CNN Money [via Yahoo! Finance] lists Consumer Reports' (CR) 11 worst vehicles. Not surprisingly, the list is SUV-intensive. In a move bound to anger snow belters, mud pluggers and boat luggers, CR rated all SUVs "as most people would drive them in the SUV category." In other words, without taking their off-road abilities into consideration. Chrysler can't be too happy; they manufacture four of the 11 losers (one Dodge and three Jeeps but no Sebring). GM has three cars on the list, Toyota has two, and Suzuki and Ford each have one. Four of TTAC's Ten Worst Automobiles appear on CR's list. Here are their 11 worst, with scores out of a possible 100. Those with the double ignominy of being on both Consumer Reports' and TTAC's lists are marked with an asterisk (*).
Jeep Wrangler – 17
Hummer H3 (5 cyl) – 27*
Jeep Liberty Sport – 27
Chevy Aveo5 – 32*
Dodge Nitro SLT – 33*
Toyota FJ Cruiser – 36
Toyota Yaris – 36
Suzuki Forenza – 36
Jeep Patriot Limited – 42
Chevy Trailblazer – 43*
Mercury Grand Marquis – 43
To cut Suzuki a bit of slack, and to add to GM’s tally: the Forenza is a GMDAT product, just like the Aveo5.
“as most people would drive them in the SUV category” without taking their off-road abilities into consideration.
Translation: If we tested them off-road, we might have to say good things about them and that might offend our greenie subscribers. Next issue, we test tow vehicles without towing anything and deplore their gas mileage.
Granted the Wrangler and FJ both spend a fair amount of time on pavement, but how can you completely ignore the focus of their design and then judge them on the same scale as a Yaris or Grand Marquis? Even for Yahoo! Finance it’s pretty silly.
Up next, we’ll be comparing the off-road capabilities of the H1 versus a Solstice.
This list was already invalidated by the cretins that created it in the first place. For example, for the Yaris:
It actually ranks at the top of the list in both reliability and low cost of ownership, but those factors are not included in Consumer Reports’ basic vehicle score.
Then exactly, prey tell, did they use to create this list? Nearly all of the other entries in the list have similar qualifiers, so this is utter caca. I don’t even know why TTAC is even giving this list the light of day.
@ andyinsdca:
“I don’t even know why TTAC is even giving this list the light of day.”
TTAC needs to bring this incredibly incompetently assembled list to the light of day because Consumer Reports, for whatever reason, is perceived by the general public as an authority on automobiles.
Translation: If we tested them off-road, we might have to say good things about them and that might offend our greenie subscribers. Next issue, we test tow vehicles without towing anything and deplore their gas mileage.
I don’t think you know the language they’re speaking. Do you live in the urban/suburban USA? While that’s the point of such vehicles, their sales numbers indicate that they’re consumed, not used as intended.
Add to Hummer’s problems – one stuck in the Ohio snow – while cars drive by:
http://www.env-econ.net/2008/03/picture-of-the.html
Donal Fagan :No way that Hummer is stuck.My wifes Jimmy could walk out of there.
And why eleven? Do they think more is better (ala Spinal Tap)? Or maybe they thought that ten just wasn’t enough for all of the really really bad vehicles on the road. If that is the case, you’d think they’d extend the list to twelve so they could include the deplorable Sebring. Or thirteen to include the grotesque Compass. And what about the H2 and Mitsubishi Raider? I’m boggled.
Consumer Reports did not create this list, CNN Money created it. The list was taken out of context in order to create a sensationalist headline (I guess it worked).
“I don’t think you know the language they’re speaking. Do you live in the urban/suburban USA? While that’s the point of such vehicles, their sales numbers indicate that they’re consumed, not used as intended.”
Yes I do, that’s why I included the “translation”. You can’t rate a vehicle good or bad based on how the consumer ends up using it despite it’s intended purpose by the manufacture. That’s why you can’t compare an economy car to an exotic sports car or tow vehicle and say the last two get lousy gas mileage compared to the economy car. It would be like comparing a Cessna to Boeing 757 and saying “we think the Boeing is a better deal because you can carry more people and luggage”.
I don’t think you know the language they’re speaking. Do you live in the urban/suburban USA? While that’s the point of such vehicles, their sales numbers indicate that they’re consumed, not used as intended.
But that’s unfair to the makers of true off-road vehicles, because they can’t mandate that people who buy their cars go four-wheelin’. They made their cars for one setting, and are now getting penalized because no one uses them that way? Ridiculous.
