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

[bgenlvtex]

2021 Jeep Reports finds Consumer Reports the most unreliable auto related propaganda media.

Take that Consumer Reports, HAH!

Sponsored

 

[jimbom]

Consumer Reports give the 2021 Gladiator a "Recommended" rating and scores it 5 out of 5 for both predicted reliability and owner satisfaction.

It gives the Gladiator an overall score better than the Tacoma, Ranger, Colorado, Canyon and Frontier.

 

[Kevin_D]

Consumer Reports give the 2021 Gladiator a "Recommended" rating and scores it 5 out of 5 for both predicted reliability and owner satisfaction.

It gives the Gladiator an overall score better than the Tacoma, Ranger, Colorado, Canyon and Frontier.

I noticed that.
I was a bit surprised, as CR doesn't usually like Jeeps.

Kevin

 

[Caraholic]

Don’t waste your time on this article because it’s a twisted motorbuscuit propaganda piece...

 

[jimbom]

The Tacoma is a cult vehicle but has been known to have its issues
Nissan - junk— had one and recently rented a frontier - never again
Ranger and Colorado left in the dust-
No following, poor resale, almost same
price as full size- typical Detroit production car and don’t know why not
phased out- slow desth
Bronco— TBD

I had a 1994 Nissan Hardbody (pre "Frontier") that had an oil consumption problem from day 1. Nissan replaced the engine under warranty with no fuss, and I drove that truck for twenty years with almost zero problems. It was way more fun to drive than my next truck , a Ram, and I would have bought a Frontier or Tacoma if the Jeep truck hadn't come along.

1 year in with my first Jeep and the only significant problem has been the clutch recall. I had the steering box upgraded even though my steering wasn't nearly as bad as I had experienced prior in a Wrangler rental. Of course, the Jeep is heads and shoulders above a 90s Nissan in terms of ride, tech, amenities, off-road capability and bad-assedness.

 

[jimbom]

...
It’s all about making money
...

FYI, they are a non-profit organization. But yea, they need money to do what they do.

 

[stickshifter]

I don't mind hearing criticism of whatever vehicle I'm driving; sometimes I agree with it, sometimes I disagree. Either way, I don't worry about it or take it personally. Having said that, I think Motorbiscuit is the worst car review site on the web. Every article I've read has had spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and more importantly, incorrect information. The incorrect info is a bit odd, since - as far as I can tell - they don't actually test drive vehicles or conduct their own reviews. I think all they do is summarize other online reviews. Now I avoid the site, and I certainly I wouldn't lose any sleep over anything they print!

 

[aldo98229]

FYI, they are a non-profit organization. But yea, they need money to do what they do.

Consumer Reports readership has been in decline for years; they will do anything to get attention. Including making up the data for their reviews.

 

[Klutch]

Consumer Reports readership has been in decline for years; they will do anything to get attention. Including making up the data for their reviews.

This is not accurate. Consumer Reports bases their reliability ratings on OWNER EXPERIENCE. I was a subscriber to Consumer Reports for many years. Every year they would send me a survey about my experience with my vehicles. I would indicates on my survey any issues I had with my vehicles. Consumer Reports tabulates those surveys and that is where they get their predicted reliability ratings. So, if there's any bias, it must be on the part of the owners who completed their surveys. And in no way, shape or form do they, "make up the data".

I used to hear the same complaints from UAW guys: "Consumer Reports is biased against American vehicles! The only reason Japanese vehicles do better is because the dealers are better at convincing owners to do the maintenance!". Really? So, when the A/C vents fall out in a 6-month-old Buick, that's due to lack of maintenance? When the transmission goes out at 31,000 miles in a Ford Fusion, that's due to lack of maintenance?

I've read multiple reviews of Jeeps in Consumer Reports. As I recall, they always praise the durability and off-road capability. And, yeah, the reliability ratings aren't that great, but again, it's based on owner experiences.

