Consumer Reports Ranks Tesla Model X Near Bottom For Reliability (cnn.com) 144
Last year, Consumer Reports withdrew its recommendation for the Tesla Model S after investigating its reliability. Today, the nonprofit organization released its 2016 Car Reliability Survey and found that, while the Tesla Model S has become more reliable, the Tesla Model X has proved to be unreliable overall. CNNMoney reports: CEO Elon Musk admitted that he wished he hadn't put so much new, complex technology on [the Model X] all at once when he unveiled the model last year. Apparently, he was right to worry. The Model X's complicated "falcon wing" doors have been a big trouble spot, said Jake Fisher, head of Consumer Reports' car testing unit. Even the front doors, which have electric motors that let them open on their own, have been a headache for customers, he added. As a result, Tesla ranks among the "Less Reliable" brands on Consumer Reports' list. The SUV's dependability is rated as "Much worse than average." Still, overall owner satisfaction with the vehicle is rated as "Excellent." For a long time, "dependability problems" have tended to be relatively trivial, said Fisher, as the industry has perfected the major mechanical aspects of the cars. In recent years, the problems have stemmed from the more high-tech additions to the newest cars, like the computer screens that work with phone, navigation and entertainment features, said Fisher. But now, with tougher fuel economy rules pushing more complex transmission technologies, dependability issues are once again starting to involve fundamental mechanical components. New eight- and nine-speed transmissions as well as dual-clutch and continuously variable transmissions have been suffering problems at a higher-than-average rate, Fisher said. It's been years since new car buyers would have to worry about things that could actually render their vehicle undrivable. But those concerns are coming back, Fisher said. As for the Model S, Consumer Reports says "Tesla's Model S has improved to average reliability, which now makes the electric car one of our recommended models."
It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people expected those to take time to get right.
But the issues with poor build quality was simply horrendous and would have been unacceptable for cars costing well below the Model X base price.
They delayed the car by 2 years and still couldn't get it right, FFS
Re: (Score:2)
Not unusual for the luxury car market (Score:2)
Most people expected those to take time to get right.
There is more to quality than taking your time. I've worked as a quality engineer in the auto industry. The hard part is installing a company culture that values quality while still being able to manage costs effectively.
But the issues with poor build quality was simply horrendous and would have been unacceptable for cars costing well below the Model X base price.
I guess you've never dealt with cars in that price range much before. Nobody buys a car with a six figure price tag because of its reliability. Super cars are notoriously unreliable. Nobody buys a Lambo or a Ferrari or even a Land Rover for its reliability. People buy them for their f
Re: Not unusual for the luxury car market (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In my brief time in Silicon Valley I noticed that there's an attitude that you can fix any problem by applying more technology. Doing a good job is for people too old or dumb to go for technological solutions. It's some dangerous magical thinking.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since it's all under warranty the most useful metric would be how much inconvenience it caused to the owner. That's hard to measure... Did they have to take the car somewhere far away to be fixed? Did they get a reasonable courtesy car in the mean time? How long did the fix take? Was the issue resolved first time?
The Model X issue vary from trivial (the huge windscreen needed a sunshade) to deep design issues with no simple solution (falcon wing doors not aligning when the car is parked on a gradient).
Re: (Score:2)
There's another useful metric - cost of repair. Tesla isn't profitable and has enormous expenditure for their vision of electric mobility. Every dollar spent fixing something they should have gotten right on the production line is another that has to be borrowed to build the Gigafactory or Superchargers.
They're about $7 billion in the hole and still a year, at least, before their mass market car ships.
Re: (Score:2)
And based on the preorders they have investors lining up to loan them money. It's like the US national debt, it's only a problem if you don't expect to be able to repay it or if nobody wants to lend you money at reasonable terms. Tesla is not going to fold due to lack of funding sources, they might be less profitable in the medium horizon because they're paying off loans (but really, corporate rates, even for a company with their run rate, are at historic lows right now so it's not THAT much of a drag on fu
Re: (Score:2)
"but they've got access to plenty of capital"
I worry about this - I think they're a crash coming, probably triggered by the collapse of the Chinese market and I don't think North Am can avoid ripple effects.
If....when....that happens, Tesla's capital sources will dry up. If they haven't launched the Model 3 by then or turned Solar City around, Elon is going to need another hair transplant.
