Ford C-max least reliable car in America (Says CR)

[Jus-A-CMax]

Cheer up AS2014 - I totally hear you. Things are only as bad as you want them to be, still lots and lots of positives with the CMax.

 

For every negative, 1 post dumpers like the Lemon thread, I will post a positive one.

 

For every "the CR is right dumpers - this is not more than a 38MPG car", I will post my next nth 800+ mile tank.

 

I never had a more FUN car to drive than the CMax and saving $$$ - well compared to my wife's aging Jaguar Vanden Plas. Gas is still above $4 here in Los Angeles.

 

ps I'll keep my CMax till that make it a 100 MPG car or when Ford finally releases a 500+ electric beast in the same body shape. It's really a super utilitarian car to the snow, and city driving - KILLER city MPGs for sure.

[AS2014]

Thanks, Jus-A-CMax , you def shine a light on this, I think I will change the way I buy cars instead of trading every 5 years, think going to hold on to this one and drive it to the end. You are right it is a great riding car with power under the hood when needed. Have always been happy with the mileage I have gotten and I own it outright. Going to be a shock to the wife who always got a new car every 5 years, but hey things change...Lol.

Edited July 23, 2014 by AS2014

[darrelld]

Cheer up AS2014 - I totally hear you. Things are only as bad as you want them to be, still lots and lots of positives with the CMax.

 

For every negative, 1 post dumpers like the Lemon thread, I will post a positive one.

 

For every "the CR is right dumpers - this is not more than a 38MPG car", I will post my next nth 800+ mile tank.

 

I never had a more FUN car to drive than the CMax and saving $$$ - well compared to my wife's aging Jaguar Vanden Plas. Gas is still above $4 here in Los Angeles.

 

ps I'll keep my CMax till that make it a 100 MPG car or when Ford finally releases a 500+ electric beast in the same body shape. It's really a super utilitarian car to the snow, and city driving - KILLER city MPGs for sure.

Cheer up AS2014 - I totally hear you. Things are only as bad as you want them to be, still lots and lots of positives with the CMax.

 

For every negative, 1 post dumpers like the Lemon thread, I will post a positive one.

 

For every "the CR is right dumpers - this is not more than a 38MPG car", I will post my next nth 800+ mile tank.

 

I never had a more FUN car to drive than the CMax and saving $$$ - well compared to my wife's aging Jaguar Vanden Plas. Gas is still above $4 here in Los Angeles.

 

ps I'll keep my CMax till that make it a 100 MPG car or when Ford finally releases a 500+ electric beast in the same body shape. It's really a super utilitarian car to the snow, and city driving - KILLER city MPGs for sure.

Cheer up AS2014 - I totally hear you. Things are only as bad as you want them to be, still lots and lots of positives with the CMax.

 

For every negative, 1 post dumpers like the Lemon thread, I will post a positive one.

 

For every "the CR is right dumpers - this is not more than a 38MPG car", I will post my next nth 800+ mile tank.

 

I never had a more FUN car to drive than the CMax and saving $$$ - well compared to my wife's aging Jaguar Vanden Plas. Gas is still above $4 here in Los Angeles.

 

ps I'll keep my CMax till that make it a 100 MPG car or when Ford finally releases a 500+ electric beast in the same body shape. It's really a super utilitarian car to the snow, and city driving - KILLER city MPGs for sure.

I like the C-Max so much I traded my 2012 Passat TDI for my current Ford Fusion Hybrid Titanium. The Passat TDI has over 100 cases of turbo failures on the tdiclub so like those tornado sirens that go off in an approaching storm I decided to run for cover to the FFH.

 

I totally agree with this assessment of the CR Methodology.

http://blog.bluespringsfordparts.com/233/consumer-reports-rating-methodology-flawed/

 

Generally speaking, Consumer Reports provides useful and informative buying advice and product reviews for a wide range of products. From flat screen TVs to vacumn cleaners to car seats, Consumer Reports often uses a careful and refined testing procedure that generates some great advice.

As a long-time reader and current subscriber, I am 100% satisfied with Consumer Reports…except for their automotive reliability rankings.

Here’s why: Car rankings are based exclusively on surveys offered by Consumer Reports (CR) readers. This, in my view, is a fatally flawed approach.

1. CR subscribers aren’t representative of the general public. Quantcast.com, which estimates demographic and user data for millions of websites, has provided the following demographic “snap shot” of ConsumerReports.org (see the original report here):

Demographic data about the ConsumerReports.org website audience, as determined by Quantcast.com

As you can see, the typical ConsumerReports.org visitor is more likely to be wealthy ($100k+ annual household income) and college educated. While there’s nothing wrong with being wealthy or educated, I suspect these consumers are a bit biased against American car brands.