This is the worst list I have ever seen. I know that some of these are pretty bad, but there are far worse. Seriously, they put the Patriot on the list but not the Compass? At least the Patriot has the option of four-wheel drive. And although it may be poor to drive in the city, I don’t think the Wrangler is a bad vehicle either.
oh my GOD
I went to Culebra, PR a few weeks ago and all you can rent there are Jeeps – and let me tell you, without our Wrangler, we would have been SCREWED.
That thing absolutely SUCKS on highways and whatnot (I’ve driven one in America), but on those tiny, twisty low speed roads the short wheelbase is a blessing – and when we took it offroad (as in, really, really off road) the thing was unstoppable – especially once you figure out the low ranges and 4wd locks and whatnot.
If I could post pics I would, but I’ll just link them instead.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/cretinx/DSC09748.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/cretinx/DSC09733.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/cretinx/DSC09692.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/cretinx/DSC09687.jpg
I can honestly say Jeep has every business building this vehicle if people are actually going to use it – its the real deal. Just don’t use it like your average, regular suburban bimbo box.
I do believe this list should be invalidated on the grounds that we have not one, but TWO Toyotas on it.
I totally agree with andyinsdca. Something about this list doesn’t make sense. I can’t believe the Toyota Yaris is on this list when (at least in Europe) it was voted car of the year.
I have a Toyota Yaris and it is a corky little car. Good handling, reliable, fuel efficient and cute as a button!
I would like to know what the metric they used to compile this list.
I don’t see why this list is so controversial. This is simply CR’s scorings of the vehicles based on their usual battery of tests. It doesn’t take reliablity into account, crash test results, or atypical use (such as hardcore offroading). And as Frank points out, 4 of the 10 are also on TTAC’s 10 Worst List. Why is the Compass absent? My guess is that CR tested only the Patriot — what is the point of testing nearly identical vehicles?
Oh, and I am a Toyota owner as well, just not the models pointed out in this list.
Do you guys seriously not know how CR came up with these scores? It’s not rocket science; they judge each car on set of objective criteria, ride, handling, interior space, etc etc and then give them and unweighted numerical final score (how every publication basically does it actually). This means that certain cars will invariably score worse than others, for example, a vehicle that is geared towards off-roading such as a Jeep will obviously compromise ride, handling, interior space, etc and thus score poorly on this set of objective criteria.
They never said these were the worst cars (clearly they recognize the function of such vehicles) but merely that these are the ones that scored lowest based on their formula.
Fair is fair.
Let’s rate Consumer Reports on how they’re actually used. Car buyers use CR in the belief that they are getting relevant data and are making an “informed” decision. Based on this 11 Worst list, Consumer Reports = FAIL.
I wonder if they rate the Corvette or the Porsche 911 based on how it is used by most people? Since most people use them as daily driver at or near the speed limit, I would say they should rank them quite low since an Accord or Camry would do a better job at being a daily driver.
Anything with the Suzuki name on is should be on the list weather it is a 2 or 4 wheeled version. I think they are competing with the big 2.8 on use of cheap plastic.
Hey mikey! Take another look – I asked and he responded:
http://www.env-econ.net/2008/03/picture-of-the.html
Note that that list was compiled by CNN, not Consumer Reports itself. Basically, they just listed the vehicles that got the lowest scores in CR’s on-road tests (which ignores off-road ability, reliability, and cost of ownership, amoung other factors). CR, of course, tests vehicles in groups of four or five similar vehicles, so, no, they didn’t test a Hummer H3 against a Toyota Yaris, although they do rank the two on the same 100 point scale.
windswords/carshark:
I understand that this magazine is a crock of shit. I don’t agree with what’s presented here. If it was Sport Compact Car reviewing duallies or Off-Road Magazine comparing the Elise and Boxster, I could see the fallacy in the comparison, but this is a consumer-oriented article.
The Ford F150 has outsold every other vehicle for 30 years or something insane like that, yet has capabilities that will extremely rarely, if ever, be used by consumers. And, while some features are added to appeal to the mass-market, it’s also a vehicle that is designed as a tool for physical labor, off-roading, and towing. Calling a car a bad choice for consumers doesn’t have any barriers in front of it; if they think it’s bad, they should call it bad. They’re not Off-Road Magazine, or testing tow ratings for Horse Trailer Quarterly. I’d hope that they’d say that the Elise is shitty for towing and utterly useless off-road. While unfair to the intended purpose of the vehicles, you must consider the context.
And as far as the list of cars being good choices for consumers, I don’t think it’s outlandish to say that most of those vehicles aren’t well suited for a majority of consumers, and that some are truly utter crap. Save the Wrangler and Yaris, none of them are even really competitive in their classes, and there are much better choices for a primary vehicle than those two.
