Consumer Reports has released its annual auto issue and scorecard, and the results are hardly shocking. CR loves them some Toyota, Honda and Subaru, singling out the big H as building the most reliable lineup of vehicles (Element excepted). Toyota came in second, with the Prius winning top spot in CR’s new “value” ranking. Only Toyota’s Yaris and FJ Cruiser were unable to earn a “recommend” grade from the report. Mercedes has improved its reliability, reckons CR, but European brands are still lagging. On the American front, Ford is singled out as the high point among the American automakers, as “some Ford models now rival their competitors” from Japan. Too bad they’re the F150 and Flex, which compete for a shrinking market segments. Unfortunately, that’s as good as the news gets for Detroit.
Detroit only builds 19 percent of CR’s “recommended” vehicles, with efficiency and reliability lagging behind the Japanese competition. And as CR bluntly puts it, “the domestics don’t have any competitive small SUVs or small cars.” Buick Enclave, Cadillac CTS, Chevrolet Corvette, Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia, Pontiac G8, and Saturn Outlook fared the best of GM’s models. Chevy’s Avalanche was inexplicably named a pickup “top pick.”
And Chrysler? The less said the better. After tying with Suzuki for last place last year, Chrysler has elbowed the competition out, claiming the bottom spot for itself. Not a single Chrysler, Dodge, or Jeep product was recommended by CR. Chrysler’s vehicles “have noisy, inefficient, unrefined powertrains, subpar interiors, and poor visibility,” reckons CR. All of which has the Freep’s Mark Phelan wondering where it all went wrong. “The dismal showing raises serious questions about Cerberus’ management of the automaker it acquired in 2007 and the credibility of the company’s proposals as it seeks government loans to stay in business,” says the notorious Detroit booster. “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
73 Comments on “Consumer Reports Annual Auto Report: Winners And Losers...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
Let’s start the office pool on how long it takes the always sage Warren Brown to carp on CR’s “anti-American car bias” and, therefore, can’t be trusted.
I pick 28 Feb, 1:36pm
This is an outrage!
Everyone knows that GM makes over 795 models and each one has been judged the best car ever!
Obviously this is a sign that until the American people wake up to this fact – GM will need a couple more Billion $ – a month….
And as CR bluntly puts it “the domestics don’t have any competitive small SUVs or small cars.”
CR wouldn’t know a good, small SUV if it bit them in the ass.
Given the timelines involved, wouldn’t Chrysler’s poor rankings here be more a direct result of Daimler’s management over the past number of years, rather than Cerberus?
What about the Korean nameplates, are they moving up?
Does the Prius even still make sense for the common consumer?
It isn’t environmentaly friendly at all based on reports of its emmissions.
It is economical only as a fleet car for the Government service sector both local and federal.
If I was a person, 5′5 feet tall, rather than being 6′7, I’d perfer to buy a car less than $20,000 and make up my fuel use with the money I saved on the car itself.
Old wine, new bottle.
As with past auto issues, this one is based on a reliability survey that was conducted nearly a year ago, and the reliability scores are the same ones released last October or November. Somehow this is never made clear, by CR or anyone else…
In reality, the reliability data on which these ratings are based was gathered when all of these cars were a year younger, and does not reflect any changes that might have occurred in the interim.
As regular readers here are aware, there’s only one place to get car reliability information based on how the cars have been faring recently:
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php
FWIW, TTAC is the only place I’ll be posting this critique. I’ve been advised that it’s not considered appropriate, and even “below the belt,” elsewhere. So it falls to others in the media to make it.
Thank goodness for Michael Karesh.
Flashpoint: “It isn’t environmentaly friendly at all based on reports of its emmissions.”
Where did you get that bit of nonsense? Wherever you might have “learned” this particular factoid, did you even give even a passing thought to the idea that a vehicle’s tailpipe emissions will be fairly proportional to its fuel consumption (in other words, a gallon of gas becomes a fixed amount of CO2 and other emissions) and that there aren’t many other vehicles on the road that can touch the Prius’ 48mpg?
CR like our government, Harbour Reports, JD Power, et al is bought and paid for by those who they favor. Blogs seen to be the only reliable source of unbiased info these days, and even some of them are co-opted.
