What's the most reliable new "sporty" car?

Consumer Reports says it's the Porsche Boxster. I'd like to know how they made this determination, because it wouldn't have been my first guess.

Good news for Boxster resale values, though. What do you think?

Reliability ratings for new cars amuse me. How do they know? CR must have a time machine.

If we stick with the outdated sports car definition of "rear-wheel drive two-seater with a top that goes down" I gotta imagine that it's hard to beat the Mazda MX-5 or the Honda S2000 from the past five years. There are plenty of model year 2000 Honda S2000s running around, and I think they've demonstrated, well, Honda-like reliability. That's pretty impressive for a car with piston speeds in excess of those experienced by Formula 1 engines.

I don't read CR and from the recommendations I've heard, they just don't seem valid for any real comparison - new car reliability???? It should work - period. Anything less is a manufacturing defect. Long-term reliability - who knows - it's a new car. The 1st gen boxsters had a tendency to devour their engines but it took a little while to find that out. Ask in 5-10 years how they work - better yet, let the cars tell you. The obd datalogging should reveal failures. Add em up and run the stats.

S2000 hands down. Owned one for 4 years, bought the extended warranty so I'd feel more at ease in driving it real hard. Waste of money, it never missed a beat. Consult CR for mowers and toasters not cars.

Steve

Tom, you guys make a damn fine real car magazine. Why would you even bother looking at trash like CR?

In real life, I'd bet the Corvette S2000 and Miata would all fair pretty well. Maintenance when any of those does break is bound to be tons better than the Porsche. Assuming that "excessive tire wear" and "suspension squeaks and moans" and stuff like that which people buy minivans for doesn't count.

I have to laugh every time I read a post that's bashing CR. They aren't perfect, and they aren't car guys, so naturally their emphasis is not going to be put on all the same things as us. It's not a car mag, it's a consumer mag. But when I read posts like this, most of the bashing is done without any facts, and this case is no different.

Tom, you're a great guy from everything I can tell, but you ask in your post "I'd like to know...". Why didn't you bother to find out before bashing them?

I run an engineering test lab. I have worked in and managed test labs for 20 years. I've been to CR's test labs. Nobody I've ever seen or heard about does it better. True, their auto reliablity data comes mostly from reader surveys, and as such is slightly skewed, because people don't always report things accurately. But flawed as that may be, I've also never found any entity that does it any better, and most of the time the people that bash them are doing it because they don't agree with the findings. Can any of us here say our own little personal experience is more accurate that the findings of a large scale survey? I don't think so.

I've not read that article yet, and my feeling would be that the Miata would be considered more reliable than the Boxter.

The S2000 is out of the running because it is no longer made. The Corvette has dismal reliability ratings, so it's not going to cut it either. But many times these articles are written around very specific criteria (including GRM and CMS), and if you don't know what that criteria is, because you haven't read the article, then maybe you should read it before bashing it. Just a thought.

As an aside, what do you guys think of the JD Power Initial Quality ratings? Think about it - Quality by definition as it applies to automobiles, implies lasting reliability. So what does the first 90 days say about how well that vehicle holds up in the long haul? Absolutely nothing. Problems per 100 vehicles built experienced in the first 90 days are largely small defects. Not very often does a vehicle come back in the first 90 days for a worn out transmission!

I once took a vehicle back for a crooked glove box door. That dinged that manufacture with a problem per 100 vehicles. I noticed the glove box before I bought the car, and it was agreed that they would fix it, but since they didn't have one in stock, I had to bring it back. The car never returned to the dealer for anything else ever again. So how accurate is that measure? If I'm the only one ever to do that, maybe it's very accurate. But my hunch is that I'm not.

I added some line breaks to help me read the post above.

I'm not bashing CR or CNN Money, nor did I say Porsche didn't deserve to win. I said it wouldn't be my first guess and wondered aloud what their test criteria are. It's not a priority for me to find out, mostly because I don't care enough. (I'm not shopping for a new car, toaster, or flatscreen TV.)

I have a bit of formal testing experience as well; while I was in the Marine Corps I enjoyed being part of the test and development team for the V-22 Osprey. I know how to conduct a test, and I know that results can be deceptive or incomplete.

So who's bashing whom now?

bravenrace wrote: ...The Corvette has dismal reliability ratings, so it's not going to cut it either.

Um, it took second place ahead of the BMW M3, and presumably a Miata, and any other 'sporty' car via Consumer Reports for 2010. In 2007 it topped the list.

bravenrace wrote: But many times these articles are written around very specific criteria (including GRM and CMS), and if you don't know what that criteria is, because you haven't read the article, then maybe you should read it before bashing it. Just a thought.

Maybe you should try swallowing a dose of your own medicine...

I don't know Tom. I read your post on GRM before this one.
How is "Are the folks at Consumer Reports crazy or have I been living under a rock?" not bashing them? My point is that your questioning has more than a tone of doubting to it, and while you don't care enough to find out, you do care enough to post this here and on the GRM forum. Why, if not to imply that the conclusion is wrong? If you are merely questioning it, then why not find out? Sorry, but your post clearly indicates to anyone reading it that you don't believe the conclusions. That's how it reads to me anyway. Oh, and I know what a paragraph is, I just didn't care enough to put the line breaks in.

