2018 Unreliable? CR verdict: 2 out of 5

[Phyzman]

I did not state a year of vehicle but the year I was looking. I got a few things slightly wrong but not bad for 10 years. Thank you.

So the Highlander’s 18 mpg was best in its class while the FJ’s 17 mpg was middling for its class. Where’s the undue bias? I don’t see anyone cross-shopping these two models. And you’re alleging a pro 3-row, anti 2-row bias? Can’t really be an anti-Toyota bias.

Seems fair and balanced to me.

 

[phillyd2]

You bought a 4R, like the 4R but are now mad because somebody you don’t know disagrees? Maybe the real issue is not with CR.

 

[4RunnerAquasport]

Holy Crap! Unreliable? ATTENTION! All Trail Edition owners! Don't get stuck with an unreliable unicorn. Better get some of your money back rather than being stuck with an unreliable SUV. I'm paying .20 cents on the dollar for all Trail Edition T4Rs. PM for info.

 

[jhguth]

Try the actual 2007 reviews.

well you said 2008-2009, but okay:

2007 FJ
2007 Toyota FJ Cruiser Reviews, Ratings, Prices - Consumer Reports
1/5 fuel economy for 13/17/21

Highlander
2007 Toyota Highlander Reviews, Ratings, Prices - Consumer Reports
2/5 fuel economy for 13/19/25, again a slightly higher rating for better highway performance

in the magazine scan they seem to be praising the highlander hybrid's 24mpg, which is in fact much higher than the FJ's 17mpg and non-hybrid highlander's 19mpg

the highlander hybrid received the top recommendation. also note that it's not even in the same class as the FJ, the FJ is in the mid-size 2 row and you can tell from the road-test scores that they value fit and finish and on-road comfort over offroad capability which is fair for most buyers. The FJ did, however, have the highest rated reliability in it's class.

so, again, you are getting angry for nothing

 

[redneckj]

i assume that if a 2018 4runner is unreliable that the 3.4 motor that was in a gen 3 4runner is a unreliable engine too. LOL NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[T4R2014]

Hey guys, I rate Land Rover reliability 5 out of 5

 

[teotwaki]

Anyone know why, after several model years of Consumer Reports Reliability Verdicts of 5/5, the 2018 T4R Reliability Verdict nosedived to 2/5? What’s going on?

My 2018 is a bit over a year old and 14K miles without any issues. It has been offroaded a lot and the suspension was upgraded to Radflo. I was very happy that the drivetrain is almost exactly the same as a 4th gen. See below.

Why did I choose the 2018 4R? Based on 13 years of 4th Gen 4Runner experience!

I bought a new 4x4 SR5 in 2005. When I sold it last year there were 240,000 miles on the odo and.....

Original, untouched engine, slight oil weep around valve cover gaskets but no engine oil or coolant leaks and still had very good gas mileage

Original, untouched transmission. Shifted fine.

Original, untouched transfer case, rear diff, drive shafts, U-joints.

Original, untouched fuel pump.

Original, untouched water pump, alternator, coil packs, etc.

Original window glass, door window motors.

Outside of normal maintenance, I did replace:

- radiator (once )

- right front wheel bearing (once )

- right front CV axle (once )


2018 near Coyote Flat

2005 in Death Valley

I have little faith in Consumer Reports' verdicts.

 

[Phyzman]

I have little faith in Consumer Reports' verdicts.

So all those 5/5 Reliability Verdicts—year in and year out—should be thought of as baseless, errant, misbegotten hogwash?

How do you think CR comes up with their ratings and what do you think motivates them?

I would have thought T4R.org would be an audience receptive to CR’s 5/5 Reliability Verdicts. But for some here, that is clearly not the case. Where do the 5th Gens fall short of CR’s 5/5? It seems CR’s research has failed to identify the 5th Gens’ shortcomings. What did they miss? If 5/5 is wrong, what should the ratings for all those years have really been?