American manufacturers and people have never done the small thing well. Look at the sprawl of North American cities. Compare this to the density of a Japanese city and the difference mindframes aren’t difficult to see. Yes, the market share for larger vehicles might be shrinking, but the F-150 and Silverado are still the number 1 and 2 selling vehicles in the states. The Detroit boys might be better off just building larger vehicles and leaving the small ones to other manufacturers. That way, no one would have to drive a Chevy Aveo.
“It isn’t environmentaly friendly at all based on reports of its emmissions.”
What reports are these? The ones that have been totally and utterly discredited?
The Prius as best value and the Avalanche was top pick for pickup trucks?
That sort of does call into question the rest of their findings.
“Chrysler’s vehicles have noisy, inefficient, unrefined powertrains…”
Only if you completely ignore the 5.7liter hemi. Although I will grant that the automatic they stick it with is completely uninspired (as bad as Mercedes gets in fact, it’s almost Toyota-esque). I’d agree that the rest of the lineup deserves the criticism, and that Cerebrus ownership hasn’t improved it so far.
Just checked the Phelan article. He might not be aware that the “new” ratings are based on data that are nearly a year old, and so don’t much reflect Cerberus’ management.
Mr Karesh can correct me if I’m wrong, but this press release from Consumer Reports has almost NOTHING to do with reliability. These results and accompanying rankings are for the subjective evaluations CR does on all vehicles, NOT the reliability. Otherwise, I doubt Volkswagen, BMW, and Mercedes Benz would rank high than Ford.
Here’s all you need to know about how good CR’s subjective rankings are:
They say the new Acura TL is better than the 3-series, the CTC, the IS, and the C-class. And not just a little better. A lot better.
On the American front, Ford is singled out as the high point among the American automakers, as “some Ford models now rival their competitors” from Japan. Too bad they’re the F150 and Flex, which compete for a shrinking market segments. Unfortunately, that’s as good as the news gets for Detroit.
The magazine also praises the Fusion/Milan for excellent reliability.
MattVA: The magazine’s recommendations are based on a combination of reliability survey results and test scores. A vehicle must score “average” or above in reliability, and over a certain number in its road test, to earn a recommendation.
I thought the domestic manufacturers did give up the small car business to the Asians years ago.
It is hard to believe how bad Chrysler’s offerings are and that would be Daimler not Cerberus’s fault. The Sebring is the poster child of everything that’s wrong with Chrysler’s products. Not only is the styling hideous it ranks as one of the poorest built vehicles offered for sale in this country. Quite an accomplishment Daimler….
Whether you agree with CU’s ratings and methodology or not it’s still the basis a lot of people use for their buying decisions.
geeber is correct.
Their recommendations are based on a combination of survey results and test scores. Sometimes they’re talking about one, sometimes the other, sometimes both. Many people get confused by this.
For example, they have no reliability info on the Ford Flex. So when they praise it their praise is based entirely on the road test evaluation.
Chevy’s Avalanche was inexplicably named a pickup “top pick.”
The Avalanche rocks as a personal use vehicle. It’s a Tahoe with the useless 3rd-row replaced by a pickup bed. The mid-gate is a great innovation that gives a lot more utility than usual crew cab trucks. Plus, the two V8s offered are really good.
Potemkin writes,
“CR …is bought and paid for by those who they favor.”
There are plenty of critical things to be said about Consumer Reports, but this isn’t one of them. In direct contrast to, say, Consumer Digest’s Best Bought or the Motor Trend Advertiser of the Year, CR doesn’t even accept advertising. In fact, it is so insistent on remaining unsullied that it has repeatedly gone to court and fought fiercely against letting the brands it likes quote it by name.
Now, if you’d said “CR wouldn’t know a performance car if it bit ‘em in the shorts,” that’d be a different kettle of fish.
I generally agree with ajla, except for one thing: the Avalanche is actually a Suburban with a useful third row removed (same long wheelbase), but with a useful bed substituted, and a lower price.
Re: crc:
CR wouldn’t know a good, small SUV if it bit them in the ass.
That is true, they completely slandered the Samurai, which was a pretty damn good small SUV.
tonycd:
I don’t believe that CR has been bought. But they are increasingly willing to let their name be used. During media presentations at NAIAS this year both Toyota and Subaru mentioned and/or displayed CR in their presentations, and the CR people in attendance looked the other way.
…singling out the big H as building the most reliable lineup of vehicles (Element excepted).
