Consumer Reports reliability reports

[corncobs]

I just read an article on USAToday about CR list of new cars to avoid.

 

http://usat.ly/1fnKu53

 

Every Ford/Lincoln car mentions the MFT/MLT as reason for people to avoid those cars. I'm not sure how many untechnical people give feedback but I have now idea why people think that MFT is difficult to use. This is absolutely beyond me.

[acdii]

You know, I was looking into a 2012 MKT, but it doesn't have MLT. I actually WANT MFT or MLT now. I dont think I would want a car without it.

 

Now if the 2012 MKT has Applink, that would be a different story. I could easily give up MLT for Applink.

[Texasota]

Every Ford/Lincoln car mentions the MFT/MLT as reason for people to avoid those cars. I'm not sure how many untechnical people give feedback but I have now idea why people think that MFT is difficult to use. This is absolutely beyond me.

 

:stirpot:

 

I have no doubt that there are owners that are bewildered by their MFT. But there are also owners that have experienced very real malfunctions, freezes, and glitches. There is widespread documentation on these issues from numerous media outlets including Consumer Reports. These problems are undoubtedly a significant factor in Ford's decision to dump Microsoft’s infotainment software.

 

There are also "ease of use" issues that have been documented by numerous media outlets including Consumer Reports. Multiple manufactures have received criticism for these issues (they are not picking only on Ford). There have also been some manufactures singled out for having very good infotainment systems. Tesla is one of them but there are also some others. The car business is brutally competitive and if your infotainment system performs poorly relative to other manufactures, then you are going to suffer in the ratings. There is no conspiracy against Ford going on here.

 

From what I have learned on these forums it sounds like Ford has deployed fixes and the latest MFT versions have resolved many of those problems. That’s good. But that does not change the fact that Ford deployed initial versions of MFT that were plagued with problems, not adequately tested and not properly debugged. They simply were not ready to be deployed. Owners of these early versions suffered through these problems and they reported these problems on the Consumer Reports reliability survey forms for their cars as they should have. With the improvements that Ford has made we should see that reflected in the ratings for these later model years.

 

Here is an interesting article that describes how CR does their reliability ratings:

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/buying-selling/consumer-reports-automotive-ratings1.htm

 

I disagree strongly with CR in one area of their rating philosophy. I don't think a car should be assigned the "not recommended" tag because of optional equipment. Instead they should say we cannot recommend this car with optional equipment X. If there is not an alternative to the flawed optional equipment, then it may deserve the "not recommended" tag.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Texasota

[corncobs]

I agree with that statement :)

 

It's funny to think about that it was actually MFT that got me excited about Ford almost 4 years ago when I rented a Ford Taurus.

[tr7driver]

I couldn't stand the MFT in my 2010, then I took a trip in it from California to Illinois. by the time I got through Kansas I loved it. I got out the book and learned it as we drove. I love the MFT in the 2014, but I do miss the menu buttons on the dash of the 2010.

[Ted Swing]

According to the article below, Ford got marked down by Consumer Reports for three things: "the MyFord Touch infotainment system, automatic transmissions in the Focus and Fiesta models and its 1.6- and 2-liter EcoBoost turbocharged 4-cylinder engines."

 

www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/automobiles/consumer-reports-lexus-is-no-1.html

 

Other than MFT, those probably don't affect us much. I wonder if anyone here has experience with the other two?

Edited February 28, 2014 by Ted Swing

[Ted Swing]

Also, here's another article from the Consumer Reports website I came across.

 

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/02/infotainment-car-reliability/index.htm

 

They mention Cadillac, Ford, Honda, and Lincoln as getting the most complaints about the infotainment system and Audi, BMW, Chrysler, and Lexus as getting the fewest. Not sure how much good that information really does us in the hybrid midsize sedan market - none of those "fewest complaints" brands have competitors in our segment. I guess Toyota must be in the middle.

