So Toyotas are a bad bet, but if I want a reliable car, I should get a Chrysler? If CR "fell apart" in rating their cars, they would have abandoned rating them long ago. Perhaps they don't get every car rating 100% correct--it's "predicted" reliability, right--but on the whole, I'd be pretty willing to bet CR has a very good, if not excellent, track record.
My main complaint is the lack of details and explanations. Not saying there is 0
value. With a dishwasher it’s probably not a big deal. But cars are a lot more complicated. I may not weigh things the same as they do for example. And could come to a different conclusion. Car and Driver by comparison explains how they weight and how they derive their scores.
The difference between the way they "rate" cars and the way they rate other things is like chalk and cheese. With dishwashers, ranges, refrigerators, microwaves, irons and the rest, they actually buy the product and run it through its paces, and in some cases test to destruction. They don't have the cash to do that with motor vehicles, so they cheap out and do a crappy "survey". I think that if they can't do a product reliability test well using a decent methodology they should bow out. There are plenty of other organizations doing car reliability reviews well, like Kelley Blue Book, Car and Driver, AAA. Consumer Reports doesn't have to do everything. I actually subscribe to their website and I use them as a resource when I am considering buying an appliance, but I look at the methodology they use to draw their conclusions when I decide how much weight to give their conclusions, versus another consumer website, google reviews or Yelp. The wonderful thing about the information super highway is that there is lots of information out there, you have to be critical when mining it though. When it comes to motor vehicle reports, Consumer Reports dishes up fools gold.
You put a Toyota badge on a Fiat SUV and it will sell 100K of those a year...
I've read through this discussion with great interest.
My girlfriend is in the market for a new vehicle, and really liked the feel of a new 2016 CX9 in the showroom of our local dealer. Unfortunately, we were very taken aback when we read the CR review of the 2016 model, and I've been trying ever since to understand the nature/context of the low rating. I too questioned the N size of the statistical sample, and whether or not the rating for the 2016 was derived (at least in part) by mechanical complaints from previous years as there couldn't possibly have been enough mechanical info that quickly on such a new model.
Normally, I would never buy the first year of a new model design for most any big ticket item. That said, I know there can be bugs in early releases of a new model year that can be worked out for units sold later in that year.
Based on the knowledge I've seen in this thread today, would it be worthwhile digging deeper into the actual manufacture date of the CX9 the dealership has for sale...the thought being the later in 2016 the vehicle was made, the more likely the infotainment bugs would have been found and fixed?
I'll apologize in advance if this question has been asked and answered in another thread and I missed it...and I'll thank everyone in advance for their advice.
Thanks!
Hi JPL, and thanks for the quick response.
Due to the depreciation, she is only interested in pre-owned at this point and yes, the dealer actually has 2 new, unsold "16s on the showroom floor; a Touring and a Grand Touring. She is interested in the Touring.
While the 2016 vehicle she is looking at isn't pre-owned, the price of the vehicle is much less than a comparable 2018.
Hi JPL, and thanks for the quick response.
Due to the depreciation, she is only interested in pre-owned at this point and yes, the dealer actually has 2 new, unsold "16s on the showroom floor; a Touring and a Grand Touring. She is interested in the Touring.
While the 2016 vehicle she is looking at isn't pre-owned, the price of the vehicle is much less than a comparable 2018.
If it's "new" it can't be a demo car. It can have a few test drives or so but must have minimal mileage. Although the technical definition of new is that it hasn't been registered. But dealers often put a few thousand miles on cars that are used by management or for test drives.
The Sorrento barely is big enough to qualify as mid-sized. It's always going to be on the low end of interior space--it's about a foot shorter than the CX-9. It's not really a fair direct comparison.
Comparing CX-9 to Pilot and Highlander is the better matchup.
Because the Sorrento is smallest in class on the outside too. CX-9 is larger than Pilot and Highlander and Santa Fe on the outside, but smaller on the inside. That's the difference.
The Mazda’s all have long hoods so most others are going to be shorter and have more cargo space. I think the CX-9 is for sure a nicer vehicle to drive and nicer place to be. The Sorento will offer more utility. It just depends on what is more important to you.