 

[JayceeP]

Well the JD Power 2018 Dependability survey came out and rated the 2015:
Traverse
Enclave
Santa Fe
Sorento
Venza
Durango
Acadia
Pilot
Murano

all higher than the 2015 4Runner. It seems the “features and controls” metric skews the results because 4Runner received 5/10 but, nonetheless, the survey still implies a 4Runner is less dependable than all of these other vehicles. I have a tough time believing that.
2018 dependability Midsize SUV Awards | J.D. Power

Now I took a look at 2018 model year initial quality ratings and the 4Runner rates a 9/10 for features and controls?? Bizarre considering nothing substantial has changed since 2015.
2018 Quality Midsize SUV Awards | J.D. Power

 

[teotwaki]

So all those 5/5 Reliability Verdicts—year in and year out—should be thought of as baseless, errant, misbegotten hogwash?

How do you think CR comes up with their ratings and what do you think motivates them?

I would have thought T4R.org would be an audience receptive to CR’s 5/5 Reliability Verdicts. But for some here, that is clearly not the case. Where do the 5th Gens fall short of CR’s 5/5? It seems CR’s research has failed to identify the 5th Gens’ shortcomings. What did they miss? If 5/5 is wrong, what should the ratings for all those years have really been?

I see you fully ignored all of my good experience with the 4Runner and want to go right back to defending CR. You should perform some background checks on why they are not such a great source for automobile choices. I did.

CR only solicits input from members of CR.org and Consumer Reports magazine. They need to prove their limited data somehow statistically represents the general public but they haven't.

CR is known to use as few as 100 surveys to rank cars (whereas on T4R you have thousands of owners).

In 2015 CR switched to exclusively electronic questions and admits they have less respondents than ever. One external analyst estimated that their best possible response rate was less than 12%, a ridiculously small pool of people for so many available models of cars.

CR's difference between an "average" vehicle and a "better than average" or "worse than average" vehicle is quite small, further undermined by the low number of respondents.

CR has no methodology to control or even account for wildly biased people who only purchase one brand or even one model of car, never switching

CR has no methodology to control or even account for wildly different driving habits or how poorly or well car maintenance is performed.

CR has no methodology to control or even account for people with perceived "problem" cars who would be more likely to complain and whine about the expected lack of reliability. They do not seek to counter those respondents by recruiting more respondents to build up the pool of data.

CR often lumps very different drivetrains together even if they have different reliability rates

CRs surveys ask for reports of "serious" issues without any definition of what serious should mean such that respondents often complain about mundane issues as being "serious" while they ignore factory recommended maintenance yet complain bitterly when the car breaks down.

Oh yeah, all of those 5/5 verdicts? Just look at how they ranked Audi from one year to the next; in 2011 they were 24th and suddenly in 2012 they were 8th? That indicates very noisy data which is not reliable.

 

[Phyzman]

I see you fully ignored all of my good experience with the 4Runner and want to go right back to defending CR. You should perform some background checks on why they are not such a great source for automobile choices. I did.

CR only solicits input from members of CR.org and Consumer Reports magazine. They need to prove their limited data somehow statistically represents the general public but they haven't.

CR is known to use as few as 100 surveys to rank cars (whereas on T4R you have thousands of owners).

In 2015 CR switched to exclusively electronic questions and admits they have less respondents than ever. One external analyst estimated that their best possible response rate was less than 12%, a ridiculously small pool of people for so many available models of cars.

CR's difference between an "average" vehicle and a "better than average" or "worse than average" vehicle is quite small, further undermined by the low number of respondents.

CR has no methodology to control or even account for wildly biased people who only purchase one brand or even one model of car, never switching

CR has no methodology to control or even account for wildly different driving habits or how poorly or well car maintenance is performed.

CR has no methodology to control or even account for people with perceived "problem" cars who would be more likely to complain and whine about the expected lack of reliability. They do not seek to counter those respondents by recruiting more respondents to build up the pool of data.

CR often lumps very different drivetrains together even if they have different reliability rates

CRs surveys ask for reports of "serious" issues without any definition of what serious should mean such that respondents often complain about mundane issues as being "serious" while they ignore factory recommended maintenance yet complain bitterly when the car breaks down.

Oh yeah, all of those 5/5 verdicts? Just look at how they ranked Audi from one year to the next; in 2011 they were 24th and suddenly in 2012 they were 8th? That indicates very noisy data which is not reliable.

