Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 175 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Ok, we've talked about it a bunch at http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...urning-into-another-gm-bomb-10.html#post56194 and http://www.cruzetalk.com/forum/9-ch...urning-into-another-gm-bomb-10.html#post56234, but I don't think anyone's posted this, despite me waiting...

So, here's goes, for the benefit of those who haven't looked at CR's reliability ratings and at the risk of me being labeled as a troll...

The details come from CR's web site (you'll need a subscription). I've attached details for two relatively inexpensive cars that did well, as a comparison.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
I am familiar with Consumer Reports and I think they are automatically biased against any American product. I can't read your attachment but did look at the article in the book store the other day. What I found strange is in their Cruze chart every category rating was either (better than average) or (much better than average) then they rated the Cruze as having a reliability rating (much worse than average). Then I looked a couple of the imported competitors and they had (worse than average) in some categories but yet they rate those cars as (much better than average) for their reliability.
On edit: I figured out how to increase the size of the chart. Look at the 1.4 Cruze every category is better or much better than average except the one on power equipment was average. Then their overall score comes out as much worse than average for reliability doesn't seem logical to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I am familiar with Consumer Reports and I think they are automatically biased against any American product.
Sorry, I disagree w/your claims, at least when it comes to reliability results. They're just reporting the stats when it comes to reliability w/surveys distributed to their subscribers. The sample size needs to be >100 for a given make and model year.

Even if you feel their reviews are worthless, I trust their reliability stats, based on my experiences and that of my parents.

What's wrong w/the attachment? They load up fine for my in Firefox and Chrome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
689 Posts
I'm confused. CR gives it a poor overall rating, but yet on indivduals areas they get good ratings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
Sorry, I disagree w/your claims, at least when it comes to reliability results. They're just reporting the stats when it comes to reliability w/surveys distributed to their subscribers. The sample size needs to be >100 for a given make and model year.

Even if you feel their reviews are worthless, I trust their reliability stats, based on my experiences and that of my parents.



How do you explain every single category but one in their chart for the 1.4 Cruze having a better than average or much better than average rating and only one rated as just average is power equipment? But yet they rate the Cruze as much worse than average?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
I'm confused. CR gives it a poor overall rating, but yet on indivduals areas they get good ratings.
How do you explain every single category but one in their chart for the 1.4 Cruze having a better than average or much better than average rating and only one rated as just average is power equipment? But yet they rate the Cruze as much worse than average?
It's because overall, the Cruze did worse than average. Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports might be insightful along with Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports.

I think you guys are misreading the individual trouble spot reliability dots. For each area/system, I don't think having the empty circle means average and the two red ones don't mean above average. I suspect if a 2011 model year car got ALL empty circles (middle rating), it would have far below average overall reliability.

Here are some charts of ones that were average, and one above average, for comparison.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
cwerdna: The charts you posted and the one in their magazine show the opposite look at the 1.4 Cruse one category is average and all the others are either (better) or (much better) than average
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
cwerdna: The charts you posted and the one in their magazine show the opposite look at the 1.4 Cruse one category is average and all the others are either (better) or (much better) than average
You're misreading/misinterpreting the ratings for each area. See my earlier post and look at some ones that only achieved average predicted reliability.

Here's another below average, for comparison. Focus only on the '11 model.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
It's because overall, the Cruze did worse than average. Car Reliability History | Detailed Ratings - Consumer Reports might be insightful along with Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports.

I think you guys are misreading the individual trouble spot reliability dots. For each area/system, I don't think having the empty circle means average and the two red ones don't mean above average. I suspect if a 2011 model year car got ALL empty circles (middle rating), it would have far below average overall reliability.

Here are some charts of ones that were average, and one above average, for comparison.

I am very familiar with CR
solid red means much better than average
half red is better than average
circle is average
half black is worse than average
all black is much worse than average
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I am very familiar with CR
solid red means much better than average
half red is better than average
circle is average
half black is worse than average
all black is much worse than average
Yes, that's correct when they're labeling overall car reliability. But, it's apparently not for when it comes to rating car trouble areas/systems.

Again, look at the samples I provided of other below average, average and above average (overall reliability) cars, for comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
You're misreading/misinterpreting the ratings for each area. See my earlier post and look at some ones that only achieved average predicted reliability.

Here's another below average, for comparison. Focus only on the '11 model.
Take a good look at that chart, you have 1 catagory much worse than average, 2 worse than average and one average and they rate the car (worse) than average.

The chart on the 1.4 Cruze has only one average rating and everything else is better or much better. The Cruze is rated lower at (much worse) than average. How can the BMW be rated higher than the Cruze and have all those black circles and on top of that cost three times as much?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
Take a good look at that chart, you have 1 catagory much worse than average, 2 worse than average and one average and they rate the car (worse) than average. The chart on the 1.4 Cruze has only one average rating and everything else is better or much better. The Cruze is rated lower at (much worse) than average. How can the BMW be rated higher than the Cruze and have all those black circles and on top of that cost three times as much?
You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. Apparently, for newer cars, they do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas.

Cost is unrelated to reliability ratings. The BMW 335i did in numerous area than the Cruze but also had its troublesome areas. A better comparison is to compare the overall average Honda Accord Sedan V6 to either Cruze.

Perhaps the better explanation is at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports under "4.3. How has this approach differed from the way it was done in previous years?CR has changed the way it presents reliability data, beginning with the 2005 survey.... "
In our new approach, scores are assigned separately within each trouble spot for models of each model year. For each trouble spot, we calculate the mean problem rate of all models of the same age, and then assign scores to an individual model based on how that model compares with the mean. In this new approach, a
or a
always represents a model with more problems than the average model of that age; and a
represents a model with fewer problems than average. (There is an exception in the newer model years, in which most trouble spots have very low problem rates. In those cases, even the average problem rate is excellent, and
represents that average.)
(Until I reread the above, I'd mistakenly thought that the circles didn't represent average, below average, above average, etc. for any model year's systems...)
 