Surprising, but I guess the compromises it requires knock it off the list.
Toyota came in second, with the Prius winning top spot in CR’s new “value” ranking.
Probably the same as above. Remember that CR has three criteria before a car can be recommended:
* Safe (per crash test performance)
* Reliable (per historical data)
* Decent (per ratings)
The Element, Yaris and the FJ are safe and reliable, but they don’t rate well. The opposite example would be, say, Volkswagen, whose products are safe and well-rated, but not reliable.
CR wouldn’t know a good, small SUV if it bit them in the ass.
They actually did, sort of, like the Vue. If you can get over the fuel economy. They also liked the Escape, back when the current model first debuted. In 2000.
CR like our government, Harbour Reports, JD Power, et al is bought and paid for by those who they favor. Blogs seen to be the only reliable source of unbiased info these days, and even some of them are co-opted.
Schwaaaa?
Blogs? Unbiased? Blogs are biased, but I suppose you could make the tenuous claim that because they either don’t claim objectivity, or the claims of such are blatantly false, that objectivity isn’t an issue.
This sounds like the kind of rationale libertarians trot out when they haven’t had to deal with reality: yes, government has been co-opted. So has industry. So has religion. So has everyone, even individuals, in some way, shape or form. Everyone has an agenda, it’s just that the agendas and biases of some people and/or group align with yours, and thusly you might not see it.
CR is about as close to objective as you’re going to get in this arena because they don’t depend on funding from those the evaluate (which even JDP does).
As with past auto issues, this one is based on a reliability survey that was conducted nearly a year ago, and the reliability scores are the same ones released last October or November. Somehow this is never made clear, by CR or anyone else…
This is a fair point, but it’s not necessarily a big deal. CR never recommends models that are new and do not have a strong teething history. They also tend to rate fairly conservatively, so you can generally trust them.
I think they make a good accompaniment to your service as they’re easier to parse, don’t (until recently) include actual owner comments that could colour matters, and benefit from a broader sampling base, especially in mainstream cars. They’re a good go-to when starting your search as you can eliminate a lot of questionable models quickly.
The Prius as best value and the Avalanche was top pick for pickup trucks?
The Prius gets good mileage, holds people and stuff in comfort, rides well and is reliable. Nothing wrong with that. If I were in the market for a midsizer, it’s where I, and a lot of others, would go. It’s possible that CR is weighting fuel economy more heavily than perhaps is currently warranted, but the Prius’ TCO is still very, very low for a midsize car.
The Avalanche is actually a good truck. Unless you need the longer bed, it’s a better holistic choice than a “normal” GMT900, F-150, Ram or Tundra, and it’s more capacious than an Explorer Sport Trac. It may be odd to see CR rate it so highly, but if you think about it’s virtues, it really is pretty good.
CR is the place to go if you’re uninterested and uninformed about cars, but want to cite an expert authority as justification for a purchase. Otherwise it’s where those people go to start looking, as they don’t know how to find other sources of information.
I’ve heard that they actually do have competent drivers on staff. I think that they rate fwd’ers highly because of pressure to dumb down their reviews to the expectations of the average consumer. The end result is a wasted expert opinion.
Anyone who accepts their bare-minimum of data to the reader approach to reporting reliability seriously is a moron.
Tonycd is correct on the integrity thing though, it’s not fair to say they are bought and paid for.
@Michael Karesh:
Whoops, I stand corrected on the Tahoe/Avalanche relation.
geeber and Michael,
So is there anyway to know how much of the scores are based on the reliability survey and how much of it is their subjective (and seemingly off target) reviews?
I have issues with Cr, particularly after they said the Jeep Compass was better than the Jeep Patriot.
Patriot got a 42. Compass got a 51.
I would also prefer a Patriot to any of the ugly RAV-4 or CR-V things the Japanese put out, even if it is considered less reliable. The new F-150 is hands-down better than the Tundra, too.
Never mind though. With regards to reliability, I think they’re generally spot on. I don’t think the domestics have it with reliability yet. But other than that, I think CR leaves much to be desired, at least for anybody that’s interested in an interesting car rather than just an appliance.
psarhijinian,
You wrote:
“This is a fair point, but it’s not necessarily a big deal. CR never recommends models that are new and do not have a strong teething history.”