Re: (Score:2)
Like you say the short term growth potential doesn't support their stock price. However a lot of the money in the stock market isn't looking for only short term growth. The high price of Tesla stock reflects that a lot of fund managers think they have a decent chance of huge long term growth. So yes, Tesla stock is an expensive gamble but it still has a clearer path to long term growth and profitability than companies like Twitter and Facebook.
No justification of stock price (Score:2)
Like you say the short term growth potential doesn't support their stock price.
Neither does the long term potential unless you have a time horizon of decades.
The high price of Tesla stock reflects that a lot of fund managers think they have a decent chance of huge long term growth.
Not true. Tesla is being held by fund managers because it is a stock people want to own. A realistic appraisal of Tesla's growth prospects doesn't even come close to justifying a $30Billion valuation. A super profitable car company makes something like a 10% margin. Even if Tesla magically sold 1/10th the cars that GM does tomorrow (GM sold 9.8 million vehicles in 2015) and we double their margin to 20% which is far beyond an
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, long term would mean more than a few years, decades is an acceptable usage.
The last time I heard the profit margin on a Model S was 20% or better. The entire company isn't profitable because they are putting everything into growing their capacity and the technology. It is entirely possible that this winds up with Tesla crashing and burning. It is however, also possible that rather than becoming a competitor to the major auto companies that it'll eat their lunch and replace them to a large degree.
Facebo
Re: (Score:2)
"No, the ONLY reason Tesla's stock remains high is because people are playing a game of "who's the greater fool" buying high in the hopes it will go higher."
I remember many people making these arguments about Apple when they were around $90 in the mid-noughties.
Since then AAPL split x14, so are now worth about 1800% of what they were then.
Re: Cost of repair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's one of the issues with CR's reporting. 100 people with problems with a cupholder would rate as "poor" while 2 with a blown engine would rate as "good"
Ummm...that's just not true. Its right there in their FAQ [consumerreports.org]:
Are all problems considered equally serious?
Problems with the engine-major, cooling system, transmission-major, and driveline are more likely to take a car out of service and to be more expensive to repair than the other problem areas. Consequently, we weigh these areas more heavily in our calculations of Used Car Verdicts and Predicted Reliability. Problems in any area can be an expense and a bother, though, so we report them all in the Reliability History charts.
I think the main issue here is that the reliability ratings are based on survey results, which means they don't know how reliable a car is until its been out a few years. So they are mainly useful for used cars. They will still "predict" the reliability of new models, but only if they know the model hasn't changed much from last year's design. On brand new designs/redesigns they don't provide a prediction, and usually won't recommend the car either.
Re: (Score:2)
As you note, they did a report of a car before they had enough data. Not the first time, not the last.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't share their methods. They say to try to keep anyone from gaming the results, but ...
Huh? You got a source for this? Looks like nonsense, but perhaps I'm just misunderstanding.
Their "methods" are that they mail out a survey to their subscribers every year, and compile the results. They are weighted by the kind of problem reported (as they mentioned in the FAQ). They state all this quite clearly in each April auto issue.
I'm not real sure how anybody could "game" that, since there's nothing you could do to erase the reports of actual problems (aside from design your car better). I suppose
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe for software, but not something that is life critical hardware you don't want a steering strut to break and careen across oncoming traffic. This happened to a friend in college. Luckily it was late at night and no traffic on the road.
Source: engineer on life critical systems
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Some of the "functionality" is just absurd though. For example, you can fancy them up a bit and call them "falcon wing" if you drink Musk's Kool-Aid; but gull-wing doors have always been a gimmick at best, and a maintenance, safety, and utility compromising nightmare at worst. This thing is supposed to be an SUV, FFS. Too bad the rear doors make roof racks impossible to fit, so no ski or snowboarding trips for the Model X owner. And auto-opening doors in general... just how fucking lazy do you have to b
Re:It's not the FWD that are the real problem (Score:5, Interesting)
And auto-opening doors in general... just how fucking lazy do you have to be that opening your own car door is more effort than you're willing to exert?
It's not about laziness, it's about impotence.
