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.

 

Consumer Reports should not be used to buy a car anyway. I remember one of my other cars was tagged with a black dot for body hardware and transmission. It was one of the best cars I ever owned. They never print the number of respondents for a car so I don't think they are statistically relevant. Interesting reading maybe but I would never use them as a high determining factor in a car purchase.

 

My only rub with CR is it is biased. As I understand it, CR is financially contributed to by the auto industry and would not survive solely on readership. This became evident a few years back. I recall for years that Honda had the high praises of CR - well, until Honda lowered or removed its financial contribution. Suddenly, Honda was not the golden product any longer.

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?

 

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.

 

So far I can tell you the 2014 Corvette is the best new car I've ever purchased with the least amount of warranty repairs. I've had mine for about 7 months and 11k miles. The problem with internet forums is everything is doom & gloom; everyone hates everything, bashes on stuff for being "garbage," etc. so it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt. All-in-all, it's an excellent car with no first-year bugs that I've discovered yet, and I fully intend to enjoy this car for years to come! Maybe in 5 years you can fly to TX and we'll have have a transaction though

 

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.

 

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.

 

I agree with you too a point. You really need to read the entire evaluation and not just their final conclusion and make the decision based on their test and what they used to evaluate the products.

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.

 

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.

 

Didn't someone point out a week ago that the sample was so small so as to be statistically irrelevant?

 

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.

 

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.

 

This wouldn't surprise me. Years ago, CR was dismissive of the notion of a performance car. All they cared about was safety, economy and reliability.

Those days are long gone.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

I guess you didn't buy a new Corvette then.

 

Now that is something I can completely get my arms around.

 

Consumer Reports is a joke!!!

 

So liking the Corvette was a joke.