You seem to be missing the point, as is just about everyone else beyond TTAC. They wait so long to recommend a model not so they can accumulate enough data on it, but so that even a little bit of early data can wend its way through their slow, annual process.
So they sometimes do recommend models on which they have just a few months of early data. It’s just not obvious because the results aren’t put in Auto Issue form until nearly a year after the data are collected. The car in question might have been out for over a year, so people might think CR has over a year of data on it. In truth, they might have even less data than JD Power uses for its IQS.
MattVA,
I haven’t looked into how the new “value” scores are calculated. In the past, CR has refused to divulge its formulas, claiming that they are proprietary. We’ve joked about the “secret formulas” here in the past. Oddly, mainstream car magazines have no such issue with showing how overall scores are calculated in their own comparison tests.
With their recommendations, a car must pass both “tests” with an “average” or better. In other words, a C in both will do.
You seem to be missing the point, as is just about everyone else beyond TTAC. They wait so long to recommend a model not so they can accumulate enough data on it, but so that even a little bit of early data can wend its way through their slow, annual process.
No, I get the point, I just don’t think it’s as big an issue as you make it out to be. They don’t recommend models within a year of age, regardless of why it takes them so long to do so. That’s good practice. Full stop.
When you consider their audience, that’s not really a bad thing.
Michael,
I did a little work and added up all the “scores” of every model Honda and Acura makes (except the TSX, which I couldn’t find.) If you take the average of all of these models, you get an average score of 77.1.
I can’t help but think the the numbers they give to rank the manufacturers are simply the average score of all the models.
I’m clearly missing something.
How is it better to wait a year to recommend a model, if this recommendation if based on no more information than if you’d recommended the vehicle nearly a year earlier?
If TTAC drove a car for a few days, then waited a year to provide our evaluations, would this be better because it might imply that we’d been driving the car for the entire past year? “When we first drove this car ten months ago…”
I’m surprised by your comment, psarhjinian, because I cannot recall another time when a comment by you simply did not make sense.
In that case reliability isn’t part of the scores. At least they’ve never said that reliability is part of the road test scores.
Update: looking at CR’s press release, they say:
“The final marks are based on a composite of our overall road-test score and predicted reliability Rating averaged from all tested models of that automaker.”
and
“Hyundai and Suzuki were the only automakers that showed improvement in all three measures: overall score, average test score, and reliability.”
Still not clear how the “overall score” differs from the “average test score.”
Can someone explain to me how Jeep consistently makes crap? Jeeps do not seem to be all that complicated of a vehicle and they have been making them forever. Why haven’t the bugs been worked out?
The name has been around forever, but the vehicles get redesigned every few years.
In TrueDelta’s surveys, the reported repair rates for 2007 and 2008 Jeep Patriot, Compass, and Wrangler have actually been about average, even a bit better than average:
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php?stage=pt&bd=Jeep&mc=146&email=Guest
The redesigned minivans and Dodge Journey have much higher repair rates.
The Wrangler does poorly in CR’s road test because it’s evaluated as an on-road passenger car.
I’m surprised by your comment, psarhjinian, because I cannot recall another time when a comment by you simply did not make sense.
Oh, I don’t make sense all the time. You just get my best work, here.
I think what we have is a disconnect: I’m talking about reliability rankings, you’re talking about competency. I agree that they’re behind the times when it comes to evaluations, but not unduly so for what is effectively a dead-tree medium that strives to give a complete, instrumented evaluation of every model available.
Imagine if TTAC had to do the same? It would be slower to press, too.
Take their review of the Venza, which just showed up in dealers this month (give or take). They give an initial set of impressions and some publicly available stats. They don’t recommend it without full testing. I think that’s fair, given their mission—people who are going to buy a car without the kind of data they provide aren’t going to be swayed by their recommendation anyways.
Again, I see your point, but I just disagree that, within the context of their audience and mission, that it’s a big deal. The same would apply to, say, Phil Edmonston’s Lemon Aid, which is even later to the game than CR.
Can someone explain to me how Jeep consistently makes crap? Jeeps do not seem to be all that complicated of a vehicle and they have been making them forever. Why haven’t the bugs been worked out?
There’s two things happening here:
* Jeeps suck as general-purpose vehicles. We all know this, and CR is a magazine that tilts (?) towards centre
* There’s a difference between robust and reliable. Jeeps can do the Rubicon, but they might not be able to do your daily commute, day-in and day-out.