• Hybrid buyers, for example,  are significantly more likely to be educated and wealthy (see Scarborough Research). The best selling hybrid? A Toyota.
• American cars don’t sell well in the country’s wealthiest cities, additional proof that wealthy people are biased against American vehicle brands.

For anyone who thinks that Quantcast’s data might be off, check out this 2009 study of CR’s auto buying guide, which was sponsored by CR. According to the data on page 34, the average CR reader (either online or via magazine subscription) is wealthier and more educated than average.

2. CR data is noisy. By “noisy,” I mean varying quite a bit from year to year. In this year’s study, Volvo and Chrysler fell 10 and 8 spots in the rankings, while GMC, Cadillac, and Audi skyrocketed 10, 14, and 16 (!) slots.

How can one brand’s reliability ranking surge from the bottom 5 to the top 10 in just one year? Because Consumer Reports data is very “noisy,” and hence not terribly accurate.

Are we honestly supposed to believe that Audi was ranked as one of the least reliable brands last year, and yet somehow ranked top 10 in reliability this year? This is obviously a result of a limited amount of data, which brings me too…

3. CR uses as few as 100 surveys to rate vehicles! That’s right folks – 100 measly surveys is all it takes for Consumer Reports to assess a specific vehicle’s reliability rating.

100 data points is hardly enough to form a scientific evaluation – it’s embarrassing that CR would admit to this methodology, but they’ve done precisely that:

…The scores are presented as a percentage better or worse than the average of all cars. The minimum sample size is 100 vehicles, but

Consumer Reports

often gets many more.

While CR might “often” get 100′s or surveys, this hardly seems like a good system. It also explains Audi’s wild change in rankings, doesn’t it?

The bottom line: Don’t trust Consumer Reports quality and reliability data, at least as far as automobiles are concerned.

At best, use CR automotive rankings as a supplement to other data sources. See their official 2012 rankings here.

Edited July 25, 2014 by darrelld

[C-MaxSea]

And 4.  it is not even remotely 'scientific'; it is not a random sample which is a requisite of statistically (& scientifically) relevant surveys.  It is essentially a 'squeaky wheel' survey with inconsistent (noisy) 'volunteer' data.  (This '4' simply restating your flushed out item 1 above - 'Not a representative sample' - Kudos Darrel)
 
Also, additional evaluations would show that newest technologies always get bitten the worst as the market adjusts to 'new fangled things' (or kills them in spite of their intrinsic value (like 'lifetime' stats)).  The 'old reliable' nag will almost always outscore a newer better 'less reliable' steed in this type of survey.
 
Nevertheless, CR's unscientific surveys can point out areas for caution - if only they would clean-up the way they present the data! (and quit grand standing)

a black spot, is a black spot, is a black spot !  to casual observers, regardless of the implication, $5 or $5,000, 10 minutes or 10 days.
 
Hope I have that right ;).  Cheers to 2013 and 'Lifetime' (effectively a 'Trip 3') stats !!!

Edited July 25, 2014 by C-MaxSea

[Rick]

" This was the first American car to take on Toyota ."

 

Ford deserves some credit for this. Shame on US car manufacturers for rejecting efficient energy transportation for so long. So they/we need to catch up. I'm sure CR noted that the Toyota Prius had its reliability problems back in model years 1,2 and 3 as well.

 

Will the Ford dealers support their customers as Ford goes through this learning phase? Hope so.

[darrelld]

" This was the first American car to take on Toyota ."

 

Ford deserves some credit for this. Shame on US car manufacturers for rejecting efficient energy transportation for so long. So they/we need to catch up. I'm sure CR noted that the Toyota Prius had its reliability problems back in model years 1,2 and 3 as well.

 

Will the Ford dealers support their customers as Ford goes through this learning phase? Hope so.

 

So far my dealer experience has been excellent and I wasn't naive enough to expect a first year car to be flawless. I take my Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid to the same Ford Dealer.

[Rick]

Yesterday, I gave up leather and heated seats, a better ride, 110 outlet, and other nice features loaded on the SEL C-max, and purchased a Prius V.   My first non American car ever, in 40 years of driving.  Hope all our cars keep rolling.

[C-MaxSea]

...... I gave up leather and heated seats, a better ride, 110 outlet, and other nice features loaded on the SEL C-max, and purchased a Prius V.

 

I feel your 'pain' Rick !  You will enjoy the larger boot though.  And, as you well know, you can always trade up someday.  :)  

 

Best of luck and happy hybrid driving to you, they are all good,

 

Nick

 

(Good, yes, .............. just not nearly as good as a C-Max)

Edited August 3, 2014 by C-MaxSea