Cars that auto open, or have door handles that pop out in your presence, are a sexual thing. The car is presenting to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the door auto open when your arms are full with shopping and kids isn't so much sexy as practical. Would be nice if there was a button you could pre-press on the remote that would cause the boot (er... tailgate?) to open next time you get near, for when you are carrying that 50" TV.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be carrying a 50" tv. I would have it on/in a cart so I didn't accidentally drop it.
Re: (Score:2)
And auto-opening doors in general... just how fucking lazy do you have to be that opening your own car door is more effort than you're willing to exert?
It's a convenience thing. I never saw the value in sensor-based auto-unlocking doors until I had them. I never saw the point of auto-adjusting seats and mirrors (based on key fob ID) until I sold that car- sharing the car with my spouse became a lot more contentious. Luxury isn't (all) about feeling superior to other people. It is often about removing the small discomforts and inconveniences of life.
Rigid (Score:5, Funny)
Consumer Reports is rigged against Tesla. When I'm president, I will sue everyone who has complained about their unreliable Teslas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Lock her up.
Hillary and Elon Galt are best friends. Stop the presses.
Re: (Score:1)
can't be hillary.
you're not dead.
Re:Rigid -- SMOKING GUN (Score:3)
But you were saying they were rigid against Tesla before they were rigged against Tesla and we have proof [consumerreports.org] that everyone used to say that!
Even if looks like they're going to crash and burn [zerohedge.com], Tesla will make America fabulous again [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
You speak like Trump, but you're decisively blue in allegiance. I'm picturing a corrupt woman with a bad comb-over building a wall to keep mexicans out while handing out H1B visas so that we can build it as cheaply as possible. *mind blown*
Broken link in TFS (Score:2)
TFS points to an earlier story on slashdot.
The review on the model X is here. [consumerreports.org] Despite the lower-than-average rating for first-year reliability, I can't find where CR rates it "near the bottom"
Did anyone else find the rating I can't?
Re: (Score:3)
Well duh. [consumerreports.org] Sorry for wasting everyone's time. Even so, none of the other links pointed to this page.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe Slashdot editors need to be reviewed by Consumer Reports for reliability...
it's a terrible SUV (Score:5, Informative)
Even when it works its awful. The 2nd row is short on room. The 3rd row is tiny. And you cannot fold the 2nd row seats so even if you fold the 3rd row down you can't fit a bike in it.
Here is a video showing how much more hauling space there is in a small LEAF than in a Model X.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
And you can't even put stuff on the roof of the Model X due to the stupid doors.
Get an AWD Model S. Skip the stupid Model X.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually you can fit a bike in a Model X. Youtube video [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Most compact/midsize sedans are too small to fit a bike without taking off the front wheel. You need a hatchback/station/compact SUV.
Or just get a leaf or an outback (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, I personally think the model X is one of the least attractive cars you can buy. It seems like something designed only for hipsters. The kind of people who do not care how pointless and terrible something is. The ones who will defend it to the grave despite all evidence being to the contrary.
Beauty in the eye... (Score:2)
Besides, I personally think the model X is one of the least attractive cars you can buy.
That's a matter of opinion. My sister agrees with you but I think the Model X looks fine - at least compared with any other crossover SUV. I don't think it's as pretty as the Model S but it doesn't offend me visually. Different strokes for different folks. Personally I think the Nissan Leaf is FAR uglier than the Model X as well as far less practical if we ignore the vastly different price points. I don't really get why Telsa is the only company that has wrapped their head around the idea that an ugly
Re:it's a terrible SUV (Score:5, Insightful)
It's notable that the gull wing doors are always demoed in tight spaces because that's about the only place they tenuously offer any advantage, but since the front row has regular doors I'm not sure how that's supposed to make sense either.
Re: (Score:2)
Those gull wing doors were always a gimmick, a "hook" to ensure coverage for the vehicle. I'm sure it's neat to watch them ponderously open and close via sensors, hydraulics and motors but there is a simpler, cheaper and practical solution - a regular car door, and if necessary a little catch on the mid row seats that slides them forward or tilts them. The regular door keeps out the rain, opens and closes more quickly, doesn't need a bunch of electronics to function and does the same job.
It's notable that the gull wing doors are always demoed in tight spaces because that's about the only place they tenuously offer any advantage, but since the front row has regular doors I'm not sure how that's supposed to make sense either.
