Consumer Reports finds 2020 JL to be one of the most unreliable vehicles

[CMac]

I personally have not found CR to be accurate......

Exactly. Consumer Reports has had a total boner for sticking it to Jeep....they always have, it seems, since the early 90's.

Sponsored

 

[jimbom]

Eff CR I stopped paying attention to that outfit when they went after the Suzuki Samurai.

Eff them Very Much

I'm familiar with the Suzuki roll-over issues that killed hundreds and injured thousands which Consumer Reports subsequently tested for and confirmed. What's your issue with CR's testing and results in that particular case?

 

[jimbom]

Exactly. Consumer Reports has had a total boner for sticking it to Jeep....they always have, it seems, since the early 90's.

I missed any bad press they had for Jeep. So, what do you guys think was their motive to go after either Jeep or Suzuki?

 

[uplandgunner]

This discussion came up yesterday, I normally haul a Kubota and a big water tank to prescribed burns with my F-250 Diesel. I didn't yesterday because the turbo seized up. I was asked "Where's the truck?" and the Ford / Chevy / Ram / ect. bashing shit ensued. After a minute, all I said is they all have their problems and everyone shut up and nodded their heads.

I had a 2016 JKUR HR that was a nightmare with an electrical gremlin, even the roaming Star techs couldn't solve it, well over 200 days in the shop. Pissed me off and I traded it in on a JTR last June. My wife asked why in the world I'd buy another Jeep? Well it can happen with any of the brands.
Check out the lemon law on google for each brand.

Still I bought the jeep for what it could do that all the others could not. Yes some may be more reliable in stats than others just as some are more capable than others. Capability won out for me.
I've own almost all of them and none except the Toyota Series 70's LC's are equal or more capable. The thing is the LC 70's aren't available in the US and the other thing is they are pretty stripped of any comfort conveniences. They can't meet emissions and they don't meet any of the safety standards like airbags.

 

[Incommando]

I noticed that many more vehicles take it on the chin for infotainment issues counting as full-fledged defects then I think should. These go down as electrical issues but should they really count like a defective airbag, for example?

 

[o2bnkc]

I'm familiar with the Suzuki roll-over issues that killed hundreds and injured thousands which Consumer Reports subsequently tested for and confirmed. What's your issue with CR's testing and results in that particular case?

Killed hundreds and injured thousands? This sounds a little like Ralph Nader's attack on the Corvair back in the early sixties, which his accusations were later proven wrong.

 

[Hootbro]

I noticed that many vehicles take it on the chin for infotainment issues counting as full-fledged defects then I think they should. These go down as electrical issues but should they really count like a defective airbag, for example?

Pretty much this. All defects are given equal weight when some are just annoyances and not true serious mechanical or fitment defects.

Main take away when any lists are done is no matter what, there is going to be a top tier, middle tier and bottom tier in any listing. What needs to be looked at is the actual defects weighed and count spread between models.

Lastly is defect rates over time, Simple fact is even FCA vehicles have gotten better over time from 20+ years ago but so has their competitors.

 

[Hootbro]

Exactly. Consumer Reports has had a total boner for sticking it to Jeep....they always have, it seems, since the early 90's.

Yup! IIRC, CR got caught on both the Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper deviating from their standard course setup that they had used for many years in judging vehicles for testing rollover propensity to get either model to finally rollover. Isuzu successfully sued CR for the admission.

 

[jimbom]

Isuzu successfully sued CR for the admission.

Not true. LMGTFY
Neither Suzuki nor Isuzu were successful in their lawsuits. Suzuki sued CR for $60M. It was dismissed. Suzuki appealed. Before the appeal trial they settled with no monetary award.

Isuzu tried to jump on the bandwagon. Consumers Union won a jury trial in April 2000 over that lawsuit, which claimed that CR rigged a test so that the Trooper SUV would be prone to tip up.

https://tinyurl.com/va953zz

https://tinyurl.com/s7rvg2f


Finally, according to Wikipedia: "Over the years, over 200 Suzuki Samurai rollover lawsuits have been settled, and Suzuki's own expert witnesses testified the automaker was aware of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries involving Suzuki Samurai rollovers."

 

[jimbom]

Yup! IIRC, CR got caught on both the Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper deviating from their standard course setup that they had used for many years in judging vehicles for testing rollover propensity to get either model to finally rollover. Isuzu successfully sued CR for the admission.

Another interesting passage, this one from the lawsuit summary that popped up when I Googled this stuff.
https://tinyurl.com/rrnuups

"Even aside from the fact that CU fully disclosed its change in course, there is simply nothing improper about what it did. When CU first tested the Samurai on the long course, it didn't tip — a result consistent with the theory that it is safe, but also consistent with the theory that the long course is not challenging enough to detect the Samurai's design flaw. CU did what any conscientious researcher would do and redesigned its experiment to focus on the conditions that seemed more likely to detect a flaw. See, e.g., Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery 45 (Hutchinson rev. ed.1968) (1934) (noting that a scientist, after first detecting a condition, "might try to rearrange his experiments so as to make the effect reproducible"). It then ran the Samurai and several other vehicles through the course and found that the Samurai had a dramatically higher propensity to roll over — it tipped on several occasions while no other vehicle tipped once."

