Consumer Reports released its top picks car list for 2011. According to Consumer Reports, these are the most reliable cars you can (and should) buy. With some notable exceptions, it’s a foreign affair. Out of 10 cars recommended, eight are foreign, or make that Asian: 6 Japanese cars are top picks, followed by two Korean and two American cars. European cars are conspicuously absent.
Most notable: Consumer Reports completely renounced its former fatwa against Toyota and made Toyota the most recommended brand of 2011: Three of the top picks are Toyotas.
Even Detroit flag waver extraordinaire, the DetN, must concede: “Toyota Motor Corp. led all automakers with three top picks from Consumer Reports, rebounding from last year’s sudden acceleration woes that cost it recommendations. “
Two oddities should not remain unmentioned:
The Chevrolet Avalanche is mis-categorized. It should be listed under “Classic Cars”. The first new generation Avalanche showed up at dealers in 2006, and save a little juggling of engine choices, it pretty much remained the same ever since.
The Hyundai Elantra on the other hand is brand new for the U.S. It is amazing how CR could collect all the reliability data on the Elantra in such a short time.
And the winners are:
Category |
Car |
| BUDGET CAR | Honda Fit |
| SMALL CAR | Hyundai Elantra |
| FAMILY SEDAN | Nissan Altima |
| SMALL SUV | Toyota RAV4 |
| GREEN CAR | Toyota Prius |
| FAMILY SUV | Kia Sorento |
| SPORTY CAR | Ford Mustang |
| FAMILY HAULER | Toyota Sienna |
| SPORTS SEDAN | Infiniti G37 |
| PICKUP TRUCK | Chevrolet Avalanche |
ok, Cue the “CR is in Toyota’s pocket” and the “CR has a bias against domestic automakers” fraternity….3, 2, 1….Action!
Okay Oboylepr …..I’ll give you that one..But wait till TTAC posts GM sales up 49%.and within three comments will read “fleet sales”
Well, you are right.
Best Pickup: Chevrolet Avalanche – that’s all you need t know about CR’s ability to pick a “best in class” (By the way I don’t consider “Green Car” to be a class. Classes are determined by size (small, midsize), price (budget, premium), or intended function (sports car, pickup, family hauler). Green is not a function, price, or size).
TTAC yet again forgot to mention Audis/VW are nowhere near same zip code in reliability ratings.
I am sure it has nothing to do with being in someone’s pocket.
I don’t quite follow. Who’s in whose pocket?
“The Chevrolet Avalanche is mis-categorized. It should be listed under “Classic Cars”. The first new generation Avalanche showed up at dealers in 2006, and save a little juggling of engine choices, it pretty much remained the same ever since.”
Might as well add Suburban, Tahoe & Silverado and all the other GMT-900 models because it’s the same truck. Worst vehicle I’ve ever owned was a 2001 Toy Highlander. Glad CR likes them so much. I’ll spend my money elsewhere thank you.
If anyone remembers back in the 1990’s, the Cutlass Ciera was one of the most reliable vehicles, but sorely non-competitive as being out-dated. That’s what happens when you make the same vehicle over a period of years, eventually you get it right! If GM would’ve updated it more often, they could still be producing it. Incremental change, not radical platform change is the secret that Toyota figured out. Apparently it’s working for them, no matter whose “pocket” that may or may not be in.
A few comments / corrections:
1. The “best picks” list isn’t primarily about reliability. A car only needs average reliability to be eligible for a “best pick.” Given this, it’s entirely a matter of the road test evaluation score.
2. CR’s reliability data is from the spring of 2010, so it’s nearly a year old. The reliability ratings in their “new” auto issue are unchanged from those released last fall.
3. CR has absolutely no reliability data on the new Elantra. But apparently, like Hondas and Subarus, Hyundais are now assumed to be at least average in reliability until the data proves otherwise, not the other way around.
As most people here know I conduct my own reliability survey. I’ve just updated the stats to cover through the end of 2010, making them about eight months ahead of CR’s. Editorial coming today or tomorrow.
To check out the updated stats:
http://www.truedelta.com/car-reliability.php
“But apparently, like Hondas and Subarus, Hyundais are now assumed to be at least average in reliability until the data proves otherwise, not the other way around.”
Not like Honda anymore — the Odyssey outranked the Sienna but isn’t recommended because there’s no reliability data yet. The CR-Z is also labeled “NEW” in the reliability field.
Exactly!
I wish I will reach the status in life where people rush microphones into my face to hear what I have to say without even really questioning what I say.
CR always picks on a car they don’t like and give it lower score by opining there isn’t enough data to praise it.
Here the Elantra goes straight from start to finish.
This is stupid.
The Chevrolet Avalanche is mis-categorized. It should be listed under “Classic Cars”. Full Size SUVs with a bed. The first new generation Avalanche showed up at dealers in 2006, and save a little juggling of engine choices, it pretty much remained the same ever since.