·
FI Lunatic
Joined
·
1,380 Posts
How many times do I need to say it? You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. They do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas.
OK...then in the original post, why is the black to red circle rating key located in the upper right corner of the image.....if it does not apply when pertaining to the systems/trouble areas reliability ratings......just trying to unravel this thread....and CR's reviews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
How many times do I need to say it? You keep misinterpreting the meanings of the circles for the individual systems. They do NOT represent average, above average, below average, etc. for systems/trouble areas.

Cost is unrelated to reliability ratings. The BMW 335i did in numerous area than the Cruze but also had its troublesome areas. A better comparison is to compare the overall average Honda Accord Sedan V6 to either Cruze.
I know the meaning of the circles, I think you better read the explanation for them in the magazine. Look at the chart on the 1.4 Cruze that you posted yourself there is not one trouble spot rating below average. And I know the cost has nothing to do with it. It is obvious you have your mind set and this message board is so slow its a pain in the neck to keep trying to make a point with you. Have a nice evening.
 

·
FI Lunatic
Joined
·
1,380 Posts
(Until I reread the above, I'd mistakenly thought that the circles didn't represent average, below average, above average, etc. for any model year's systems...)
Kudos for clarification....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
I know the meaning of the circles, I think you better read the explanation for them in the magazine. Look at the chart on the 1.4 Cruze that you posted yourself there is not one trouble spot rating below average. And I know the cost has nothing to do with it. It is obvious you have your mind set and this message board is so slow its a pain in the neck to keep trying to make a point with you. Have a nice evening.
See post #13 and look at what it takes to just achieve average overall reliability.

Here's another example of a car that's right at about average.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,157 Posts
CR's reliability reports suffer from a number of statistical flaws. They don't report sample size, they don't report response rate for each model, and they rely exclusively on self-report. Also, folks report different things for different reasons. A Honda owner whose car has been back to the dealer 3-4 times might rate everything as great because the dealer fixed it, while a Chevy owner who went to the dealer once will report an area as poor because it failed in the first place. Also, they might have a gazillion Honda owners reporting everything's fine because they've read CR reporting Honda being uber-reliable for the past 20 some odd years, while they might be getting a few hundred Chevy owners reporting things are horrible, again based on CR's reporting of domestic cars as inferior to "import" nameplates. Confirmation bias sucks!

They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.
 

·
FI Lunatic
Joined
·
1,380 Posts
They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.
Without trying to sound cynical, I am inclined to fall in line with sciphi...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
679 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
CR's reliability reports suffer from a number of statistical flaws. They don't report sample size, they don't report response rate for each model, and they rely exclusively on self-report. Also, folks report different things for different reasons. A Honda owner whose car has been back to the dealer 3-4 times might rate everything as great because the dealer fixed it, while a Chevy owner who went to the dealer once will report an area as poor because it failed in the first place. Also, they might have a gazillion Honda owners reporting everything's fine because they've read CR reporting Honda being uber-reliable for the past 20 some odd years, while they might be getting a few hundred Chevy owners reporting things are horrible, again based on CR's reporting of domestic cars as inferior to "import" nameplates. Confirmation bias sucks!

They tell us nothing about their methodology, make no effort to control the results, and expect us to believe it.
Yep, they rely on self-reporting. Why does the sample size matter that much as long as it's above 100? When it's below 100, they report insufficient data. The 100+ reports for a given model year of a car is a **** of a lot better than anecdotal reports here or by word of mouth. Did you go through and survey 100+ owners of any car for a given model year, asking them if they had problems in all of those systems?

You can read all about their survey at Consumer Reports Car Reliability FAQ | Answers to Reliability Questions - Consumer Reports (pointed to it earlier).

The exact opposite could be happening w/Honda vs. Chevy owners.

From 6.3...
6.3. Is the survey biased toward Japanese cars?In our survey of CR subscribers, Japanese vehicles are popular. Also, many Japanese models have had relatively low rates of problems in our survey. But the fact that we received responses on more than 300 makes and models from nearly all domestic, European, and Korean manufacturers shows that our subscribers do not exclusively favor Japanese vehicles and that they buy a wide range of vehicles of all makes and models.

Unlike some other magazines or surveys, we do not take advertisements from any outside manufacturer, so we have no vested interests in the outcome of our survey. We have no agenda other than communicate accurate results of our survey. We do not consider country of origin in our analyses leading to our reliability ratings.

Some Japanese models in our survey have scored below average in reliability, and some American models have scored above average. Those findings provide evidence against pro-Japanese bias on the part of our subscribers.

Recently, some American models are on par or even surpassed the reliability of those from major Japanese manufacturers. In our 2011 survey, the Ford Fusion hybrid and Chrysler 200 topped the family cars category and scored above the Subaru Legacy and Honda Accord in predicted reliability. Among large SUVs, the Dodge Durango and Ford Expedition, beat out the Toyota Sequoia.

European brands' recent progress might have stalled. Some major European automakers are among the worst overall in CR's latest survey. The Jaguar XF and XJ tied for the worst predicted reliability score.
Sometimes (even now), some Japanese cars end up having terrible reliability (Nissan Titan, Armada, Quest and Infiniti QX56 were that way at one point Domestic models gain major ground in Consumer Reports reliability ratings). At one point, Toyota Camry V6s had below average predicted reliability (http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm). Right now, the Nissan 370Z has WAY below average reliability (118% below average) and the Honda Odyssey has below average reliability, for example.
 
1 - 20 of 175 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top