Inscrutable Consumer Reports and Stingray Reliability
11-12-2014, 08:40 AM
#1
Drifting
Thread Starter
Inscrutable Consumer Reports and Stingray Reliability
Many of you diss CR but I know of no other unbiased party that publishes analyses and recommendations based upon aggregate reliability data. So I pay attention and perhaps others do as well.
The 2015 Buying Guide is out. As I suspected they would, they now recommend the 2015 Corvette, saying that "handling is pinpoint and acceleration is quick." They loved the Stingray when they drove it (August 2014) it but held off on recommending it at that time because of a lack of reliability data. Now that they have it, they give it a predicted reliability of "Average".
The only sports cars in their rankings that get higher road-test scores are the Porsche 911 (also recommended, with an average predicted reliability) and the BMW M235i (not recommended because of a much worse than average predicted reliability).
Here's the strange part. Looking at the ratings of the 2014 Stingray as a used car, the report breaks it down into about 17 aspects, such as engine (much better than average), drive system (much better than average), etc. In 13 categories, the Stingray is much better than average. In 4, it is better than average. Not a single score of average or worse. We're talking Toyota reliability here. So what's the overall score? Average. Huh?
I think the reason is that CR is reluctant to base an overall score on one year. They look at a minimum of three years of data. They rate the 2013 Corvette as much worse than average, and the 2012 as better than average. So the 2013 data brings down the 2014 car. This might make sense except that the car was completely redesigned for 2014. Oh, well.
I report this because it runs very much counter to the "The Sky is Falling" anecdotes that you sometimes read here. The fact is that the Stingray is an exceptionally well-made car, one that seems likely to hold up well, even very well, over time.
I'll be buying one in about 5 years when the used ones reach my budget level, probably from one of you, who will have refreshed your fleet with something even fancier. Until then, happy motoring.
The 2015 Buying Guide is out. As I suspected they would, they now recommend the 2015 Corvette, saying that "handling is pinpoint and acceleration is quick." They loved the Stingray when they drove it (August 2014) it but held off on recommending it at that time because of a lack of reliability data. Now that they have it, they give it a predicted reliability of "Average".
The only sports cars in their rankings that get higher road-test scores are the Porsche 911 (also recommended, with an average predicted reliability) and the BMW M235i (not recommended because of a much worse than average predicted reliability).
Here's the strange part. Looking at the ratings of the 2014 Stingray as a used car, the report breaks it down into about 17 aspects, such as engine (much better than average), drive system (much better than average), etc. In 13 categories, the Stingray is much better than average. In 4, it is better than average. Not a single score of average or worse. We're talking Toyota reliability here. So what's the overall score? Average. Huh?
I think the reason is that CR is reluctant to base an overall score on one year. They look at a minimum of three years of data. They rate the 2013 Corvette as much worse than average, and the 2012 as better than average. So the 2013 data brings down the 2014 car. This might make sense except that the car was completely redesigned for 2014. Oh, well.
I report this because it runs very much counter to the "The Sky is Falling" anecdotes that you sometimes read here. The fact is that the Stingray is an exceptionally well-made car, one that seems likely to hold up well, even very well, over time.
I'll be buying one in about 5 years when the used ones reach my budget level, probably from one of you, who will have refreshed your fleet with something even fancier. Until then, happy motoring.
11-12-2014, 08:55 AM
#2
Le Mans Master
Many of you diss CR but I know of no other unbiased party that publishes analyses and recommendations based upon aggregate reliability data. So I pay attention and perhaps others do as well.
The 2015 Buying Guide is out. As I suspected they would, they now recommend the 2015 Corvette, saying that "handling is pinpoint and acceleration is quick." They loved the Stingray when they drove it (August 2014) it but held off on recommending it at that time because of a lack of reliability data. Now that they have it, they give it a predicted reliability of "Average".
The only sports cars in their rankings that get higher road-test scores are the Porsche 911 (also recommended, with an average predicted reliability) and the BMW M235i (not recommended because of a much worse than average predicted reliability).
Here's the strange part. Looking at the ratings of the 2014 Stingray as a used car, the report breaks it down into about 17 aspects, such as engine (much better than average), drive system (much better than average), etc. In 13 categories, the Stingray is much better than average. In 4, it is better than average. Not a single score of average or worse. We're talking Toyota reliability here. So what's the overall score? Average. Huh?
I think the reason is that CR is reluctant to base an overall score on one year. They look at a minimum of three years of data. They rate the 2013 Corvette as much worse than average, and the 2012 as better than average. So the 2013 data brings down the 2014 car. This might make sense except that the car was completely redesigned for 2014. Oh, well.
I report this because it runs very much counter to the "The Sky is Falling" anecdotes that you sometimes read here. The fact is that the Stingray is an exceptionally well-made car, one that seems likely to hold up well, even very well, over time.
I'll be buying one in about 5 years when the used ones reach my budget level, probably from one of you, who will have refreshed your fleet with something even fancier. Until then, happy motoring.
