atreis wrote:
Gdetrailer wrote:
atreis wrote:
IMO, the more detailed pictures they provide are more useful - the one that shows the reliability/satisfaction scores for various aspects of the vehicle over time. That will let you know that a particular score, for instance, is a result of very low satisfaction with the Nav system (or whatever), but the rest of the car is basically fine.
The detailed ratings on vehicles will also let you see things such as the example from gmw photos - that a car is good for the first 4-5 years then suffers lots of problems. If you only plan to own it for 4 years, you might not care. If you're like me, and want to own it for at least 10 years, reliability as the car ages becomes more important.
Sometimes too many "detailed" pictures (especially when those pictures are intentionally crafted to skew the results) often muddy the water making your job of ferreting out "the best".
Get this straight folks, there is no "best".
EVERY vehicle has some faults where in design shortfalls that make it ugly or mechanical shortfalls which makes it unreliable.
The BEST thing to do is to PHYSICALLY go to a dealer AND DRIVE ONE YOURSELF.
Then YOU can figure out if you like what you see or not.
While you can't "test" reliablity you can get a feel for how well it is put together.. You can listen for noises, squeaks, clunks that may indicate bad assembly.
You can look and feel the interior, the materials and decide if the manufacturer cheaped out and use low quality materials.
None of the above can be assessed from a book.
You can ask other people for their "opinions" but you will get no further and often will make you choice harder. Why, simple, every person you talk to WILL have a DIFFERENT opinion on quality and fit and finish.
I deal with this a lot within my family.. I buy Fords and my BIL buys Chevys.. Doesn't mean his Chevys are junk or my Fords are junk.. It is just means we buy what we like.
There is no shortcuts here, if you want an unbiased opinion you need to to do your own homework (IE YOU TEST DRIVE)not rely on a book or others.
In reality, you have lots of good choices in vehicles, most of the manufacturers of trucks have stepped up to the plate and are delivering good trucks with plenty of HP and towing capacity.
You just simply need to go to each dealer and take a test drive, they don't charge for test drives.
IMO, it's better to get both data as well as your personal impression. Yes, there is no perfect vehicle, but just going on how it feels/drives when it's new is also a very imperfect approach. It doesn't tell you how that particular model is likely to fair 10 years down the road.
It's better to do BOTH. Get data about longevity over time (as long as you care about, at least) and personal impressions. Sometimes the most reliable car isn't the car for you. Sometimes the nicest car to drive when new, isn't the one that's going to still be nice to own/drive 10 years down the road. One usually has to balance these things and compromise. (e.g. Identify the models that have the reliability average you desire for the timeframe that you care about, then go test drive them and buy the one that suits you best, or costs the least, or whatever criteria is most important to you.)
Relying on FAULTY third party data and or FAULTY third party "personal opinions" will affect your your choice, often to the point you end up with something that does not fully satisfy YOU.
It is called MARKETING.
CR at one time when it was first published started out with good intentions but with any other magazine it eventually slid into the ditch of attempting to SWAY the readers "opinions" with over the top BIAS towards the product that was willing to COMPENSATE the magazine in one way or the other.
CR has also had a bad habit of HEAVILY using PRICE POINTS in their so called "evaluations". Typically the lower price points weighed more on their scale so many of their "recommendations" are for "VALUE".
Value as in CHEAP to buy, CHEAP to own, does not equate to BEST..
My example of this was CR rated GOLDSTAR VCRS as the BEST back in the heyday of low cost VCRs..
It wasn't for the best picture, nor the best sound, nor best reliability.. Nope none of those..
It was because it WAS THE CHEAPEST VCR ON THE MARKET WHICH HAD FOUR HEADS OR SOME OTHER GADGET.
Goldstars had a poorly designed transport, terrible heads and really bad video quality and to top it off 90% of them sold had bad reel sensors from the factory..
Even the factory supplied reel sensors were often bad..
Take CR with a grain of salt, it is more of an entertainment rag..