Look at the wheels on the stuck hummer. That is your answer.
KatiePuckrik :
March 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“I can’t believe the Toyota Yaris is on this list ……I have a Toyota Yaris and it is a corky little car. Good handling, reliable, fuel efficient and cute as a button!”
KatiePuckrik :
March 5th, 2008 at 11:58 am
“Toyota cars are neither good looking or interesting, but the Corolla epitomises what Toyota are about. Taking a formula and refining it over generations.”
Ummm am I missing something? So are they not good looking or are they cute?
The weird hostility that many enthusiasts show toward CR is pathetic.
As some have rightly pointed out, the word CONSUMER is important here. If you don’t share there values fine. The average consumer doesn’t really give a rip about the buff mag and website view of cars and they outnumber us by a wide margin.
BTW, an engineering mag (Design News?) did an article on CR’s testing last summer. In it they interviewed a number of engineers from the Debt3 and found that they held CR’s testing in high regard and the go to CR to learn how to improve their vehicles.
If Detroits engineers can have open minds on CR’s work perhaps the rest of us should consider whether WE are objective in our criticism.
Bunter
Monstrous styling aside, is the Sebring that bad a car? I mean, when you get down to it, most of its characteristics (fuel economy, power, handling, safety, etc) are pretty much adequate for the midsize driving-appliance segment.
That the Fusion and Malibu have lapped them (and almost caught up with the Accord) is more a testament to Ford and Chevy than an argument for Sebring being one of the “11 worst.”
Seriously, they put the Patriot on the list but not the Compass? At least the Patriot has the option of four-wheel drive.
Tell me what else you can buy for $18k that has 4×4, 28 MPG on the highway, and can comfortably carry a family of four plus luggage and camping gear. If you can get past the tacky hard-plastic interior, it really is a sweet deal for a lot of folks.
Good lord, I sound like a Chrysler honk today. That’s scary.
Sherman Lin,
The Yaris is the exception. Try looking at an Avensis without falling into a coma…..
Windswords: Translation: If we tested them off-road, we might have to say good things about them and that might offend our greenie subscribers. Next issue, we test tow vehicles without towing anything and deplore their gas mileage.
In fact, they do test them offroad. I’ve been to their testing grounds, and ridden in an SUV on one of their extremely rigorous off-road testing runs.
But most people don’t drive them offroad.
But that’s unfair to the makers of true off-road vehicles, because they can’t mandate that people who buy their cars go four-wheelin’. They made their cars for one setting, and are now getting penalized because no one uses them that way? Ridiculous.
They may be capable of going off road, but that’s all image stuff that most buyers like to identify with, but don’t do. Read High and Mighty, by Keith Bradsher.
I’m at a loss. The Yaris is a comfortable ride and handles fairly well, all things considered (I might even go as far as saying that it was fun).
The Wranglers, while not very highway-friendly, are just fine in city.. and HOW can you ignore the off-road capabilities? That’s what a Wrangler is about!! Take one of those off-road in 4-lo and you’ll never be bothered by the ride, trust me.
While I didn’t get to take the FJ off-road, it was actually a pretty comfortable ride. From what I read, it’s one of the current best stock off-roaders.
Now, the Aveo deserves to be on there without any questions. I drove one for a few months (not my choice). It handled like a slopppy full-sized SUV with bad shocks and no sway bars. It’s brakes sucked, there was no interior space, etc. etc… promptly bought myself an xA.
But seriously, the Yaris, FJ, and Wrangler??
Katie,
Can you define “corky” for those of us in USA? I love the sound of it, but I’m not sure how to use it. Would the original xB be a corky car? How about the early ’90s bathtub-like Mazda Protege?
You can go read the CNN “story” yourself:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/autos/0802/gallery.2008_cr_worst_cars/index.html
If you read each entry’s text you can at least get some feeling for why it was rated so poorly.
If you read the text for the Yaris, for example, you will see that it is noted tops for reliability and ownership costs and that the automatic-transmission version was ranked high enough to easily miss the bottom-11 list.
One thing that seems inconsistent is that several vehicles are noted for bad reliability in the “lows” catagory but the Yaris was not noted for good reliability in the “highs” category; instead the text noted excellent reliability but then stated that reliability wasn’t considered for this contest. If not considered, then why is it dinging the other vehicles?
Someone has to weigh in in favor of the Grand Marquis, so I will. Great car, one of the best rather than one of the worst. It is not to everybody’s taste, and Ford has not updated it as I would have liked, but in its essence it is still a much better car than most of the cars Consumer Reports loves–the Grand Marquis is comfortable, safe, cheap, reliable, and has a certain, completely unexpected “corkiness!”