Regular car doors are awful. The only advantage they have is that they are forgiving to design and build, and relatively cheap. I've never had enough garage space to open a car door fully. Parking lots are the same, with the added drama of other people possibly bumping your car with their doors.
Sliding doors are the best option I have seen. The door opening is enormous and makes loading goods, children, or persons of reduced mobility a lot easier. You only need about 8" of room to open a sliding do
Re: (Score:2)
I think sliding doors could work better than gull wing even if only the back doors were done but I don't see how they'd get the front doors to slide at the same time. At least sliding doors would be
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an SUV, it's a crossover. A large, high car. Also, the Leaf is huge, I know because I have one :-)
I agree though, unless you want the height for some reason (they are easy to get in and out of) the Model S is a better bet for most people. The doors are of dubious utility, and I worry about long term reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
Even when it works its awful. The 2nd row is short on room. The 3rd row is tiny. And you cannot fold the 2nd row seats so even if you fold the 3rd row down you can't fit a bike in it.
This is a case of Tesla not knowing its audience. The only people who want electric SUV's are middle aged, hipster-infused peddling pillocks who first insist on blocking the road with their oversized car, then on slowing the traffic with their bikes (who insist they must never use a path or permit any motorist to pass).
Tesla should have partnered with BRAKE in the UK, put bike racks in as standard (on the back as they cause scratches in car parks) limited the speed to 40 MPH and used those ugly side pane
Sure, it's a garage queen (Score:1)
But if I paid that kind of money for one, I could afford to have it off for repairs all the time, and I'd tell you my satisfaction with it was excellent too. It's not like my carpool was depending on it...
Thanks OBAMA (Score:2)
It's been years since new car buyers would have to worry about things that could actually render their vehicle undrivable. But those concerns are coming back, Fisher said.
Yep so great we live in a nation were we have choice and freedom.
Stop calling it an SUV (Score:2)
It's a sedan.
Model X Unreliability (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Model X Unreliability (Score:5, Interesting)
This is because Tesla is a religion. People are always satisfied with their religion. The same applies to Apple. Of course you are satisfied with your Mac when you can't switch to another manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Silicon Valley culture of cowboy design (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They are willing to tolerate it with Tesla it seems. Tesla have been very clever, launching "beta" features like Autopilot and pitching the car as cutting edge technology. Customers are more willing to put up with faults (as long as Tesla fixes them) and it has allowed them to get into production far earlier than if they had been trying to be perfect from day one.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a couple of points (Score:3)
First of all, I've seen first-hand and heard about examples of brand new cars that were pretty much undriveable due to some kind of quality control issue.
Second, when you buy cutting edge technology of any kind, you're probably going to pay a price in reliability. If you know a good, honest auto mechanic, he'll probably tell you to avoid first model years. It's hardly ever because of basic design problems, because new models are tested pretty extensively. There's a learning curve associated with building them, though.
Simple Solution (Score:2)
The Model X needs to have a second version made available. Where everything is the same except that it is "Sans" the gull doors. It would be significantly cheaper and much more trouble free. I expect that it would take off sales wise.
Then eventually when demand drops. Drop the Gull Wing doors from the Model X. Don't discard them, rather migrate them to the new Roadster 2.0.
This is what Tesla needs to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
I have learned something new today.
=)
The doors were a bad idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fancy doors added to the wow factor of the Model X. But they didn't deliver any utility, which is the point of an SUV.
Sure they did. They added the utility of being able to get in and out of the vehicle is those absolutely ridiculous California shopping mall parking lots with parking slots 3" wider than your car.
It's a case of design myopia. They solved a problem that's very near to them, and irrelevant to most of the rest of the country.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Masterful troll, great bait.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of stupidity does it take to not be able to tell the difference between humor and trolling? Who are the idiots on this site nowadays that downvote posts as "troll" just because they are too dumb to understand or appreciate them, or just don't agree with them?
Yeah I'm an old timer. I don't come to this site that often any more. But even more troubling than the slide to mediocrity of the story editing and selection (which happened in the mid-2000's by the way, and unfortunately never improved), i
Re:Calling all rockets (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability [consumerreports.org], it's at the top of the list [consumerreports.org] in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".
