20 years ago I was a PC tech. CR did a laptop roundup and gave one model the highest rating and another a mediocre rating on screen quality. They both had the exact same LCD panel. That sealed the deal for me.
Subaru has traded on lifestyle/image, not quality, for a long time.
I'm not a Subaru hater - I used to own a WRX. I currently own a BMW and a previously owned a MINI. Cars I would choose for ME are not necessarily ones I would recommend for others.
I know of a couple of local independent shops that try everything they can to avoid working on Subarus. They say many parts are extremely difficult to get and often cost an arm and a leg. And they won't touch the CVTs. For them, apparently it's not worth the hassle, and having a car sitting in the shop long term.
DrBoost wrote: I'm glad GRM and CR don't agree. CR is the most out-of-touch publication when it comes to cars, unless Cigar Montly does a drive report. Years ago they were reviewing the Wrangler and lambasted it because of the poor fuel economy, bumpy ride, wind noise, and cramped interior. Hey moron! It's a Wrangler. It's SUPPOSED to have all those things. They didn't mention the fact that the 4.0L I6 (this was back in the early TJ years) goes for 300,000 miles without even trying, and that they go where only billy-goats dare. When they complained about the road noise it blew my mind. Look around you, there's nothing but canvas above your him except the windshield. Morons. I wonder if they would complain about the fuel economy or harsh ride from a Lamborghini?
I remember seeing them complain about the ride and interior of an Elise... Rather missing the point.
NGTD wrote: We should just start a list of cars this board hates: 1. Subaru - I have owned 5 and my mom has one. 2. VW/Audi - my wife and I have owned 6 and still have 2. 3. (Fill in the blanks).
I wouldn't say "hate", because they're an absolute hoot to drive, but the unreliability of MINIs has got to be mentioned.
This is a tangent. I am reminded of a story I heard about the JD powers quality rankings years ago. A friend who was an engineer in an assembly plant told me that the JD Powers ranking sampled the first 6 months of production for a vehicle. So the plant management ran the line more slowly and were more diligent about quality control during the first 6 months of the model year. For the 2nd half of the year, they sped the line up.
The thing about Consumer Reports is that it's written for a certain audience. And that audience does not keep cars for 15 years. If someone has the habit of buying new cars they aren't worried about 100k reliability. So Consumer Report's "long term reliability" looks at something like 20k miles.
I have no doubt that many Subarus and Audis have no problems in the first 20k miles. It's the next 180k I'm worried about.
I read an article a few months ago comparing the subie outback to a golden retriever. Not the smartest, hardest working breed, doesn't have the most personality, but you just love it so. I've owned a couple of subies and that is the way I feel about them, although I purposely avoided those with HG issues (which is most 2.5 NA motors).
As a weekend warrior that needs to get to work every Monday, a subie wagon just works so well. It fits people & gear, can go moderately offroad, and aside from the HG's is pretty reliable (in my experience). It's not he flashiest, most comfortable, fastest, or most efficient, but it does everything just well enough to work, especially if you need (or think you need) a DD that doubles as an adventure vehicle.
As for the VAG, never been much of a fan as I consider most of them needlessly complex. I think I can trace that back to my two 80's 5000 CS quattros. Awesome cars on paper, but a massive let down in the real world.
dculberson wrote: The thing about Consumer Reports is that it's written for a certain audience. And that audience does not keep cars for 15 years. If someone has the habit of buying new cars they aren't worried about 100k reliability. So Consumer Report's "long term reliability" looks at something like 20k miles. I have no doubt that many Subarus and Audis have no problems in the first 20k miles. It's the next 180k I'm worried about.
CR's "Quality Index" is basically just a measure of how E36 M3 the infotainment systems are.
dculberson wrote: The thing about Consumer Reports is that it's written for a certain audience. And that audience does not keep cars for 15 years. If someone has the habit of buying new cars they aren't worried about 100k reliability. So Consumer Report's "long term reliability" looks at something like 20k miles. I have no doubt that many Subarus and Audis have no problems in the first 20k miles. It's the next 180k I'm worried about.
20K "long term" tests are what Car & Driver does. Consumer Reports gets their data by surveying their membership who are mostly middle class, non car enthusiasts. I expect the average CR subscriber buys a new Camry or a Lexus, and keeps it 80-100K miles.
DrBoost wrote: They didn't mention the fact that the 4.0L I6 (this was back in the early TJ years) goes for 300,000 miles without even trying,
False! Kyle's sub 100k mile TJ broke down on him while braving the Michigan snowpacolypse going home last night.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote: http://www.torquenews.com/1084/subaru-ranks-2-america-best-made-car-brand-who-s-1 My head hurts reading this? Subaru and Audi are the best overall car brands.... Head gaskets, timing chain tensioners.. VAG! WTF? Is GRM wrong?
I will put it this way, whomever brainwashes their customer base the best and sends the correct bribes to select individuals seem to end up on top of that list.
Subaru in particular, has excelled at the brainwashing.
NGTD wrote: We should just start a list of cars this board hates:
I'll throw a uniquely GRM measure of reliability out there: RallyCross. Here in Northern California about 50% of RallyCross participants drive Imprezas, 25% drive other Subarus and 25% drive all other brands combined. Conversely, about 75% of the issues that people have at any given RallyCross happen to non-Subarus.
I've seen multiple people (including myself) start a season in a Golf, a Sentra, a BMW etc. and finish it in an Impreza...
