The U.S. domestic automakers aren’t looking so good, taking up 11 of the bottom 12 spots. Surprisingly (or maybe not?) Volvo was ranked last, and Mercedes-Benz+Volkswagon are smack dab right n the middle.
2 Likes
Am I the only cynic here that is seeing a noted correlation between a reported “drop in reliability” and the main issue being a problem with the entertainment system? Aside from someone’s kids not being able to watch Mulan for the 30th time, is there anything wrong with the engine or transmission? C’mon Consumer Reports! But then, its really not their fault, rather its the 500k subscribers who are feeding the data; whose perceptions of reliability are contingent on their kids keeping quiet.
On a side note, if you are in the market for a new vehicle, also watch out for models that had recent redesigns. Just because the last 5 years of reports are highly favorable, and the model you are looking at had some sort of mechanical redesign last year, then maybe pass on that one. I ended up getting screwed in this exact scenario. The year we got our Mini Cooper just happened to be a redesign year where they started using a lot more plastic parts in the engine. $5,000 in engine repairs before the car hit 50k miles.
3 Likes
I always get a chuckle from Consumer Reports. Although their “data” is not without value, it is, in my opinion, misleading when misapplied, which is usually, mostly because of why it’s valuable: it’s based purely on subjective information gathering. I couldn’t care less what a half-million Consumer Reports Members think about their car or mine, and my mileage tends to vary greatly from theirs…
But it IS valuable to know what impression others get so I know where the market is treading.
Thank you, average consumer, for killing the manual transmission. Bastards.
5 Likes
I used to religiously read CR and the car reviews always made me laugh. Things like, “While the cornering prowess of the SuperZoot Gold Bar Turbo RS was top-notch - it’s the only car we’ve ever tested to run our skidpad at more than 1 G - the suspension was quite harsh over bumps and not nearly as plush as other cars costing much less.” (paraphrased and maybe exaggerated slightly)
1 Like
Found the Mazda rating/comments interesting/amusing.
Nobody seems to be commenting the problem of DI engines w/ single fuel systems (i.e. no port FI) carboning up the intake side of the engine. A rude reality check on an expensive maintenance that will probably need to be done every 40k - 60k mi. May or may not be covered by manufactures warranty or EPA warranty. If you plan on keeping your car past 100k mi, you will probably be on your own. And it’s not a design oversight…A very strong possibility of a massive class action suite against various manufactures exists here. Watch for many TSBs being issued to avoid this. ( yes, Mazda recently put one out there.)
Oh come on now. Which is more important? Shifting gears or holding the c phone/punching the infotainment system?
A clutch and box of gears - as simple and reliable as it gets.
3 Likes
Maybe they haven’t encountered it yet. AFAIK, the fuel additives that come with the higher octane fuel is responsible for the fouling in at least one Asian country. No idea if it’s the same for the US fuels.
1 Like
Additives may/may not aggravate the problem. It’s a basic engine design flaw. Had shop tech recommend running tank of premium every 3rd/4th fill up - or adding techron or some other fuel cleaning treatment. Given the nature of how Mazda’s Skyactive engines operate, I don’t see either helping that much - if any. I’m pretty sure this applies to other manufacturer’s single fuel system DI engines.
Without some kind of solvent - ie gasoline - washing down the intake ports and the back side of the intake valves, you will eventually have this problem.
4 Likes
Thanks to the EPA and other agencies we have Direct Injection. But that has created the thick build up on the valves and ports leading to check engine lights, misfires and more unnecessary parts & repairs and costs to the consumer that never existed before.
As someone put it, cars are so reliable nowadays that comparative reliability rates aren’t meaningful. A 2005 Chevy was markedly more reliable than a 1995 Honda; however a 2005 Honda was more reliable than the contemporary Chevy.
Incident rates mean more than comparative reliability.
When you look into the granular data, you’ll get a categorical breakdown of reliability. “Infotainment” is in a different category than drivetrain which is separate from bodywork, etc.
I avoid “redesigns”, i.e. new chassis/platform/architecture years for this reason.
There was a time when I was a 3-pedal bigot for … driving aesthetic … reasons. Those times are gone and now the concerns are more practical:
- How reliable is it / how much does it cost to maintain automatics vs manuals?
