Not sure I trust JD Power surveys as they have sponsors, probably
competitors in the industry. Consumer Reports who only makes money from
their subscribers gives Subaru top marks.
A Subaru salesman told me that they were the most profitable automobile
company. Maybe in part due to saving in advertising and promotion. We
have three dealers in my area and none of them advertise but sales are
You've always been this subversive trying to up a count of citations but
actually citing the same reference? I be you double-spaced your school
essays, too, to get to the required page count faster with less content.
On Friday, August 30, 2019 at 5:47:50 PM UTC-7, John Varela wrote:
There are people on both sides.
Btw., in law the burded of proof lies on
I personally don't trust any of the surveys.
They are NOT really independent work, there
always seems to be some interest behind them.
If it were a governmental agency conducting
them I'd be somewhat more likely to rely on
No, you did not. I just wanted to answer also the poster who did.
BTW, I think a lot of this hostility toward me for bringing up such
articles is probably cognitive dissonance, when in fact I bring it up
mainly to get a reassurance for myself that my intention to buy a
Crosstrek is validated by you guys, the long term owners. So, by
debunking such articles is actually reassuring me and thatnks for that.
I bought a new Crosstrek in January and have been very pleased with it.
I got the base model with optional EyeSight.
In part of the thread I mentioned the high marks given it by Consumer
Reports. They also said that the Crosstrek hybrid was not worth the
extra cost to just get an extra 4 mpg. I have been averaging over 30
mpg with just local driving.
In this thread: You cite AutoNews who cites JD Power. Autonews cites
comments from Tom Doll who reacted to the IQS study (by JD Power).
Autonews didn't do the research. They just cited JD Powers.
In your other thread: You cite ... wait for it ... JD Power.
Lots of authors will cite JD Powers as their source. Same info, same
source. No surprise there that the FUD keeps flowing. Multiple
articles citing the same source still counts as just one source.
You had plenty of prior respondents that specified why the IQS study was
flawed by just using a count without any weighting by severity and
nothing about how IQS relates to reliability as the vehicle ages. Air
bags deploying is just *1* problem but is a hell of lot more severe than
just the *1* problem with a low-fuel indicator being off about 5-20
miles on its estimate.
The IQS rating isn't worthless but it is highly skewed without regard to
severity or cost to repair/replace. Citing multiple article that cite
the same source (JD Power's IQS) isn't going to make more accurate or
relevant that JD Power study.
Am I a Subaru fanboy? Not so much over the last decade. In fact, I was
planning on getting another car and was looking at Toyota instead of
getting another Subie. I wouldn't bother ranking either better than the
other because the prep boys at the dealership happened to forget to put
in the carpet mats, or they slapped on their dealer sticker on my car
when I told them not to do so and that I would charge a monthly
advertising fee (and when discovered on delivery, and reminded what I
would charge them, then they removed their label). I don't rank car
reliability by piddly and trivial stuff. I do consider the cost of
having to replace leaking head gaskets (that Subaru lied about and then
tried to proffer their own stop-leak mix as a solution) and the danger
and nuisance of having to replace accidentally exploding Takada air bags
(which was a recall, so no cost but still a nuisance to get repaired).
You might want to review the recalls on the vehicles in which you are
interested to get an idea of the history of ills with those vehicles.
Just remember that you're deliberately at all the bad stuff that
happens. Another factor you might want to research is the average cost
per year (and as the car ages) for maintaining the vehicle, and that
includes fuel, oil changes, cost for part, insurance (that varies by the
brand and model and other factors), initial price, loan interest, sales
tax, tabs, depreciation (which varies by brand and model), and ALL
expenses incurred in ownership. Last time I got motivated in looking at
cars that I could afford with a low cost of ownership, Toyota won over
with Subaru being $3544 versus the Toyota, but that was between the
Outback SUV (wagon) versus the Camry SE sedan. If I compare against the
then Subaru wins (but by a smaller $176 margin). Then, if I compare
just within Subaru between the Outback and Forester:
then the Forester is more expensive (by $1060).
Often the charts showing total cost of ownership only span 5 years.
I've kept my Subies for 20 years, the longest being 24 years.
Eventually parts get hardware to find (manufacturers only have to
produce them for 20 years) and more expensive, so, at some point, cost
of ownership curves upware (but buying a new car is even more
expensive). The charts show depreciation (with highest loss to least
being Outback, Forester, Camry, and RAV4) which influences resale value,
but you'd have to also figure in the initial price (from higher to lower
being Outback, RAV4, Forester, Camry).
There are other online resources regarding cost of ownership, like:
(ordered from highest to lowest but only for 10 models)
If you do your research, you can aggregate a compendium of reports
regarding pricing, cost of ownership, reliability with age, and so on.
So far, you're just citing one source (JD Power) with a problem count
but no weighting regarding severety or cost to repair or replace.
Citing more articles pointing at the same JD Power IQS study doesn't add
any weight to that one annual study.
That's very smart.
I'm not a medical researcher but I believe some of the most relevent
medical reports are systematic reviews with meta-analyses. That is, a
number of independent studies are aggregated and then summarized to
Take JD Power, add in Consumer Reports, Jalopnik, Car and Driver,
Edmunds, Kelley Blue Book, this forum, etc., and see what they all say.
Don't go by one report alone; a new car is too large an investment to
make without thoughtful and careful research.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.