The 2015 Buying Guide is out. As I suspected they would, they now recommend the 2015 Corvette, saying that "handling is pinpoint and acceleration is quick." They loved the Stingray when they drove it (August 2014) it but held off on recommending it at that time because of a lack of reliability data. Now that they have it, they give it a predicted reliability of "Average".
The only sports cars in their rankings that get higher road-test scores are the Porsche 911 (also recommended, with an average predicted reliability) and the BMW M235i (not recommended because of a much worse than average predicted reliability).
Here's the strange part. Looking at the ratings of the 2014 Stingray as a used car, the report breaks it down into about 17 aspects, such as engine (much better than average), drive system (much better than average), etc. In 13 categories, the Stingray is much better than average. In 4, it is better than average. Not a single score of average or worse. We're talking Toyota reliability here. So what's the overall score? Average. Huh?
I think the reason is that CR is reluctant to base an overall score on one year. They look at a minimum of three years of data. They rate the 2013 Corvette as much worse than average, and the 2012 as better than average. So the 2013 data brings down the 2014 car. This might make sense except that the car was completely redesigned for 2014. Oh, well.
I report this because it runs very much counter to the "The Sky is Falling" anecdotes that you sometimes read here. The fact is that the Stingray is an exceptionally well-made car, one that seems likely to hold up well, even very well, over time.
I'll be buying one in about 5 years when the used ones reach my budget level, probably from one of you, who will have refreshed your fleet with something even fancier. Until then, happy motoring.
11-12-2014, 08:56 AM
#3
Racer
Many of you diss CR but I know of no other unbiased party that publishes analyses and recommendations based upon aggregate reliability data. So I pay attention and perhaps others do as well.
The 2015 Buying Guide is out. As I suspected they would, they now recommend the 2015 Corvette, saying that "handling is pinpoint and acceleration is quick." They loved the Stingray when they drove it (August 2014) it but held off on recommending it at that time because of a lack of reliability data. Now that they have it, they give it a predicted reliability of "Average".
The only sports cars in their rankings that get higher road-test scores are the Porsche 911 (also recommended, with an average predicted reliability) and the BMW M235i (not recommended because of a much worse than average predicted reliability).
Here's the strange part. Looking at the ratings of the 2014 Stingray as a used car, the report breaks it down into about 17 aspects, such as engine (much better than average), drive system (much better than average), etc. In 13 categories, the Stingray is much better than average. In 4, it is better than average. Not a single score of average or worse. We're talking Toyota reliability here. So what's the overall score? Average. Huh?
I think the reason is that CR is reluctant to base an overall score on one year. They look at a minimum of three years of data. They rate the 2013 Corvette as much worse than average, and the 2012 as better than average. So the 2013 data brings down the 2014 car. This might make sense except that the car was completely redesigned for 2014. Oh, well.
I report this because it runs very much counter to the "The Sky is Falling" anecdotes that you sometimes read here. The fact is that the Stingray is an exceptionally well-made car, one that seems likely to hold up well, even very well, over time.
I'll be buying one in about 5 years when the used ones reach my budget level, probably from one of you, who will have refreshed your fleet with something even fancier. Until then, happy motoring.
The 2015 Buying Guide is out. As I suspected they would, they now recommend the 2015 Corvette, saying that "handling is pinpoint and acceleration is quick." They loved the Stingray when they drove it (August 2014) it but held off on recommending it at that time because of a lack of reliability data. Now that they have it, they give it a predicted reliability of "Average".
The only sports cars in their rankings that get higher road-test scores are the Porsche 911 (also recommended, with an average predicted reliability) and the BMW M235i (not recommended because of a much worse than average predicted reliability).
Here's the strange part. Looking at the ratings of the 2014 Stingray as a used car, the report breaks it down into about 17 aspects, such as engine (much better than average), drive system (much better than average), etc. In 13 categories, the Stingray is much better than average. In 4, it is better than average. Not a single score of average or worse. We're talking Toyota reliability here. So what's the overall score? Average. Huh?
I think the reason is that CR is reluctant to base an overall score on one year. They look at a minimum of three years of data. They rate the 2013 Corvette as much worse than average, and the 2012 as better than average. So the 2013 data brings down the 2014 car. This might make sense except that the car was completely redesigned for 2014. Oh, well.
I report this because it runs very much counter to the "The Sky is Falling" anecdotes that you sometimes read here. The fact is that the Stingray is an exceptionally well-made car, one that seems likely to hold up well, even very well, over time.
I'll be buying one in about 5 years when the used ones reach my budget level, probably from one of you, who will have refreshed your fleet with something even fancier. Until then, happy motoring.
Lastly, CR does not rate by stats alone. In all fairness it can't. It is very difficult to quantify gut feel. It is very difficult to design-in efficacy. That means bias comes in to play since achieving a desired result by the writer is a crap shoot.
Anyone care to beat this up?
11-12-2014, 09:36 AM
#4
Lastly, CR does not rate by stats alone. In all fairness it can't. It is very difficult to quantify gut feel. It is very difficult to design-in efficacy. That means bias comes in to play since achieving a desired result by the writer is a crap shoot.
Anyone care to beat this up?
[/QUOTE]
I use CR for toasters and electric blankets. That's it.