 

[Hootbro]

Not true. LMGTFY
Neither Suzuki nor Isuzu were successful in their lawsuits. Suzuki sued CR for $60M. It was dismissed. Suzuki appealed. Before the appeal trial they settled with no monetary award.

Isuzu tried to jump on the bandwagon. Consumers Union won a jury trial in April 2000 over that lawsuit, which claimed that CR rigged a test so that the Trooper SUV would be prone to tip up.

https://tinyurl.com/va953zz

https://tinyurl.com/s7rvg2f

Finally, according to Wikipedia: "Over the years, over 200 Suzuki Samurai rollover lawsuits have been settled, and Suzuki's own expert witnesses testified the automaker was aware of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries involving Suzuki Samurai rollovers."

That has nothing to do with what I said nor I made claim they won monetary damages. Isuzu proved in a 2000 case judgement that CR had lied but the jury claimed it was not malicious nor awarded any damages. I stand by my original statement that CR gamed their testing. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am not advocating that either the Samurai or Trooper did not have a propensity to tip over more than other SUV's of the time, just that CR is a shit organization in how they did their testing to pad a point they were trying to make and to get back to the original intent of this thread in that they are not be put on a pedestal when it comes to judging much of anything since they have known biases.

 

[dstephns]

This is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt but CR is great if you are thinking about buying appliances etc. Automobiles, I'm not so sure.
Do they do long term testing and do they have multiple vehicles that they draw their conclusions from? I suspect they look at reported issues that owners have but they don't take into account that many of these vehicles get utilized generally in much more severe environments than your average truck.
You do Moab or Rubicon trail stuff on a regular basis you are going to develope issues with suspension, and bodies etc. Also, many owners swap parts that impact reliability. Severe usage push the limits on a many components. I believe that most Jeep folks know this and are willing to deal with occasional problems that develope because they also understand how they use the vehicle. I have owned three Rubicon jeeps, my first being
a 2008, then a 2016 and now my JT. While I will admit that JT is too new to say whether it is reliable or not, the other two were great. And the 07's
and to a lesser degree the 08's were known to be a little more problematic. I think that happens though with any major platform change.
My days as a heavy duty offroader are behind me now but I still like heading into forests and deserts etc. I just usually find the easy way or the bypasses. LOL! I love my jeeps and I think they are reliable enough to keep buying them. I won't worry about what CR says. Nuf said.
Dave

 

[CJ5w4wdSmokyOnMyTail]

Consumer Reports has a very heavy bias toward safety tech. They absolutely gush over nanny systems that alert drivers to lane shifts, oncoming vehicles, blind spot warnings, pedestrian alerts, etc. CR's next priority is fuel efficiency. Finally, overall quality. These may be the priorities of CR's members and target demographic, but not so with most Jl/JT aficionados. Absolutely, overall quality does matter to Jeepers, but it is not what inspires a JL/JT purchase. What inspires us are the things that CR doesn't consider: customization ability and pure fun. Every complex nanny gadget added to a Jeep makes it cost more - which means less we can spend on the things we care about like custom seats or lights or bumpers. We accept crappy mileage and even questionable quality because we want something much different than what CR members want in their vehicles.

 

[jimbom]

That has nothing to do with what I said nor I made claim they won monetary damages. Isuzu proved in a 2000 case judgement that CR had lied but the jury claimed it was not malicious nor awarded any damages. I stand by my original statement that CR gamed their testing. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am not advocating that either the Samurai or Trooper did not have a propensity to tip over more than other SUV's of the time, just that CR is a shit organization in how they did their testing to pad a point they were trying to make and to get back to the original intent of this thread in that they are not be put on a pedestal when it comes to judging much of anything since they have known biases.

You said "Isuzu successfully sued CR for the admission." I would love to read your source for that.

I was interested enough to take the time to research it and what I read did not support that and I provided that source I read.

I did not offer my opinion on anything.

I don't take everyone's word just because they posted here. Particularly when it contradicts what I had thought to be true. So, sometimes I take the time to find out. A lot of times I'm wrong. Seriously, I would enjoy reading your source.

I also wonder what CR's motive would be to incorrectly uncover safety issues? Is the NHTSA also a "shit organization" for uncovering safety issues?

Hootbro, thank you for removing that last line -- I've taken it out of your quote on this post as well.

 

[jimbom]

Consumer Reports has a very heavy bias toward safety tech. They absolutely gush over nanny systems that alert drivers to lane shifts, oncoming vehicles, blind spot warnings, pedestrian alerts, etc. CR's next priority is fuel efficiency. Finally, overall quality. These may be the priorities of CR's members and target demographic, but not so with most Jl/JT aficionados. Absolutely, overall quality does matter to Jeepers, but it is not what inspires a JL/JT purchase. What inspires us are the things that CR doesn't consider: customization ability and pure fun. Every complex nanny gadget added to a Jeep makes it cost more - which means less we can spend on the things we care about like custom seats or lights or bumpers. We accept crappy mileage and even questionable quality because we want something much different than what CR members want in their vehicles.

I'm with you on the nanny systems. Didn't see the value in any offered on the Jeep and I'm glad they weren't standard. I suppose some consider the cruise control (non-adaptive) and back-up camera as worthless items that drive the cost up and I see their point. But I confess I appreciate those.

Sponsored