 

I can see what CR is saying - it would hurt to suddenly lose access to navigation or climate control - but I agree with others that they're overstating the importance of it. I don't even have MFT in my car, but for those who do it has already been improved and Ford is switching systems anyway so in a year or so, it will soon be a moot point. I'd care a lot more about safety, comfort, fuel economy, etc. Not only are those bigger issues, but they can't really be improved much once the car has been made - the infotainment system can.

[B25Nut]

I like how Autoweek sees the issue:

 

CR has an uncomfortably broad definition of reliability -- it spans everything from "the engine fell out" to "the touchscreen display shows fingerprints too easily"

[Texasota]

According to the article below, Ford got marked down by Consumer Reports for three things: "the MyFord Touch infotainment system, automatic transmissions in the Focus and Fiesta models and its 1.6- and 2-liter EcoBoost turbocharged 4-cylinder engines."

 

www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/automobiles/consumer-reports-lexus-is-no-1.html

 

Other than MFT, those probably don't affect us much. I wonder if anyone here has experience with the other two?

 

I own a 2012 Ford Focus and the Powershift transmission has been a disaster. This transmission has been removed from the car, torn down and the entire clutch assembly replaced twice. The first clutch assembly replacement was done around 18,000 miles and the entire process had to be repeated at 31,000 miles. The car now has 37,000 miles and is running the best it ever has with this third clutch assembly but my confidence that it will last for the long haul is very low. On a positive note, other than the transmission this is a wonderful small car. I would buy another one if you could order it with a 6-speed manual transmission but that is available only in the Focus ST.

Edited March 1, 2014 by Texasota

[acdii]

I would give CR a piece of my mind on this..

 

 

 

 

I just can't afford to lose any more of it.

[Skydogz]

Honestly, Consumer Reports is not all that and a bag of chips sometimes. To rate a car poorly for what is basically a communications device defies logic to me.

Practically every other reviewer except CR likes this car a lot, and highly recommends it.

Honey Badger don't care what they say!

CR always analyzes funny, they are tech nerds. They focus on details, some really matter, some don't.

 

Car and Driver is a better source of info from CAR nerds! (But i wouldn't take their advice when buying a toaster or blender.)

 

Car and Driver does good video reviews by real car enthusiasts and They like the FFH.

[GrySql]

This ABC news website has a CR hybrid news piece, no FFH mentioned.

http://abc7.com/automotive/are-hybrid-cars-worth-the-cost/133295/

[darrelld]

I bought a coffee pot CR highly recommend and the tanked started leaking within a month. I threw the pot in the trash. I then checked Amazon ratings for the same model coffee pot. It got 1 star with reviewers citing leaking tanks as a common problem. I still have my CR web subscription but I now regard them as just another data point.

[Texasota]

I don't think CR was making a blanket statement about hybrids being a poor choice but the ABC news article seems to imply that. I think CR was saying that in the case of Honda Accords the gas accord is a better choice. CR says their hybrid Accord scored relatively low in multiple areas as compared to the gas Accord.

 

In the CR March 2013 issue they rated the FFH higher than all of the gas Fusions.

[GrySql]

I bought a coffee pot CR highly recommend and the tanked started leaking within a month. I threw the pot in the trash. I then checked Amazon ratings for the same model coffee pot. It got 1 star with reviewers citing leaking tanks as a common problem. I still have my CR web subscription but I now regard them as just another data point.

Regarding the EPA mpg controversy we often hear the words 'real world', because that is not what the EPA actually tests.

 

Any organization that uses a paid staff to test a few products can get caught up into their own insular view of things and sometimes their reviews are not 'real world'.

Amazon reviews are 'real world' for the most part and reading them I am more likely to get an idea of how the product actually performs, no paid staff adds their personal world view to the product assessment.

Amazon even has a comments section for each review where questions can be asked of the reviewer, a great idea and similar to the Forum approach.

Many other sales websites have a review section, Costco, JC Penny, etc. and that feature is a valuable tool for shoppers.

 

As darrelId has pointed out, it's probably best to use as many different data points in your research as possible.

I suppose in the FFH arena, this Forum is as real world as it gets, any fault or success of Ford's engineering is openly discussed here, including thoughts on the outside reviewers.