OK Donal I can see it now, he has got her high centered.Tried to go through something higher than his axles.
Proves a theory though,just cause a guy has megabucks,doesn’t mean he knows how to drive.
Driver should take on off roading course.
Or he could take a job at CR where driving skills are not required,off or on road.
I love some of their subjective complaints; take the Marquis’ engine noise. The only thing better than a V8’s growl is buying it for the same price (or less) than a comparable Camry/Accord/Fusion/etc.
CR does have a dedicated off-road test course and they do towing tests on vehicles where appropriate.
A lot of these comments demonstrate that some here are commenting on tests you have never read, and procedures you know nothing about.
If you factor these things higher than they do, yippee! Go with your own priorities. That’s cool. Read mags that come from you point-of-view.
An intelligent reader must factor in the point-of-view of the publication and compare it’s ratings with their own POV. Whether it is CR or specialty mags or the Freep.
We in the enthusiast community sometimes need to get over ourselves (collectively) and realize that we are not the entire automotive universe.
with attitude,
Bunter
I’d call it an accurate list of vehicles you do not want to buy if all you do is commute to work and back.
With the glaring exception of the Wrangler, I have no problem with this list.
That said, the Wrangler is an a very small list of Cars I’m Going to Buy.
This headline is EXTREMELY MISLEADING!
To say that “Consumer Reports 11 Worst List Ignore SUVs Off-Roading Abilities” is JUST PLAIN WRONG!
If you bother to actually READ the CNN Money article, out of the 6 SUVs that it lists (along with one crossover and four cars) it specifically states that “HIGHS” of 4 of the SUVs (Jeep Wrangler, Hummer H3, Jeep Liberty and Toyota FJ Cruiser) is their OFF-ROAD ABILITY!
OFF-ROAD ABILITY IS NOT IGNORED IN THE CNN MONEY ARTICLE!
Nor is Off-Road Ability ignored in Consumer Reports rankings!
Consumer Reports bases their rankings on MORE than just off-road ability!
Furthermore, snow belters and boat luggers are not necessarily concerned with off-road ability, although it is possible. This move is NOT bound to anger anyone with half a brain or the ability to read the whole CNN Money article!
Consumer Reports does not rank any SUVs among the top 10 of the vehicles they’ve tested. But they do rank several SUVs much more highly than the basement-dwellers mentioned in the CNN Money article, while also making note of their Off-Road ability.
I’d call it an accurate list of vehicles you do not want to buy if all you do is commute to work and back.
Pretty much. The problem is not with the list per se, but with the description given to it. I’m not grabbing the keys to any of these vehicles for my next road trip. In theory I like Panthers (the best of their worst), but we all know they are not what they could be and should be in 2008. If properly labeled, I think the list is pretty reasonable. But it ain’t, so it ain’t.
I think a great point that this Consumer’s article brings up is the quote “We’re rating these cars as most people would drive them in the SUV category.”
I know that this is a free country. I know that, given a decent income, consumers are allowed to buy whatever they see fit. I’m not against SUVs and P/U trucks. I myself LOVE sports cars, and wouldn’t mind the huge fuel penalty for the greater performance. That said:
This quote, followed by the comments on the SUVs in the article, prove that a great sum of SUV owners are complete idiots when it comes to car shopping. Priorities are out of the window for most SUV buyers. I won’t get into what I believe qualifies for SUV buying, but when I buy a car, the first thing I think about is, “What do I need this car to do for me?” Next up is, “What will this car, by its design nature, do for me?” When you compare the answers to these two questions, they should be right on track.
To help illustrate – you don’t go buy a toaster when you need a microwave. You don’t buy a high-end gaming computer when you need mobility. You don’t buy headache pills when you have a mouth sore.
So, going back to my two questions, and keeping the “you don’t..” paragraph in mind, and also referring to the article’s quote, you DON’T buy a Wrangler when you need to transport 3-4 family members to school and work.
“What do I want the car to do?” – Transport, comfortably and safely, in city and on highway, multiple passengers.
“What will this car, by nature, do?” – Take you through the worst [or best, depending on your POV ;) ] off-road situation, get you over and through most obstacles, and consequentially offer a sub-par on-road ride and poor fuel economy (plus lack of space) due to the off-road NATURE of the vehicle’s design.
Now, that being said, I’m still confused about the Yaris rating. SUVs aside, the Yaris is, in fact, what a lot of people need – cheap, reliable, decently comfortable transportation for in-city travel. Where’s the problem?