Unfortunately, if you want a reliable Jeep-a-like, Suzuki (the Samurai) and Toyota (the old FJ and/or the pre-luxobarge Land Cruiser) aren’t options for new-car buyers.
MattVA:
I can no longer edit my earlier response, but just found this:
“The overall score is calculated from a carmaker’s average test score and average predicted-reliability Rating.”
The scores just happen to be the same for Honda. Average two identical numbers, and you get the same number.
psarhjinian,
I’m actually saying nothing here about their competency, and am talking about their reliability rankings. In talking about the reliability rankings, the road tests you mention are not relevant. Unlike what some (many?) people assume, they do not use the road tests to evaluate reliability, but only to evaluate the same things TTAC and other reviewers evaluate.
To be clearer, here’s a timeline:
April 2008: CR sends out its survey
October 2008: CR releases reliability results for the April survey
March 2009: CR re-releases the same reliability results, now packaged with the road test evaluations, some (but not most) of which were conducted only recently. People treat the reliability information as “new.”
The only 2009 in their current results, IIRC, is the Nissan Murano, which went on sale in late January 2008. Respondents to their survey bought these vehicles in January, February, March, or April, then responded based on their experience so far. In some cases just a few weeks or even days of ownership.
Seeing the reliability verdict for the Murano now, you might think that CR has waited until the vehicle had been on the market for over a year to provide a reliability rating. But instead their reliability information on the Murano does not reflect owner experiences for the last ten or so months, and instead includes a shorter length of ownership than JD Power’s IQS.
Clearer?
With the Murano, TrueDelta can report that having another eight months of data does not substantially affect the result. But this is not always the case, and cannot safely be assumed to be the case. Sometimes cars require very few repairs for the first few months, then suddenly have a common problem or two as the miles accumulate.
The new Equinox and Cruze should help…And they best fast-track the new Impala! and get a proper RWD G6! and quit dicking around with Buick!
If I am going to be Co-Owner-Against-My-Will then they better listen to me…Dammit.
I’m no expert on CR’s methods but I’ve seen enough anomalies to add a large pinch of salt to everything I read from them. Some years ago I compared the ratings of the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe (almost identical, they are even built at the same plant). The Matrix was “above average” the Vibe “below average”.
I’ve noticed this anomaly on other occasions where badge-engineered twins had different ratings. Sampling issues, owner perceptions (or whatever else causes these problems) surely should be culled from the reports before they are released as being “definitive” statistics. The impact they have on public opinion and vehicle sales (when there actually were sales) is probably significant.
I can tolerate CR’s Toyota/Honda love affair – it was hard-earned after all – but crowning the Prius as our new Messiah as the oil bubble is deflating all around us only proves that the editors are anything but “consumers”. They are tree-huggers on a mission.
Consumer Reports is retarded for many reasons, several of which are elaborated on at True Delta.
They used to recommend Toyota’s new models, now they don’t. I think they only still do this for Honda despite mounting quality issues. To remain unbiased they’d better actually BE unbiased as much as possible, which means NO ONE gets a recommended on a new model until stats have been pulled.
I don’t want to stick up for Cerberus too much, but they were handed a baby just before it spit,threw-up and shit on them.
All these cars were brought to market when Daimler & Dr. Z were in charge. They were built on a shoe-string with old under-bodies (Mitsubishi/Benz) & all had injected molded interiors. And the quirky “in your face” style under the stewardship of Trevor Creed.
What were they thinking when they drove these cars around the test track? Do they not have the competitors’ product right there to compare it to?
Who got in the Sebring and said, “its a go”! Who took a look at the Caliber and said “perfect lets build it”? For Christ sake, it makes the Aztek look f*cking good!
When 50cent & Snoop Dog were rolled out to advertise the gangsta market segment, you know the company is running on fumes.
Flashpoint; 6′7″; Slamming Prius; knowledgeable about fleet sales …uh… you’re not that reverse-Rumplestiltskin GM-guy, Rick Waggoner, are you?