- They say that clutches are wear items but I’ve yet to wear one out
- Slushboxes are supposedly pretty reliable now but boy howdy are they complex beasts that will put a world of hurt on your wallet if they do break
- DSGs seem to require routine injections of unicorn blood and stem cell seasoning of their innards and do batsh_t random things at the price points of mere mortals
- CVTs seem like they’re pot luck on reliability, and manufacturers love to negate their advantages with slushbox “shift point” emulation
- How aggravating is the shifting algorithm?
- How much more does it cost
I don’t necessarily mind giving up that third pedal for paddle shifters or even well-implemented transmission settings, but the market’s response to the above concerns proved dissatisfying last year, so I got the 6-speed manual on the WRX. It’s annoying at times in traffic, sure. But satisfying merging onto the highway and passing.
However, it’s seeming likely that next vehicle won’t have a transmission at all - just a fixed reduction gear.
2 Likes
Oh definitely, however just reading the synopsis’s (which is what most people are going to do) there were so many of them that looked like the issue was the entertainment system which is misleading.
1 Like
Oh, great! Thanks for making my wagon unreliable, Marshall. 
2 Likes
In Mazda’s case, that was what they cited as the cause. Owners were advised to switch to lower octane fuel. Something about the octane increasing additives being the cause of the injectors clogging/fouling. Owners who did, had no publicized issues after. This was when the SkyActiv engines first came out.
Their upcoming SkyActiv-X engines sound interesting.
To the best of my knowledge all oft he Skyactive G engines (in the US) spec low octane fuel (85 - 87) w/ the exception the Miata. Guessing the Miata got some kind of intake tweak where the amount of air raised the dynamic CR enough to need more octane. I ran a number of tanks of mid grade through my 2013 M3 HB and was not impressed w/ the results. Not a sound statistical test, but the indications were that the extra octane didn’t help and may actually hurt mpg/performance.
Dual fuel systems - both port FI and DI - seem to take care of the problem. Port FI runs at idle/low loads and transitions over to DI for higher rpm/loads. Think Toyota brought this first to the market.
Partially true. Everybody wants to have their cake and eat it to. DI plays a critical roll in that. Then there’s the mentality of such and such race car has xyz. My street car needs/should have xyz too. Paddle shifters on an automatic are excellent example of such nonsense. Manufacturers are in intense competition to deliver performance and at the same time high mpgs. Can not do that without DI. And that’s before worrying about emissions.
Indeed. Raw early data indicate 20-30% increase in all the important numbers - hp, torque, and mpg. Think of an M3 HB cruising in the low 80s mph and getting hi 30s to low 40s for mpg. They put this engine in a M3 HB test car and said it outperformed the current gen Miata. Looking forward to this. Prediction - this engine will have the same intake issues.
3 Likes
Interesting. It is consistent in at least 2 markets worldwide then.
I did the same thing to a current generation Prius. Similar results. No observable gain in mpg.
Yup. The Toyota/Subaru 86/BR-Z. Both sets of injectors turn on and off at different rpm & engine loads, or sometimes firing together. Interestingly, that engine has been pushed to over 400hp when running E85 and turbcharged.
Driveability is similar to current gen 3s I’m told by a couple of guys who’ve driven them. It’s gonna be interesting how other manufacturers will respond if it becomes successful commercially.
On stock FI? 
Stock is non turbo 2.0 which makes 150-160whp on the dyno,
It was fitted with a turbo kit which pumped out 350whp on the dyno on better pump gas and higher boost.
Got to drive it, it was fun, well balanced and just right at 240-250whp(low boost) on stock wheels/brakes/suspension. It was still fun at 280+whp. At 350whp, you could feel the factory tires and brakes were at their limits and the car still carrying a lot of momentum when you lifted off the accelerator to brake at the end of a 0-100+mph run.
I didn’t get to drive it when they tuned it for E85.
Here’s a photo(grabbed from the web) of what the car eventually looked like before it was eventually sold. His kid was stoked with the scheme(so were the people who saw it)
1 Like
Was a change in injectors/injector controllers a part of this kit, or was this truly a software change only as far as fuel management?
Up to 350 I think it was still factory with Ecutek tuning reflash. I don’t know if they switched out or what they switched out to when they went E85.
1 Like
Probably changed out the port FI to bigger/higher flow injectors. Not sure this can be readily done w/ the DI. E85 will require close to 2x fuel flow compared to E0 - E10. The massive amount of E85 flowing through the engine helps w/ the cooling. The fuel curves/tuning for both set of injectors had to be an interesting exercise.
2 Likes
They said it was, even before the E85