So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because like Apple, their customers are part of a cult. Shitty overpriced products tend to attract this kind of people.
Re: (Score:2)
No probably more like there's an understood level of accepted risk to buying a car by an automaker that didn't exist not all that long ago with technology that had never been implemented in cars quite like this to produce a true electrical replacement for vehicles that has never really been attempted before at any kind of reasonable scale. You kind of expect there's going to be bugs along the way since you're an early adopter. Now if in 10 years their cars are still highly unreliable, that's a different con
Re: (Score:2)
On top of all that, I would like to point out that the Jeep Wrangler always shows up high on their list of unreliable vehicles, while being a highly popular vehicle. Some level of unreliability seems to be acceptable to people in general, after all, doesn't the reliability of any car line go down when they release a new model. The X has been out for less than a year, how reliable was any model of car its first year?
Re: Calling all rockets (Score:2)
Ad homenim. There's nothing cult-like about it.
A user has completely different metrics than Consumer Reports. For instance, if the auto-opening door fails but the user can still open it manually, an owner isn't going to be terribly bothered while the "official" grade will take a hit
Likewise, with the right setup, this car can be virtually free to drive. An SUV with no gas cost is a godsend to someone who's been pumping $100 a week into their old Suburban. But the consumer report don't care. They're not act
Re: (Score:2)
"neckbeard"
Amish?
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered about that particular insult. I can't say the hair on my neck grows all that fast, and frankly, aren't big beards currently in fashion?
I have no idea what a neckbeard even is, is that a beard that grows out of your neck, or a neck length beard? Are Gandalf and Confucius now neckbeards?
I personally don't believe I have something that could be called a neckbeard, but I just never understood the insult to be an insult at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.
Poor reliability depends on the impact. Tesla has an incredible record of standing by its products. Every other car company out there treat customers like garbage.
Given the choice between a car where I'm 75% certain to have a problem that would be resolved by the manufacturer quickly without question, and a car where I'm 5% likely to have a problem where the manufacturer royally screws me and then charges me a ludicrous fee I'll take the 75% anyday.
This is why reliability and consumer satisfaction are two d
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla no longer has a reputation for speedy repairs.
Why Tesla has such a strong recommendation score is because there is literally zero competition.
So people will put up with flaky technology and poor repair experiences because there is simply no alternative if you want a similar vehicle.
I really believe that Tesla will be in a bunch of trouble if/when they ever have actual competition to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla no longer has a reputation for speedy repairs.
Sure it does. A reputation is what people think of it. Generally they remain head and shoulders above the car crowd.
Now maybe you may have experience or know of one or two bad cases. They will always be out there, but the general reputation for Tesla is still excellent in this regard.
Re: (Score:2)
pay attention to the forums.
The reputation among owners of the vehicles is for slow repairs, long waits for parts, and an inability to even get a hold of the service centres to book appointments.
Re: (Score:2)
Poor reliability depends on the impact. Tesla has an incredible record of standing by its products. Every other car company out there treat customers like garbage.
As does Apple. (I just bring this up since some cowards have been making a comparison between the two) In the very few cases I've needed hardware support, they've had me back operating overnight. Auto dealers? Not so much.
The only reason I don't own a Tesla is that they don't make an offroad capable vehicle.
And I get the impression that the Slashdot Cowards Army all drive Toyota Corollas.
Re: (Score:2)
I am with you, but my requirement is tow capable. I will trade in my Tundra the day they release an electric that can tow like it (I need at least 8klb capacity with a 200-300 mile range while towing).
So, are you saying that the X does poorly offroad? It is AWD, with a low center of gravity, it should do decent in most off road situations? Is it a ground clearance issue?
Re: (Score:2)
So, are you saying that the X does poorly offroad? It is AWD, with a low center of gravity, it should do decent in most off road situations? Is it a ground clearance issue?
he X would be great for my wife's use. She's a mostly street, but want's something sure footed in nasty weather. I'm not certain about the offroad capabilities of the X. Ground clearance is important though. I tend to get myself into "situations" if you know what I mean, driving in places with lots of rocks. Although I drive a Patriot, even it is a compromise for me since I also do a lot of road driving. I'd be a CJ type except for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Different measuring stick (Score:5, Interesting)
If people are emotionally invested in a poor decision, then they will retroactively justify it in a lot of ways.
