*Motor Trend: 2006 Honda Ridgeline First Road Test [5.5]

[Lifesaver1]

Firstly, mea culpa. Suzuk Samurai was the vehicle around which all the litigation took place. It was rollover testing by Consumer Reports that got them going. They sued, but ultimately bailed on the lawsuit, coming to terms with some bland, somewhat meaningless wording agreement.

Second, I concur about some of the limitations of Consumer Reports reliability surveys. They survey their own members (subscribers basically) on an annual basis and the reports on reliability are based thereupon. One might postulate that Consumer Reports members are not representative of the general public, but I'm not sure why their auto reliability experience would be any less representative than that of anyone else. From a purely scientific standpoint, a random survey of the general public would be best, but who would do that for all cars and would it yield some different results? Not only that, but they survey 675,000 people. That's a big sample of car buyers.

The great value of Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, is that they are rabidly independent, nonprofit, and seemingly as unbiased as any entity could be. The amount of money they could get for allowing their seal of approval to be marketed would be substantial, but they will not do it, for it would taint their objectivity and appearance thereof. So I believe that one can fairly fault their testing methods or approach (though I don't), but I don't believe one can fairly fault their objectivity.

The following is from the Consumers Union president's message:

"Consumer Reports has been covering autos for 68 years. We drive each vehicle for several months and 6,000 to 8,000 miles. We test performance, fuel economy, safety, comfort, and convenience. We measure trunk space with suitcases, so we can tell you what will really fit inside. We measure reach, width, and illumination patterns of headlights, but we consult moon charts first. How else would we determine which are the darkest, most scientifically appropriate nights for headlight testing?

By the time a vehicle earns our “Recommended” check mark, we’ve track- tested it and road-tested it. We’ve analyzed its reliability and factored in
accident-avoidance performance and crash- and rollover-test results, if the vehicle has been crash-tested by the government or the insurance industry. Unlike one competitor, which sells its seal of approval to automakers for use in their advertising, we do not put our “Recommended” check up for sale.

Interested in how a particular new or used car will hold up over the years? Our latest Annual Questionnaire drew responses for 675,000 subscriber-owned vehicles covering 14 trouble spots over eight model years. The reliability data we present are broader than anything else available and come from the deepest pool of actual consumer experience."

Consumer Reports is imperfect. Consider that they imply that both the driver's seat and passenger's seat in the Ridgeline are electric. Nevertheless, you don't have to worry when you read their ratings that they haven't done their best and ignored outside influence.

[Baja]

I can make a wild guess as to where you work
Mr. Lifesaver----

[shovelhd]

Lifesaver1,

I understand the facts you stated behind the CR reliability surveys. I'll stand by my point, though. The data is empirically based. It is of limited value to me.

[Lifesaver1]

Do you think there is a better source? I assume the self-reporting by consumers is about the most objective source available. Is there another or are there other sources that you think are more reliable? I'm genuinely curious.

There's no question that when you buy a car, new or used, the careful consumer wants a sense of its reliability. One source is other people you know who have owned the vehicle. One source is ads and company reputation. I've always thought though, that the CR service essentially provides a huge source of real information from other buyers who are presumably unbiased.

I am ignorant as to how JD Power, for example, does its ratings. Is that, for example, a somehow more reliable source in your view.

[chicago]

If CR really did do it's research on the RTL, then they would have known that there is no way you can fit 3 sets of golf clubs in the trunk! Maybe if they were in Sunday shag bags, but not regular size golf bags. Only 2 fit in my RTL.

I'm certainly not complaining as you can just throw the other 2 sets in the bed. Or all 4 for that matter.

[Lifesaver1]

Don't know much about golf bags, but they did indicate, I believe, that the passenger's seat is electrict, which is not the case. Clearly, CR is imperfect.

[arteegee]

Like me they ass-u-me-d it was at $30k plus...

[boxsky]

I agree CR is imperfect in their data collection however when I have followed their reliability reports I have not be disappointed in the product and the times I have ignored them or chosen a lower rated model they are about 90% of the time correct and I developed a problem or 2.
I know when I get the survey I don't mind filling it out truthfully hoping that the manuf of the item is listening or reading the data and will correct the problems for future buyers.

I never thought mentioning CR would get this response.

[Lifesaver1]

Originally Posted by boxsky

I never thought mentioning CR would get this response.

Me either! I am genuinely interested in knowing if there is a better source of objective reliability data. And for Baja, just to let you know, I don't work for CR. I've got other work to do: www.lifesaver1.com.

Regardless, few on this website would disagree, I suspect, with CR's rating of the Ridgeline. Indeed, it may be one of the best marketing tools Honda can't use.

[shovelhd]

Subjective data:

CR subscriber surveys
Internet forums

Objective data:

Manufacturer recalls
Dealer techline publications
Independent mechanic repair data

If you can't understand the difference, that's fine. Believe what you want to believe.

IMO CR reliability data is just one point of information in a vehicle purchase.