The article quoted is from the April, 2016 print issue of Consumer Reports.

Looking at the Corvette chart from the article here are some of the comparisons 2014 model/2015 model:

1. Overall reliability: Good/Poor
2. Engine Major: Excellent/Excellent
3. Engine Minor: Exc/Fair
4. Engine cooling: Exc/Fair
5. Exhaust: Good/Fair
6. Power Equipment: VG/Fair
7. Audio System: Good/Fair
8. Fuel System: VG/Exc

For 2014 all surveyed items were scored Excellent, Very Good, or Good.

For 2015 all surveyed items were Excellent except the following were scored Fair: Engine Minor, Engine Cooling, Electrical System, Climate System, Exhaust, Power Equipment, and Audio System.

As always the internals of the scoring system are not given.

Finally CR scores the 2016 model as predicted reliability Much Worse Than Average. "Based on the latest survey we expect reliability of new models will be 178% below average."

Since there were few changes in the car from 2014 to 2015 it's hard to see how reliability actually dropped from 2014 to 2015. The conclusions are suspect IMO.

 

What would the comments be if CU gave the C7 a great rating ?
Would their publication still be worthless ?

 

The biggest issue here is the secrecy Consumer Reports uses. They're not showing their work. Academically, this is simply not allowed. We have no idea what their criteria are, what their sample sizes are, what data they use, what formulas they used to derive their ratings. or literally ANYTHING else other than their reported results.

Their editorial style uses 'big words' to imply the validity of their study, so they'll say something like "This represents 740,000 vehicles" which makes people think, "Ooh! THAT must be valid!" and neglect to tell you that there were only 35,000 Corvettes made for the year they are testing.

But by hiding their data they are denying anyone else access so that their studies can be replicated. That's the essence of science. If you will not open-source your data, then you normally wouldn't even get published. It goes without saying that their stuff isn't peer reviewed.

That valid data is out there. GM has it in the form of actual repair and warranty records from all their service centers. They absolutely must be compiling and analyzing that data for internal use, but I haven't seen that they, or any other manufacturer, makes that data available for any of their models.

But for those people who still quote and hold credence in Consumer Reports, it's the blind leading the blind.

You can make up any scenario you want as a conjectural question. I'm sure if they were rated "great" GM and dealers would use that in their advertising one way or another, even though CR prohibits using their name in ads. But given their methodology as we know it, the answer is YES, it would still be worthless.

 

Not this again. BTW in before someone says Porsche

 

What would the comments be if CU gave the C7 a great rating ?
Would their publication still be worthless ?

I subscribe to CR. I don't think it's worthless. But I use the CR ratings based on testing differently than the CR reliability surveys, which are based on a relative scale. A "worse than average" reliability score is interesting but if "average" is really very good, I may well be satisfied with the product. It's not a deal-killer for me.

Finally the reliability score should pass a sniff test, and I don't think this one does. There is almost no difference between 2014 and 2015 Corvettes and I suspect big changes in reliability are a function of the survey, not the car.

 

, I subscribed for over 20 years to consumers report. Received many surveys from them. They are totally unreliable. If they are rating a dishwasher or some other appliance, they have some credibility. But not a whole lot.
They are more politically correct than anything else. Hence Tesla!

 

The editors read this forum. It is where they get their data!

 

iagree:

 

I actually waited until mid 2015 to buy a C7 since 1st year models sometimes have bugs. However, now it's established that the 2014 is the more reliable year according to CR?
Can understand the transmission score going down from 2014 to 2015 with the change from A6 to A8.
Other than the GPS/PDR red X issue, there were no changes in the engine, exhaust, power equipment, and audio system from 2014 to 2015 - so why would these go down? Just doesn't make sense. Something isn't right.

I've had my 2015 for 9 months with no major issues....knock on wood.

Back in 2005 I purchased a Honda Accord V6 EX since it was "one of the most reliable cars in production" according to CR. The transmission completely failed and had to be replaced by 72k miles.

And yeah- CR was all about Telsa Model S- could do no wrong. Yet, their forums are full of TONS of problems- especially for the first 2-3 years of production.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...-big-a-problem
-----------------
A Tesla Motor Club poll of 87 Model S owners revealed that a startling 28 of them had had their drive units replaced, a rate of 32 percent. Five of them (6 percent) had had multiple replacements.

"Every car in my area has had at least one DU replaced," noted one. "I'm on my fifth drivetrain at 12,000 miles," reported another.

One poor fellow was on his sixth--as far as we know, the record for drive-unit futility.
--------------------

 

CR gets on a kick where it knocks certain vehicles and unfortunately the C7 made their list, whether justified or not. I also drive another of their chit list vehicles that I bought exactly 11 years ago. I will describe problem #1, as soon as it occurs.

 

 

I for one could not care less about anything Consumer Reports has to say.

 

"the low-slung cabin, which requires near-acrobatic skill to access"
???? For whom?

This statement alone is enough to discredit anything they have to say about the car.

 

But I do put some stock in Car&Driver, and their long-term test C7 literally broke apart in front of them.

 

I mean seriously who cares, got my Vette love it and all is good.

 

For a publication claiming to offer objective information, there's a lot of over-done writing like this in Consumer Reports. The translation into ordinary English would be, "This is a low car, so it's a little more difficult to enter and exit, especially if you're not agile."

I remember another article years ago (different car than a Corvette) where they wrote that the trunk latch "menaced" the user. Translation into ordinary English, "You might hit your head on the trunk latch." (Cars don't actually have thoughts and emotions, and they are incapable of feeling anything about us, of course.)

This is a form of intellectual dishonesty, by the way, and would merit a low grade in a college journalism course.

Others already have mentioned the problems with Consumer Reports sampling and methods, which once led to different ratings for essentially identical cars built in the NUMMI (GM/Toyota joint venture) California plant and sold under different nameplates.

 

Your first mistake was looking at a copy of Consumer Reports.
I don't know how that rag is still in existence.

 

Car and Driver's long term C7 should have been taken out and SHOT.

 

I love my 2015 Z51 A8. However, I have had a CV joint and a torque converter fail.

I have 2 Pontiac G8's which have had no major issues. All TSB's are safety related, like the key issue etc. Wonderful cars!

I also have a 2010 Ford Flex that has 98K on it. So far, they replaced a couple rear trailing links and the transfer case at 96K. I had no issues with either, but dealer told me that they needed replacing. NO warranty issues period!

So, time will tell, but I'm not real happy about a 3 day repair that requires almost everything in the rear, as well as the torque tube to be removed to replace the Torque Converter.

 

CV joint ..torque converter...how many other new vehicles have these issues ? I never even heard of this stuff until i bought a C7..

Bet CR's readership has increased just because of this thread...
The negativity re; CR ... just may be sending the wrong signal ..