One person's poor decision is another person's awesome decision. Let's use a different car company - Ferrari. Nobody buys a Ferrari because of the reliability ratings in Consumer Reports. They buy it because of the looks, the performance, the badge, or other reasons. The decision tree and evaluation of satisfaction about the purchase simply won't be based on whether it is as reliable as a Toyota Camry. Tesla is somewhat in the same boat. Reliability is pretty far down the list of reasons why someone buys a Tesla in most cases.
Remember that Consumer Reports has a particular view point on their evaluation of cars. They apply the same ratings to all vehicles regardless of whether those ratings actually are relevant to the buyers of those cars. This isn't a case of post-hoc justification of satisfaction. It's that the measuring stick for satisfaction is a lot more complicated than how reliable Consumer Reports thinks the car is. Consumer Reports provides useful data but you have to understand that it is data from a very specific view point which may or may not be relevant.
Ferrari vs Tesla vs Toyota (Score:2)
Actually, a Tesla should be in the same boat as a Toyota: it is a daily driver.
Now, it you tell me you bought a Tesla for the badge and to boast to your friends that you have a Tesla in your garage or to bring it to a track on the weekend*, that maybe a viable reason for you, but I don't think that's how Tesla positions themselves. Don't they want to bring EV to the masses?
* not the best idea, I'd rather drive the Ferrari
Not about reliability (Score:2)
Actually, a Tesla should be in the same boat as a Toyota: it is a daily driver.
Doesn't matter. It isn't. That's not how people perceive it currently and it isn't how Tesla market's their cars. People don't worry about Tesla reliability either positively or negatively currently.
Now, it you tell me you bought a Tesla for the badge and to boast to your friends that you have a Tesla in your garage or to bring it to a track on the weekend*, that maybe a viable reason for you, but I don't think that's how Tesla positions themselves. Don't they want to bring EV to the masses?
I didn't say people bought the Tesla for the badge though I'm sure some do. I just said they didn't buy it for the reliability. In no particular order people buy Tesla's for battery power (no gas), appearance, performance (fast as hell in a straight line and not bad in the curves), luxury (very nice interio
Re: (Score:2)
One person's poor decision is another person's awesome decision. Let's use a different car company - Ferrari. Nobody buys a Ferrari because of the reliability ratings in Consumer Reports. They buy it because of the looks, the performance, the badge, or other reasons. The decision tree and evaluation of satisfaction about the purchase simply won't be based on whether it is as reliable as a Toyota Camry. Tesla is somewhat in the same boat. Reliability is pretty far down the list of reasons why someone buys a Tesla in most cases.
Plus, in my mind, there's two categories of reliability:
1. How likely is something major going wrong that's going to leave you stranded and incur massive repair costs
2. How many mostly unnecessary widgets are there that will inevitably break at some point
Teslas (and any other purely electric car) should be really good on the first category due to the far simpler electric drive train.
Any late-model luxury vehicle (and, increasingly, mid-range ones) will core poorly on the second category, due to the sheer we
Re: (Score:2)
Claims vs reality (Score:2)
Your wrong here though. I remember this coming up with BMW in the 90s. If you asked BMW owners they would rate their cars as some of the most reliable on the roads. Objectively they were crap in reliability though. It's all people justifying things.
Nobody bought a BMW because of their reliability no matter what they claimed unless they were a fanboi who couldn't be bothered to actually look at the data. This is true of most luxury car brands with a few notable exceptions. Furthermore your argument is nonsense because CR rates reliability based on surveys to actual owners of those cars. Sure you might find a braggart who is delusional or honestly hasn't had any problems with their BMW but those are the exception rather than the rule. Similarly nobo
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you ask the owner of a car how its reliability is compared to other cars on the road? Most people have a sample size of two. That's a stupid question to ask. The phenomenon of people justifying their decisions is a real one, but nothing you've said here contradicts sjbe's point.
Re: (Score:3)
Stopped reading at your
Re: (Score:2)
Cognitive dissonance. If people are emotionally invested in a poor decision, then they will retroactively justify it in a lot of ways.