Anyone care to beat this up?
[/QUOTE]I use CR for toasters and electric blankets. That's it.
11-12-2014, 09:41 AM
#5
Le Mans Master
11-12-2014, 10:28 AM
#6
Race Director
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Phila Suburbs 2023 C8 & 2013 650ix
Posts: 10,426
Received 2,225 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
VINDIC8R, I don't know where you get your misinformation, but that's what it is.
CR is a valuable tool for evaluating anything you want to buy. Obviously, it's not the only tool that buyers should use.
CR is a valuable tool for evaluating anything you want to buy. Obviously, it's not the only tool that buyers should use.
11-12-2014, 10:31 AM
#7
Drifting
Thread Starter
That is simply not supported by any evidence and directly contradicts their statements about their funding sources. So yes, I care to beat it up. Perhaps you are confusing it with Consumer Digest.
11-12-2014, 10:49 AM
#8
Melting Slicks
In the past I found them to ignore the efficiency of a refrigerator and based their ratings on its ability to maintain their selected temperatures which were arbitrary at best. They condemned power disc brakes when it was an option as being unnecessary and rated audio products on their built in speakers rather then how they would really be used as a component to external amplified speakers.
11-12-2014, 11:11 AM
#9
Advanced
Member Since: Jan 2007
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think CR is a good tool for many electronics such as cameras because by the time they test and report on some items they're already obsolete or inferior to newer models.
11-12-2014, 11:12 AM
#10
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: I live my life by 2 rules. 1) Never share everything you know. 2)
Posts: 136,148
Received 2,401 Likes
on
1,366 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13, '16-'17-'18
Didn't someone point out a week ago that the sample was so small so as to be statistically irrelevant?
11-12-2014, 11:27 AM
#11
Race Director
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Phila Suburbs 2023 C8 & 2013 650ix
Posts: 10,426
Received 2,225 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
They condemned power disc brakes when it was an option as being unnecessary
I would love to see that substantiated. I doubt that anybody could since it's almost ancient history.
I would love to see that substantiated. I doubt that anybody could since it's almost ancient history.
11-12-2014, 02:50 PM
#12
Drifting
Thread Starter
Somebody said that, but it's not accurate. The folks at CR won't publish figures unless they have a statistically signifant body of data. One of problems with niche cars like the Corvette is that they sometimes don't have enough data. In the case of the Stingray (and the Porsche 911), apparently they do.
11-12-2014, 02:51 PM
#13
Drifting
Thread Starter
Those days are long gone.
11-12-2014, 04:25 PM
#14
Race Director
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Phila Suburbs 2023 C8 & 2013 650ix
Posts: 10,426
Received 2,225 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
Well it would surprise me because disc brakes were a obvious safety item. I'm sure it's a bogus claim like most that put down CR.
11-12-2014, 05:52 PM
#15
Instructor
Member Since: Feb 2008
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suddenly the forum is filled with a bunch of high falootin "Statistics Experts".
So, how many samples do you need to characterize an automobile's reliability? How many samples does CR rely on before they publish a rating? I am guessing that CR, unlike the highly esteemed CF members posting these comments, actually has answers to those two questions.
The Corvette is a high performance car and it is likely going to be unreliable when compared to a Camry or some other 4 banger optimised for fuel economy, safety, and reliability. That does not mean CR is biased or whatever other ignorant "common knowledge" nonsense that gets passed off for fact here.
Please feel free to bash me as some Obamacare loving left wing pinko fascist so you can restore order in your psyche.
Flame On
So, how many samples do you need to characterize an automobile's reliability? How many samples does CR rely on before they publish a rating? I am guessing that CR, unlike the highly esteemed CF members posting these comments, actually has answers to those two questions.
The Corvette is a high performance car and it is likely going to be unreliable when compared to a Camry or some other 4 banger optimised for fuel economy, safety, and reliability. That does not mean CR is biased or whatever other ignorant "common knowledge" nonsense that gets passed off for fact here.
Please feel free to bash me as some Obamacare loving left wing pinko fascist so you can restore order in your psyche.
Flame On
Last edited by herman2p; 11-13-2014 at 01:10 PM.
11-12-2014, 06:41 PM
#16
My philosophy has always been to do the complete opposite of what Consumer Reports recommends as it pertains to which cars to purchase and that's worked out pretty good.
ie. They strongly recommend the Prius. Didn't get one.
ie. They strongly recommend the Prius. Didn't get one.
11-12-2014, 07:00 PM
#17
Race Director
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Phila Suburbs 2023 C8 & 2013 650ix
Posts: 10,426
Received 2,225 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
11-12-2014, 07:14 PM
#19
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2000
Location: Pottsville, PA. USA Home Of America's Oldest Brewery Yuengling
Posts: 9,063
Received 2,239 Likes
on
1,033 Posts
11-12-2014, 07:23 PM
#20
Race Director
Member Since: Jun 2005
Location: Phila Suburbs 2023 C8 & 2013 650ix
Posts: 10,426
Received 2,225 Likes
on
1,141 Posts
So liking the Corvette was a joke.