 

[Rocksalt]

stupid Consumer Reports.... lol

 

[aldo98229]

This is not accurate. Consumer Reports bases their reliability ratings on OWNER EXPERIENCE. I was a subscriber to Consumer Reports for many years. Every year they would send me a survey about my experience with my vehicles. I would indicates on my survey any issues I had with my vehicles. Consumer Reports tabulates those surveys and that is where they get their predicted reliability ratings. So, if there's any bias, it must be on the part of the owners who completed their surveys. And in no way, shape or form do they, "make up the data".

I used to hear the same complaints from UAW guys: "Consumer Reports is biased against American vehicles! The only reason Japanese vehicles do better is because the dealers are better at convincing owners to do the maintenance!". Really? So, when the A/C vents fall out in a 6-month-old Buick, that's due to lack of maintenance? When the transmission goes out at 31,000 miles in a Ford Fusion, that's due to lack of maintenance?

I've read multiple reviews of Jeeps in Consumer Reports. As I recall, they always praise the durability and off-road capability. And, yeah, the reliability ratings aren't that great, but again, it's based on owner experiences.

As you indicate, as a subscriber Consumer Reports would send you an annual survey.

Right there lies the problem with Consumer Reports methodology: it does NOT use a random sample.

The way to minimize bias is precisely by targeting a random sample of respondents that is representative of the population. You don’t have a random sample when you mail surveys to your subscribers, to whom you recommend what to buy!

Telling subscribers what to buy and then asking them to evaluate it is not scientific research; that is garbage.

 

[DocMike]

THANK YOU!

As you indicate, as a subscriber Consumer Reports would send you an annual survey.

Right there lies the problem with Consumer Reports methodology: it does NOT use a random sample.

The way to minimize bias is precisely by targeting a random sample of respondents that is representative of the population. You don’t have a random sample when you mail surveys to your subscribers, to whom you recommend what to buy!

Telling subscribers what to buy and then asking them to evaluate it is not scientific research; that is garbage.

 

[Klutch]

As you indicate, as a subscriber Consumer Reports would send you an annual survey.

Right there lies the problem with Consumer Reports methodology: it does NOT use a random sample.

The way to minimize bias is precisely by targeting a random sample of respondents that is representative of the population. You don’t have a random sample when you mail surveys to your subscribers, to whom you recommend what to buy!

Telling subscribers what to buy and then asking them to evaluate it is not scientific research; that is garbage.

Using this logic, asking Jeep owners about their experience would not be valid because they're not a random sample.

There's nothing wrong with Consumer Reports asking vehicle owners about their experience. Whether or not those owners are subscribers to Consumer Reports is completely irrelevant. If you don't trust that information, OK. But it doesn't make the information invalid.

If you're simply trying to come up with ways to discredit Consumer Reports because you don't agree with them, well, sure. You're going to come up with some.

 

[jimbom]

Telling subscribers what to buy and then asking them to evaluate it is not scientific research; that is garbage.

So how do they have any data on Jeeps? They certainly never told anyone to buy one.

But I agree that you have a valid point. If there is another reliable source for product comparisons, please tell. Bubba down the street doesn't count.

 

[aldo98229]

Using this logic, asking Jeep owners about their experience would not be valid because they're not a random sample.

There's nothing wrong with Consumer Reports asking vehicle owners about their experience. Whether or not those owners are subscribers to Consumer Reports is completely irrelevant. If you don't trust that information, OK. But it doesn't make the information invalid.

If you're simply trying to come up with ways to discredit Consumer Reports because you don't agree with them, well, sure. You're going to come up with some.

You are incorrect. Consumer Reports makes a living rating all brands, comparing them against one another and recommending which ones to buy and which ones not to buy. So it needs to survey a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the buying public.

The issue is not that these are Jeep owners; the issue is that surveying subscribers is not representative of the total buying public. Consumer Reports member base is heavily biased towards Japanese imports by the simple fact that those are the products they consistently recommend. To then survey members and pretend that their views reflects the total market is fantasy.

Consumer Reports would be correct if it presented its findings as representative only of its subscriber base. But that wouldn’t give them the headlines or the website traffic they crave. So they are making statements about the total buying population without the data to back it up.

This distinction is not insignificant. It is the basis of proper sampling and of valid market research.

Sponsored