Fixed that for ya.
Mikey….. I am with you there. But regardless of what might be said only the official numbers count.
Michael K….. Do you think it’s an unreasonable assumption that the new Elantra will/should be as reliable as the old one? (or any other car/make).
It’s not an unreasonable assumption, even if Hyundai isn’t as consistent as Honda. But many people–like Bertel–will think this “top pick” means CR has actual reliability data on the Elantra, when they don’t.
Altima? Boo.
CVT — Just say no.
I notice that many people are not fans of CVT’s. Is it because they are trouble with a capital “T” or does it have more to do with their driving characteristics? Are CVT’s any more problematic than automatics in the long run, for example, or is it that they are more costly to fix/replace when trouble does happen? I’m just curious here, and would like to know in case I consider a CVT for my next vehicle.
CVTs suck the fun out of the driving experience.* Have been since the Subaru Justy. Ruins the Altima, an otherwise nice driving car. Makes a joke of the Maxima (4-door sports car with a CVT — what a laugh).
Take one on a test drive sometime. Interesting for the first five minutes, then completely annoying for the rest of your ownership experience, assuming you lose your mind and decide to take it.
*Your results may vary. But I doubt it.
“Enthusiasts” are often Luddites.
They don’t like how CVTs don’t have shift points—they expect to hear rev/drop/rev/drop and are freaked by it’s absence—and have decided that having the transmission not lose time shifting and/or drop you into the Torqueless Zone is a bad thing.
In reality, the Maxima is a very sporting car, and what it lacks has more to do with the chassis and drive wheels than the transmission: you could slap a 5AT in it and the same problems would apply, only it’s be slower and use more fuel. The Altima isn’t especially sporting, nor the Sentra or Versa, but again, we’re talking about cars that are still unsporting when equipped with a stick.
psarhjinian,
This luddite finds it impossible to use the throttle to control any aspect of a vehicle’s dynamics when the computer/transmission will not let you hold revs at a constant, consistent level. Maybe I just need Baruth to show me how. Or maybe, it just can’t be done.
This luddite finds it impossible to use the throttle to control any aspect of a vehicle’s dynamics when the computer/transmission will not let you hold revs at a constant, consistent level.
In certain Nissans (the Maxima comes to mind) you can lock the CVT at a given ratio. Note that automatics and robotized manuals, unless you can lock the gear ratio explicitly, suffer this same issue, so I don’t see why this is a CVT issue.
Also, I’d point out that older CVTs—the ones people complained about—would always peg the engine at it’s most powerful or most efficient point and varied the ratio (which is exactly what you’re asking) depending on how you were driving. No dropping out of the power band, just uninterrupted acceleration and the tach pinned at the power peak. People (read: enthusiasts and reviewers) didn’t like this, which is why we now have CVTs that ape automatics instead.
Maybe I just need Baruth to show me how. Or maybe, it just can’t be done.
It certainly can be done—I’ve done it in a Maxima. It’s was also how old CVTs explicitly behaved.
If you’re going to complain about CVTs shifting for you, fine, but we have two other kinds of transmissions that also do that, and in fact do a worse job of it because they drop you out of the power band on every shift—something that CVTs don’t do (or at least don’t do often, but do so now because of enthusiasts who wanted them to feel like conventional ATs)
I wouldn’t take a CVT-equipped car into a corner and expect to be able to adjust it with throttle input, unless the ratio was explicitly fixed. Even then I would have concerns.
To my knowledge, nobody is out there racing CVT cars… I’m going to look around.
I wouldn’t take a CVT-equipped car into a corner and expect to be able to adjust it with throttle input, unless the ratio was explicitly fixed. Even then I would have concerns.
But would you expect that in a traditional automatic, especially a modern, go-for-the-high-gear fuel-sipping-enabling 6AT? I wouldn’t, unless, as you said, it’s ratio was explicitly fixed.
My point isn’t that CVTs don’t have drivability challenges, it’s that the same criticisms also apply to automatics and that the real reason people don’t like them pretty much comes down to “they sound different”.
To my knowledge, nobody is out there racing CVT cars… I’m going to look around.
This is probably true, but a lot of people do race (in a sense of the word) CVT-equipped snowmobiles. Not really comparable, I know. The other reason is that there aren’t many companies making cars with CVTs that have any sporting intentions, and unless Nissan sponsors a Juke, Sentra or Maxima-based team I don’t think you’ll see it, but that’s again more a function of their rarity than the CVT itself.
I’ve rented an Altima 2.5S a couple of times and put some miles on it — once driving all over Minnesota and northwestern Iowa. For what it was (a different kind of autobox), I thought it worked fine and the fuel economy was pretty good. The only time it drew attention to itself was, when toodling along at, say, 30 mph, it will “shift” into a very high gear ratio, such that the engine is ticking over at about 1000 rpm. Even under light load, 4 cylinders are not too smooth at that speed. The other thing, which was kind of amusing, is that you could mash the pedal to the floor and the engine would spool up to a constant 4000 rpm and hold it, as the car accelerated, which, of course is what a CVT is supposed to do.