In reply to Raze:

Funny how you bash me while telling me not to bash. How am I bashing? Please explain? If I "bashed" anyone, I apologize. My intent was to make an intelligent post that just happened to disagree with the other posts. I'm not sure how I could have conveyed what I wanted to say much better, but if you think I bashed then I guess that's the way it came across. The Corvette does have a dismal reliability rating according to CR's own reliablility ratings. I'll allow that it may not be dismal relative to other cars in it's class, but it's dismal overall. Why they picked it as second I don't know, but I read the reliability ratings so I think it's a valid statement. I didn't make conclusions about the pick of the Boxter or the article, I just opined that others shouldn't either. I didn't need to read the article before making that statement.

It's entirely possible that I've been living under a rock and my preconceptions of Porsche ownership are misguided. Depending on which data is more flawed (my observations or their testing) I could quite possibly be bashing myself.

I care enough to post items like this on both the GRM and CMS sites because it's my JOB (among other things) to give us stuff to talk about. I had hoped it would be about Porsches and reliability, but if you really want to discuss the way I turn a phrase we could do that too.

Tom, you said I bashed you and you didn't bash CR. Tell me how you determined that? It's not the way you turn a phrase, it's how it sounded to me. And after re-reading my post, I still don't get how I'm bashing anyone. Please explain?

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Raze: Funny how you bash me while telling me not to bash. How am I bashing? Please explain? If I "bashed" anyone, I apologize. My intent was to make an intelligent post that just happened to disagree with the other posts. I'm not sure how I could have conveyed what I wanted to say much better, but if you think I bashed then I guess that's the way it came across. The Corvette does have a dismal reliability rating according to CR's own reliablility ratings. I'll allow that it may not be dismal relative to other cars in it's class, but it's dismal overall. Why they picked it as second I don't know, but I read the reliability ratings so I think it's a valid statement. I didn't make conclusions about the pick of the Boxter or the article, I just opined that others shouldn't either. I didn't need to read the article before making that statement.

I never told you not to bash anyone, I just thought I'd point out the fact that your post instructing others to read the article before posting comments was counter-intuitive when the information in your post directly contradicted what was in the article. Perhaps I wrongly assumed you had not read the article in its entirety as Consumer Report had chosen the Corvette as the second most reliable sporty car but your post indicated it has dismal reliability which runs counter to Consumer Reports own sentiment.

Without playing word games, I maintain that I did not bash Consumer Reports, CNN Money, or Porsche any more than I did my own observations of Porsche Boxster ownership. Sorry if anyone got the impression that I felt otherwise. Let's move on.

So...umm....anybody else have thoughts on Porsche Boxster reliability? They must be better than I thought.

Umm ... I think Peter Egan owns one (or used to anyway because I don't read R&T anymore). I never heard him complain about reliability problems with his.

Man, even the arguing over here is "highbrow"

Yeah, bravenrace just chased me back to the regular forum.

I have a 2003 VW Jetta that has never been to the dealer for anything since I bought it new back in May of '03, some 231K miles ago.

So I take all reliability ratings with a grain of salt.

Wow, thread turned absurd.

Still the S2000 hands down, and I love CR for kitchen products but would rather read car mags for car opinion. Did I bash anyone ? Can I try again, and whats the prize ?

In reply to bravenrace:

Being a fellow engineer, dealing with testing for for BMW and now for Yanmar, maybe Consumer's Reports should lay off of the cars.

It is a subject they speculate on that they do not and can not run through the tests that they can other products. Based on cost, volume of products, and required time span, no one could. I believe they are truely overstepping their bounds on this. If you look at their CR recommended vs the actual results, they don't always coincide, (review Crown Vic from a few years ago.)

To summarize, why risk ruining your reputation on a topic you are not an authority and can not use your standard test procedures on?

Stick to what you know and find a CR recommended partner for what you don't.

I bought a new MINI Cooper S, six months ago. It hasn't given me any problems and it's very sporty. I don't know how Consumer Reports rates it, I tried to check, but it looks like they want me to subscribe to their magazine and I don't wanna.

Dave

In reply to Tom Heath: I think the report is more a factor of consumer satisfaction after a very short ownership interval. The Porsche Boxster is expensive and gives a great driving experience. I have no doubt that it is reliable enough. New owners are likely to rate it high because they paid more, it does drive very well and has no glaring issues for the first year. That said, older Boxsters have not been without issues and low resale values reflect this. Often the best assessment of a new model is to look at the last 5 years of the same model if it has not changed too much and whether the parent company addressed any earlier issues.

Cheers Ron

In reply to rconlon:

I think there's a lot of truth in your statements, Ron. Last week, Tim showed me a clean 1999-ish Porsche Boxster with under 100,000 miles for around $8k. eBay is full of similar deals, so a Boxster seems like a good option for classy bargain hunters.

I'll stick with my Miata for now, but I've changed my opinion on Boxsters...at least a little bit.

I'm hoping the Boxster depreciation rubs off on the Cayman...

I've been watching the curve along with the Z4 M Coupe...

The Z4 coupes are nice, and I believe, fairly reliable, it's just that when they do go wrong it's gonna cost you.

If we can't nominate a car now out of production, that let's the S2000 out, as well as my first thought, the Pontiac Solstice, which seems to have a pretty good reliability recod in the 2008/9 model years.

Anyone noticed that we have a definite shortage of what I'd call real sports cars out there? The Miata may be the last 2 seater front engined affordable sports car left standing.