— As far as the Aveo goes, the list of Cons is fairly short, IMO. There were a ton of things wrong with the Aveo, especially compared to its rivals (Yaris, xA, Fit). Honestly, I always though it next to impossible to have a stock car that wasn’t at all comfortable AND lacked any sort of positive handling characteristics. I mean, how can you go wrong on BOTH accounts?
— Again on the FJ, I’ve driven brand-spanking-new family sedans that were less comfortable! For what it is, the FJ handles and rides pretty damn well.
— Oddly enough, from my experience, they hit the nail on the head with their Trailblazer comments. After 15 minutes of driving I was out of that deathtrap. Unfortunately, I had to keep one as a rental a few months later while my car was being worked on (it was the only vehicle available from the local rental agency). Let’s just say that I waited to run my errands for a few days…
— Going back to the Wrangler, while I might be in the minority (and I had the privilege of driving rather than riding in the Wrangler), the in-city driving was actually sort of fun. I wouldn’t go as far as to say comfortable, but definitely something I could live with on a daily basis if I off-roaded enough to own a 4×4.
(I can’t comment on the other cars since I lack first-hand experience, so this isn’t to say that the other cars not mentioned DO deserve to be on this list.)
As I step off of my soap box, I must go back to the horrible Yaris review – I know that most Americans like their space and long wheelbases and 0-60 times, but REALLY?! I found the seats a bit sub-par compared to my other subcompact, but the ride, handling, and steering were pretty good. The brakes were amazing (check the stop times on Toyota’s subcompact selections – a few reports call them “average,” but a car that can stop from 60 within a few feet of a $70,000 sport cars is impressive), and the room was plentiful for the majority of city driving that a lot of people do. I’m also keeping in mind that at least 70% of the cars around here drive with 1-2 people total.. but then again, I just got off a 3 hour road trip and my 3 passengers were just fine in my xA – all full-sized adults, mind you. Maybe some people are just too picky with their space.
Bunter1 and Johnster:
We don’t know what CR’s priorities are. You might THINK you know, but you don’t – unless you’ve had special access to their confidential internal procedures. Just because something is in the highs or lows doesn’t mean it’s in the formula. After all, reliability isn’t in the formula. Even if we’re pretty sure something is in the formula, we don’t know how heavily that factor is weighted.
They have said they use different formulas for different types of vehicles. They have not actually divulged what any of these formulas are. Why not? “Because it’s policy not to.”
I wrote about this a year ago:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/editorials/consumer-reports-dirty-little-secret/
So, basically we have a list of vehicles evaluated based on a formula which has never been publicly released.
Who else could get away with that?
On the Yaris: I think they found the handling unsafe at the limit. Let’s face it, if CR doesn’t like a Toyota…
Michael Karesh: So, basically we have a list of vehicles evaluated based on a formula which has never been publicly released. Who else could get away with that?
Oh, J.D. Power, or just about any of the buff magazines. Most of the magazines seem to just sort of make it up as they go along and the formulas they use vary from test to test, even within the same issue of the magazine.
While I take Consumer Reports rankings with a grain of salt, more often than not their road test results (with the exception of their reliability ratings) seem to be pretty much the same as what the other magazines report.
No we don’t know the exact formula Consumer Reports use, but as the CNN Money article clearly states, off-roading capabilities are listed as being the “highs” of 4 of the 6 SUVs listed. Clearly the off-roading capabilities of these vehicles are NOT IGNORED in spite of the misleading headline and content of this item.
Consumer Reports is certainly not the only source of information I use for things automotive, but all things considered, I’ve never been able to find a more objective, broader, or better overall source of automotive information.
Until something better comes along…
Michael Karesh, “On the Yaris: I think they found the handling unsafe at the limit. Let’s face it, if CR doesn’t like a Toyota…”
The stick Yaris was rated a 36. The auto Yaris was rated over 50. The one has problems handling at the limit and the other doesn’t and is way better?
Yaris owners LOVE their little cars:
“>Yaris Owners on Edmunds
And it’s available for pocket change!
I have yet to figure out what it is about Consumer Reports that sends some people into a froth, but perhaps some correct interpretations are warranted here:
-CR tests for off-road ability, but the results don’t affect the score. Using a bit of deductive reasoning, the goal of CR’s road test is to measure performance while **on** the road, not off of it.
-CR conducts surveys to determine reliability, but those survey results don’t affect the score, either. Again, using a bit of deductive reasoning, the goal of CR’s vehicle testing is to review how the car behaves, regardless of its reliability.
So it’s pretty simple — the scores reflect on-road performance, independent of reliability. If you want to know about off-road performance and reliability, those are shown separately.
If you ask the wrong question, the correct answer could kill you. Simple as that. That is all the list is about.