CR a leading authority on auto reliability data? Ya gotta remember that it's compiled from voluntary subscriber responses: granola moms with nothing else to do, nerds who find their new Fit far superior to the Yugo they traded-in......and a disproportionate response rate from the truly disgruntled.
Ancient history: my Dad subscribed to CR and I poured thru the tests and charts before I was old enough to drive.......and used the charts to target reliable models. But when I got my license and summer job, I lusted after an MBG and learned a lot about Brit itron. I thought it strange that CR reported some years of MGBs had worse or better body integrity, transmissions, brakes, engines, etc. than others......a little odd since those things didn't change year-to-year.
Digging further I learned that some year Corvettes were more likely to rust than others (!). And Jeep owners were upset with air and water leaks (if anyone bought CJs or Wranglers looking for creature comforts, they deserved to suffer).
But I still subscribe and take it all with a grain of salt......and still read the car tests and annual car issue. It's about the only source of info about cars we really buy: I get all the car mags, too, but they're seldom more than rhapsodies about glitzie supercars I'll never see, let alone buy........ the car mag writers are just interested in free ego trips,