believe are based on their survey results rather than their own tests. It is in the area of survey results that I have the most concern as I believe it is there that there is the most potential for error. Not disagreeing, just expanding.

Steve