Or possibly Commitment Bias and, over time, Escalation of Commitment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Consumer Reports car recommendations went off-path in the 80s. Just like the article says, most car "reliability" problems became nickle-and-dime stuff, yet their recommendations don't weight a power window switch malfunction differently than the engine exploding. Buyers of American cars in the 80s and 90s were very familiar with the car falling to pieces around them, but were generally willing to make the compromise because they saved thousands at purchase and when something inevitably went wrong, parts we
Re: (Score:2)
I get this feeling too about Consumer Reports. While I think some of their studies are helpful, and they try to fill an important role, I always end up wanting more detail than what they offer. They collect a lot of data but withhold all the details. I don't feel that their data analysis is very good. But maybe I just get that impression because I want to see statistical uncertainties, ranges, actual numbers, etc. Since that's all hidden from readers, I tend to assume their ratings are bogus.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how, even though the Model X scores low in reliability [consumerreports.org], it's at the top of the list [consumerreports.org] in customer satisfaction with 92% saying "definitely yes" when asked "would you get this car if you had to do it all over again".
So it looks like the poor reliability is not that big of a deal.
Ah, Consumer Reports. There are some vehicles that they simply hate, like most Jeeps. I find that despite their not taking ads, they are incredibly biased, especially about vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair Jeeps are shit.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair Jeeps are shit.
To be accurate, they are about 25 percent of the vehicles in my area. Weather is unpredictable, and we need vehicles that go. And sometimes we need something sure footed to pull those non-shit vehicles out of the ditches they slide into.
Re: (Score:2)
except every Jeep I've ever been in is a dangerous death trap, with crap build quality, and safety, so that would actually make their hatred of Jeeps accurate, and a valid warning to consumers...
I've owned 3 now, and they've actually been literal lifesavers. My first year Grand Cherokee was finally retired with almost 300 K miles, still ran well, but was starting to nickel and dime us at almost 15 years old, the Wife has a compass, and I have a Patriot. She wanted a Jeep that was more crossover like, and I wanted a small Jeep that gets good gas milage along with the Jeep's ability to just go no matter what. That some AC doesn't like them means... well actually nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't say your Jeeps are literal life savers and then not tell the story about how they saved lives. We all want to know now.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't say your Jeeps are literal life savers and then not tell the story about how they saved lives. We all want to know now.
Weather here in the Northeast has become really unpredictable. For both my wife and I we have been caught in ice storms in the middle of nowhere.
The magic of the Jeep and it's modern day traction control is that it will actually go on ice, and go well.
Biiig caveat! the Laws of physics still hold, stopping is still a huge issue on glare ice, even with ABS. But we've both been able to limp off the road, in her case, getting off the interstate for stopping on a side road, and for me, getting out of the w
Re: (Score:2)
I have tried to explain this to people before too, it seems like there are people out there who think 4WD helps in all situations and just don't get that is makes steering worse, and breaking no better. At least those are the ones who get taken out in the first storm and don't have their vehicles through the rest of winter.
Re: (Score:2)
I have tried to explain this to people before too, it seems like there are people out there who think 4WD helps in all situations and just don't get that is makes steering worse, and breaking no better. At least those are the ones who get taken out in the first storm and don't have their vehicles through the rest of winter.
We've had some bad pileups on the local interstates, with people still thinking they can travel 85 on them in nasty weather. Idiot formula is 70 +10+another 5 just because.
The amazing thing is that as soon as this happens, they start playing the blame game. The highway crews are the usual target - even though the damn snowplows can't go 85 mph except in freefall, and for one especially bad pileup they were blaming NOAA!
My rule of thumb is that when it starts snowing, I get off the interstate at the ne
Re: Calling all rockets (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla Model S re-earns Consumer Reports recommendation on improved reliability:
https://electrek.co/2016/10/24/tesla-model-s-re-earns-consumer-reports-recommendation-on-improved-reliability/
Re: (Score:2)
The Suzuki Samurai, the model that Consumer Reports went after, actually DID have a stability problem. It wasn't anything unique about its design; the problem was inherent to its short wheelbase and high center of gravity. The original Jeep, later named the CJ-5 after the company introduced the larger CJ-7, had the same problem, and CR successfully pushed that vehicle off the market.
The problems with the Samurai were exacerbated by its advertising and market positioning. It was sold primarily as a fun and i