GRM logic recommends cars based on how well it performs in the roles it was built for, often overlooking to at least some degree how it would be used by the average buyer, and determines reliability based on internet forum sampling and anecdotal evidence.
CR logic recommends cars based on how well it performs as it would be used by the average buyer, often overlooking to at least some degree how it performs in the roles it was built for, and determines reliability based on mass survey sampling and empirical data.
It's ridiculous to be overly dismissive or critical of either. Even though both may have differing target audiences that they are catering to, they are also both actually complimentary forms of information to each other...Which can be used to the advantage of those outside of their target audience as well. Of course, both also still require reading between the lines and sifting through the bull E36 M3, just like with every other piece of information we gather, to determine exactly how each applies to any given individuals preferences and circumstances.
Of course, being rational about things makes it a lot harder to complain about them too.
Harvey wrote: Multiple friends had their STIs grenade engines without any real reason behind it other than STI motors suck balls.
Don't forget the "We designed something E36 M3ty and are surprised it failed" ringlands......there's a reason a local SCCA guy called it quits on Scoobiroo and went to Mazda.
I've never had a Subaru, but my aunt has a fairly new (2013-2014 I think) Forester. She showed up here to visit my grandmother with an oil light on ("It's been on for weeks!") and no oil registering on the dipstick. We refilled and asked her when she last got it changed, and she said she'd rather buy a new car than get an oil change. Despite that, are Subarus known for burning up all their oil? This thing only had 18,000 miles on it. And yes, it's probably never been changed. I'm talking generally.
Knurled wrote: (because VW people are bass ackward and the longitudinal ones are the best ones only they are too busy hitting fents and crubs to understand)
LOL. I remember that.
Driven5- good point about CR suggesting cars for "general car use".
dculberson wrote: The thing about Consumer Reports is that it's written for a certain audience. And that audience does not keep cars for 15 years. If someone has the habit of buying new cars they aren't worried about 100k reliability. So Consumer Report's "long term reliability" looks at something like 20k miles. I have no doubt that many Subarus and Audis have no problems in the first 20k miles. It's the next 180k I'm worried about.
Quoted for truth. If you're not part of CR's target audience, then you're wasting your time looking at their rankings. This would be exactly the same as sending Aunt Gladys to the GRM forum to research her next generic-mobile. Each serves a specific purpose, and those purposes are different.
When I'm contemplating fun or quirky cars, I come here. When I'm researching a car for SWMBO, I go to CR. I find each serves its intended purpose just fine.
BTW, I'm on my 3rd Subaru (and most of my colleagues have at least one, as does my daughter and my dad), and I've found them to be pretty bulletproof. Perfect? No, but neither are any of the others. Can you find failures? Sure, but on average, they're among the most reliable cars out there. Yes, the head gaskets weep oil, but just pretend Subaru is a British company and it will seem much less of a problem.
CR pushes vanilla appliances. GRM pushes awesome machines.
Surprised how many of you are misinformed and prejudiced against Consumer Reports. They do not accept advertising dollars and the rankings are based on the experiences of the people who actually bought and drove the cars. And they love the Miata--a Consumer Reports Top Pick for 2016.
1988RedT2 wrote: Surprised how many of you are misinformed and prejudiced against Consumer Reports. They do not accept advertising dollars and the rankings are based on the experiences of the people who actually bought and drove the cars. And they love the Miata--a Consumer Reports Top Pick for 2016.
For a lot of their existence, Consumer Reports took an extreme practical and utilitarian view towards cars, effectively denying that driving pleasure was ever a valid reason for preferring one vehicle over another. They got a lot of criticism for that and it's been relaxed a bit in the last decade or so, but there's still a fair amount of it there.
They may like the ND, but they hated the NA and NB because they were too small, noisy, and didn't have enough space in the trunk.
Also, the "no advertising, no loaners" model for evaluating things is great when you're talking about $500 dishwashers, because you can buy a dozen or two and still spend less than ten grand on your total test budget for that month. It's not so good when you're talking about $50K-$100K cars. As a result, the number of cars they can directly test is fairly low, meaning that they have to focus on mainstream vehicles like Camrys. The survey information that they get from their membership is useful, but it still suffers from the usual statistical biases that are inherent to a survey with self-selected participants.
In reply to codrus:
I'm not going to argue with any of that. Pretty sure this has been covered before. CR data has a place and is useful, but certainly there are other more subjective criteria to consider when choosing a car. To each his own, YMMV, and whatever floats yer boat.
Disclaimer: I have subscribed to CR in the past, but am not currently a subscriber because I don't feel that the price they charge for their information is justified--i.e. I'm too cheap.
I really appreciate quality design and manufacturing. I remember tearing down a E30 BMW after years of working on funkier cars, and just digging things like the oil pan casting. CR will never give a hoot about that, and that's OK.
It's interesting how folks are focusing on the Subaru endorsement. Practically everyone I know says that Audis are great "under warranty" cars that you'd be best served to avoid afterwards (example: A friend was billed $1,600 for changing the thermostat on his A6. Another friend told me how they have to remove the entire engine to replace the starter motor on an A4). Bt I suppose that CR doesn't care too much about post-warranty stuff.
In reply to codrus:
In other words, they evaluate the vehicles they test with a more observant and critical form of the same mentality as 98% of American new-car buyers, and 99.9% of their readers. Even the vast majority of specialty cars are bought (new) by these same people. So, I fail to see what the complaining is actually about here.
You'll need to log in to post.