Last January, I rented a Sentra with a CVT programmed to feel like an autobox. Frankly, I thought that was kind of stupid. Nissan should give you a switch to defeat that “feature.”
Stay away from CVT is my advice. I have had feedback from folks with Nissan Muranos telling me how horrific their gas mileage is. Have also had Saturn customers with “extra rebate” coupons due to failure of their CVT transmissions.
Well, GM’s CVT was the least reliable of the bunch.
I’ve found a CVT to be as fun as an automatic if it can be manually shifted among simulated “gears” and is paired with a powerful engine.
Nissan’s CVTs have been pretty reliable in general, and their real-world mileage has been quite good (see CR’s testing of the Altima, Sentra and Versa; the Altima pretty much tops it’s class.
The Murano’s problem might be the big V6 hooked up to the nearly-four-thousand-pound high-frontal-area crossover body and accompanying AWD.
This just in- Toyota pays the check on time to CR! The poor beleaguered brand was thought to suffer too much trauma after it’s record spat of recalls, deaths and poor quality control. Thus the company jumped the bandwagon right before this issue went out and pulled out all the stops to pay the CR bill on time because profits are starting to come back and people are buying cars again.
This just in- Toyota pays the check on time to CR! The poor beleaguered brand was thought to suffer too much trauma after it’s record spat of recalls, deaths and poor quality control. Thus the company jumped the bandwagon right before this issue went out and pulled out all the stops to pay the CR bill on time because profits are starting to come back and people are buying cars again.
Proof? Unbiased evidence? We’re waiting….
zeus01,
Not that I agree with what poncho is saying, but 90% of the posts here on TTAC are biased without proof.
Steven, did you mean posts or did you mean comments. Speaking for myself and based on conversations I’ve had with other TTAC writers, I’m comfortable saying that we all try to base our posts on evidence, even when we’re writing opinions.
As for CR being on the take, while I think that CR has some inherent biases (both about individual manufacturers and about business and politics), doesn’t use the best methodology, and is not the finest source of information if you’re a serious enthusiast about anything (as a sewer about sewing machines and electric irons and then compare to CR’s rankings), I doubt that they take bribes.
I generally despise CR and think that the publication and their parent organization are riven with hypocrisy, but I think their flaws are due to ideology, not taking money under the table.
Why is there such blind hatred for CVT’s? I’ve been driving a Maxima with a CVT and it’s the best mainstream automatic transmission sold today bar none. Yes, there are CVT’s done wrong (Dodge Caliber, Saturn, Ford…) , but Nissan’s CVT’s are fantastic. If you want a more traditional shifting, bump it over into “Sport” , if you want effortless highway cruising, leave it in drive.
So simply put, the people bashing CVT’s haven’t driven a modern one done right. It’d be like judging all modern automatics by the crummy ones Subaru puts in their cars.
Picks look about like expected given CR’s ability to predict reliability for cars it doesn’t know about yet. I will say that the green car segment shouldn’t be there. That is just lazy.
Gosh darn where is Fiat?
I’m no fan of CR; and I’ll be the first to admit that driving a Toyota is like shifting from Drive into Quaalude; but my experience, that of a dozen others I know, that of repeat buyers and of many non-buff magazines, are the same.
Boring to drive, bland to look at, a Toyota is a brick-outhouse on wheels. They last; and lest you think millions of owners are lying…just look at resale values.
When I strike it rich, I’ll go for some six-figure status name. Right this moment, as I dream of cars to shoot the apexes with…I’ll put my money on one that starts every time.
Kind of ironic to see all the vitriol directed against CVTs (I have had little experience with them) when on the Edmunds’ forums, people are whining about their 6-speed transmissions shifting too often!
Maybe we ought to bring back the mighty Powerglide tranny!
Twin-turbine dynaflow! Oh wait, that kind of was a CVT…
This is very true. It also makes the hypocritical whining about cars with 5- and 4ATs kind of funny. I had a rental Corolla CE recently (1.8L engine, 4AT) and while we’re not talking the pinnacle of performance here (and the seats were really unpleasant), it certainly wasn’t constantly shifting like most 6ATs do.**
It got pretty good mileage while being reasonably quick. CR’s tests agreed with this, and it makes me suspect the trend to 5+ geat automatics has more to do with gaming EPA tests and winning spec sheet wars than quantifiable performance.
Example counterpoint: the Ford Fiesta. Nice car, but it’s really slow, shifted fairly often, and I wasn’t anywhere near EPA when I drove it. I’m pretty sure the Corolla nipped it’s mileage figures.
** CVTs, on the other hand, don’t shift at all.