So you find fault with CR’s methodology and conclude that the only way to know what’s what is via participation in an online forum wherein everyone is anonymous and no one is fact-checked. Where the majority are heavily invested in the product being rated, intellectually and monetarily.

I’m presuming the shortcoming you find in CR’s research are not addressed by anyone else—so as to conclude that valid sources of independent reviews simply to not exist. And anecdotes should be accepted as reliable.

Researchers would hasten to insist that the plural of anecdote is not data.

If my preference for T/4R over FCA/JL is based on ratings from CR and IIHS, I hope my “real world” results will not deviate significantly from those poorly researched and inherently flawed ratings.

The crowd over at the Jeep forums assure me they’ve never had problems with the reliability of their Wranglers and that 4Rs are pure snooze fests. Their deviation from CR’s finding leads me to believe they’re somewhat biased toward the vehicle they purchased. But they are quite unequivocal and unanimous in their enthusiasm for Jeeps. They seem quite sincere.

Yet people here at T4R call them liars. And do so with sincerity and unanimity. Jeep enthusiast call T4R members liars.

If only there were independent research available. But I am told no: one must pick a side and raise a flag.

 

[Weedkiller]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP is " Yellow Snow"?
( the guy who was banned for trolling)

 

[engineeer]

My 2017 TRD Pro had a surprising amount of issues, but I still wouldn't give it a 2/5.

 

[teotwaki]

---snip---

If only there were independent research available. But I am told no: one must pick a side and raise a flag.

You are the researcher.

You are independent.

You will make the decision.

You must be honest with yourself and accept responsibility for your decision.

Don't blame CR, a forum or some blog that TOLD you to buy brand X.

 

[teotwaki]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP is " Yellow Snow"?
( the guy who was banned for trolling)

Hmmmm, I was leaning towards him being Liam McCormack :biggrin1:

 

[Antman]

Maybe the database this year for CR consisted of one mfr millennial.

That would do it.

 

[Phyzman]

Am I the only one who thinks the OP is " Yellow Snow"?
( the guy who was banned for trolling)

Hmmmm, I was leaning towards him being Liam McCormack :biggrin1:

You guys are hilarious. Especially 10-post Weedkiller who’s familiarity with banned member history as at odds with his Junior Member status.

A suspicious person would cast Weedkiller as a recent returnee from the beyond.

Yellow Snow? I’m not enough of a Zappa fan to roll with that. Some of you guys are not going to fare well when the monsters are due on Maple Street.

When I find a thread not to my liking, I move on and leave it in the rear view. That might be something to consider unless you’ve got way too much time on your hands. It’s a free country. No one’s gonna stop you from bashing your head against a wall if that’s your jam.

In any case, thanks for the laughs.

 

[Phyzman]

You are the researcher.

You are independent.

You will make the decision.

You must be honest with yourself and accept responsibility for your decision.

Don't blame CR, a forum or some blog that TOLD you to buy brand X.

I am collecting data as many ways as are practicable before committing. But I cannot buy, drive, and long-term own every vehicle that makes it to the short list prior to the purchase decision.

And who said anything about skirting responsibility or blaming anyone for anything here? Honestly! Maybe switch to decaf?

 

[Phyzman]

Up from 2/5 to 3/5

Still waiting to hear back from bureaucratic bunker of CR. Not holding my breath since I questioned their rating.

But I did notice tonight that the Reliability Verdict buoyed up from a 2/5 to a 3/5. That “verdict” may yet bubble up to a 5 in the long term. The Verdict remains lower than any of the components used to determine it, so I would say things look good for its upward mobility.

If you don’t care what CR’s Reliability Verdict is, your options are to
A. Move along and ignore this stupid thread.
B. Express the extent to which you choose to disregard CR.

You should probably pick A because you’ve got better things to do. But I don’t think you can resist B; there’s a soapbox just begging for you to jump on it.

 

[PWMDMD]

6 pages of posts and if you look at the actual CR report it is clear the overall assessment of realibilty does not match the sum of the individual categories beneath it - in other words the most likely explaination is CR made a simple mistake.

I do find it funny that CR is only valid when it says what you want it to say. Super reliable 2012-2017. Absolutely! Unreliable for 2018. CR is total crap! Lol...