CR might not be the best authority, but such is the case with any other “source”, including our beloved TTAC (how many times have folks debated cross comparisons of vehicle classes as a function of the star ratings?). We’re all biased to a certain extent, oftentimes more inclined to side with what preconceptions we might have about something or someone. Open folks listen, weigh, interpret, and decide: There’s nothing wrong with reading CR, MT, PopSci, TTAC, etc to learn about what interests us – there’s no need for the acts to be mutually exclusive.
Mike S: I’m not going to argue that one example affirms a trend, but your comments about American/Japanese vehicles built on similar (or the same lines) suggests there should be few/no qualitative differences: but there can be.
Back in ‘86, my folks wanted to “buy American” so they opted for a Chevy Nova rather than a Corolla. CR had suggested that the Nova was an acceptable performer but warned that its reliability would behind that of the Corolla despite sharing most of the platform with TM manufacturing. Long story short, certain elements of the GM-TM partnership allowed for substitutions on the lines for Novas, including transmission linkages, gaskets, carpeting, etc (according to several mechanics whom they got to know too well). Ultimately, a few friends of mine in HS pounded the hell out of their ‘86-’90 ‘Rollas without problems…And my folks, probably the most easy going conservative drivers, experienced repeated brake problems, two head gasket failures, several transmission difficulties, and broken window winders (*manual* windows). What junk. Their last “American” vehicle – imports since: they couldn’t be happier.
King Bojack: What are your sources for “mounting quality issues” at Honda? After much experience with statistics, I agree that the baseline should be uniform, but I don’t think a magazine can be “retarded” because of what was, until the Camry’s and Avalon’s difficulties, a reasonable prediction based on short term (0-2 years) reputation.
Mike S : I’m no expert on CR’s methods but I’ve seen enough anomalies to add a large pinch of salt to everything I read from them. Some years ago I compared the ratings of the Toyota Matrix and Pontiac Vibe (almost identical, they are even built at the same plant). The Matrix was “above average” the Vibe “below average”.
I’ve noticed this anomaly on other occasions where badge-engineered twins had different ratings. Sampling issues, owner perceptions (or whatever else causes these problems) surely should be culled from the reports before they are released as being “definitive” statistics. The impact they have on public opinion and vehicle sales (when there actually were sales) is probably significant.
Actually the Matrix is built at a Toyota plant in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada while the Vibe is built at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, California that is jointly owned by GM and Toyota.
When a car is built at plants in more than one country I usually hear stories that ones from Japan are the best, followed by the ones built in Canada, then the U.S. and then Mexico. Stories about the superiority of manual transmissions, in terms of feel, installed in cars built in Japan are especially persistent.
Usually such differences are attributable to different demographics of the owners. Matrix owners tend to be older, to have higher incomes and more education, and to drive less and to be more likely to follow regular maintenance schedules than Vibe owners.
Similar situations exist in other badge-engineered cars, notably between the Chryslers and Dodges where Chryslers frequently have better reliability records than the Dodges built with the same parts on the same assembly line.
“Chrysler’s vehicles have noisy, inefficient, unrefined powertrains…”
“Only if you completely ignore the 5.7liter hemi.”
I’d argue that a motor like that is the very definition of inefficient and unrefined. Chrysler/Dodge et al seem to never have any solution for high power other than massive, heavy, brute force via massive displacement. That they have only two valves per cylinder and twin plugs is 1960s technology. It was awesome in 2.0 liter Porsche flat 6 motors producing 220 hp in 1968. It’s unimpressive in a 5.7 liter V8 motor producing 390 hp in 200x. That’s specific power of ~68 hp per liter.
Give the nod to Honda: its first generation S2000 motor is 2.0 liters, four cylinders, and produces 240 hp, for a specific power output of 120 hp per liter. That’s more specific power than most Ferrari street motors.
Oh, and the 5.7 hemi also weighs an astronomical 485 lbs.
@Johnster
“Actually the Matrix is built at a Toyota plant in Cambridge, Ontario, Canada while the Vibe is built at the NUMMI plant in Fremont, California that is jointly owned by GM and Toyota.”
You are correct sir, for some reason I thought that both were built at NUMMI.
“Usually such differences are attributable to different demographics of the owners.”
There’s probably some truth to this. Car A is a garage queen, Car B is hammered and not maintained. One gets a good reliability rating, the other gets a poor one. However, this doesn’t help the person using the reviews because they are not aware of the caveats. In this case, the usual “some information is better than none at all” doesn’t hold true.