Lee Icocoa (ceo who turned Chrysler around last century) must be rolling in his grave
Consumer reports may hate the Mirage, but anybody who wanted a Geo Metro but with improved amenities and automatic transmission, that's what you're getting. It's like a very updated, refined Geo Metro. Adjusted for inflation and features, the car is actually cheaper than when the Metro came out. Reliability and owner satisfaction is listed as "good" which is a lot better than the rest of the cars in that category save for the Honda Fit.
Gah, the Spark is the crappiest car I've driven/ridden in my life (that includes a lot of crappy old cars). Basically everything about the car is garbage, except the gas mileage. I don't see any new/old Mirages on the road, but I'd be interested to see how a new one compares to the Spark.How are they reviewing a car that isn't even out yet? Reads like they are reviewing the previous gen, but the future gen is what's pictured. 2017 looks way better. Needs some silver or something to break-up the all black interior. Engine is still a let down, but probably less terrible if you get the stick. I'd take a 2017 Mirage over a Spark.
I love how they already nailed down the reliability on a brand new car.
Doesn't it take good 5-10 years to really determine how reliable and long lasting the car will be.
As usual, CR (same as JD Power) = bunch of BS.
There's an initial reliability and long term. Initial reliability is just one of several metrics they include for this report.
Overall Score
Every car we test will earn an overall score that encapsulates four factors:
1. Our road-test program looks at real-life performance by running 70-plus new cars and trucks each year through more than 50 tests at our 327-acre test facility in Colchester, Conn. Those tests include each vehicles emergency-handling and braking capabilities.
2. We gauge reliability through annual surveys of our subscribers. The 740,000 vehicles from our 2015 auto survey gave us insight into problem areas for 15 model years of cars on the road.
3. Those same surveys also provide the data for our third major assessment, owner satisfaction, which asks owners of 230,000 vehicles purchased in the past three years whether they would buy their current car again.
4. Our experts incorporate safety data from crash tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. We give additional consideration to advanced safety systemsoffered as standard equipment across all trim levels of a particular modelthat can help you avoid an accident or lessen the impact of a crash.
By merging those criteria, weve leveraged our expertise and resources to create the most well-rounded portrait of what makes a good car for you.
I <3 my Grand Caravan. We get better milage than that, and our 1 and 3 year old dont mind the seat height at all
Here is what I see/read.
If you contribute enough $$$ we will rate you better.
Initial quality is not even worth talking about. Who cares if their car will have little quirks? Or even break....it's under warranty.
Not ONE of these companies refuses contributions ($$$) and not one does LONG TERM reliability studies.
and no 3-5 years is NOT long term.
Um, Lee Iacocca is still alive...
Here is what I see/read.
If you contribute enough $$$ we will rate you better.
Initial quality is not even worth talking about. Who cares if their car will have little quirks? Or even break....it's under warranty.
Not ONE of these companies refuses contributions ($$$) and not one does LONG TERM reliability studies.
and no 3-5 years is NOT long term.
The issue with all this reliability stuff is that it is still surveys. That's full of user bias and people just plain forgetting shit. Owners of X car might take it in for a minor rattle where car Y owners just assume that's normal.
Then the bias seems to be consistent with each brand, i.e., Chevy owners not caring nearly as much about rattles as Honda owners do, and the biases have changed over time, with Chevy owners caring much less now than back in the 1970s.The issue with all this reliability stuff is that it is still surveys. That's full of user bias and people just plain forgetting shit. Owners of X car might take it in for a minor rattle where car Y owners just assume that's normal.
Consumer Reports refuses contributions. You may be thinking of Consumer's Digest, a for-profit publication that sells its Best Buy ratings for anywhere from a few thousand to $25,000.Here is what I see/read.
If you contribute enough $$$ we will rate you better.
Initial quality is not even worth talking about. Who cares if their car will have little quirks? Or even break....it's under warranty.
Not ONE of these companies refuses contributions ($$$) and not one does LONG TERM reliability studies.
and no 3-5 years is NOT long term.
I'm not a violent person, but I wanna punch that guy in the face. D:
Looks like Chrysler/Fiat won this competition.
Agreed. I had one as a rental and I was not impressed at all. My next rental was a GLA and it was equally unimpressive.
The issue with all this reliability stuff is that it is still surveys. That's full of user bias and people just plain forgetting shit. Owners of X car might take it in for a minor rattle where car Y owners just assume that's normal.
It's about the only way to determine reliability of vehicles.
The only true objective metric is inaccessible to the public.....how many warranty claims each vehicle has during its warranty period, which no car mfgr. will release, obviously.
So, you're stuck with surveying owners about their experiences....have any better suggestions how to assess reliability of vehicles and owner satisfactions of said vehicles?
Maybe survey independent mechanics? They'd probably be better resources of impartial data than consumers. Admittedly nothing public is perfect.