Consumer Reports predicts average reliability on Model 3

[daniel]

I'm a big fan of BOTH Tesla and Consumer Reports. Nobody is perfect, that goes for both outfits. Both have made mistakes. Both are honest, upright, and do their best to provide quality products. (Cars, in the case of Tesla, product reviews, in the case of CR.)

I think it's generally good advice not to buy the first of anything, but there are exceptions: Some companies are so reliable generally that I'm willing to take a chance. Teslas have not been as reliable as Toyota, or as my old 1989 Honda Civic was, so waiting a bit might be a good idea. That said, cars nowadays are much more reliable than they used to be, and "average" reliability is pretty good.

Every company that gets less than a stellar rating from CR bitches and complains, but while they're not perfect, as noted, I think they're one of the better sources of unbiased information we have. They do not take money from anyone to influence their ratings.

Let's not let our love of Tesla blind us to the fact that their cars have not been as reliable as the top auto makers like Toyota. And let's not start a feud with Consumer Reports for reporting the facts: Tesla reliability has been about average in the auto industry. (Which, as I already said, is pretty good.)

 

[Az_Rael]

I’m hoping the Model 3 will be about the same.

I own a 2006 Tacoma, a 2013 S and a 2015 S. The Tacoma is rock solid, even when it’s been neglected. All we do is oil changes once year at this point. We had one transmission gasket that was leaky and cost $400 to fix, mostly due to the labor to get to it.

The two S’s have been closer to a Ford or a Chevy, but not as difficult as the two VWs we used to own. So, if you are used to Toyota reliability, you may need to manage your expectations for the 3.

 

[david_42]

Much of CR's position seems to be based on the problems that the Model X has; Musk admits the X is overloaded with features that are difficult to manufacture in volume. It is interesting to note, that in another recent article CR states that electric cars are inherently more reliable than ICE vehicles. So, one would think that an electric vehicle designed to be simple and reliable would be above average in reliability, perhaps much above the average.

 

[daniel]

Much of CR's position seems to be based on the problems that the Model X has; Musk admits the X is overloaded with features that are difficult to manufacture in volume. It is interesting to note, that in another recent article CR states that electric cars are inherently more reliable than ICE vehicles. So, one would think that an electric vehicle designed to be simple and reliable would be above average in reliability, perhaps much above the average.

It may have a lot to do with how we use the word "average." In common usage, "average" can mean "just so-so," "not really very good." Used rigorously, it means the same number of repair issues per car as all other cars, added up and divided by the number of cars. Or less rigorously, take the reliability of all other car brands sold in the U.S. and it will be about in the middle. And in fact, that's my expectation based on Tesla's past history. I hope they get it figured out and end up with Toyota-level quality or better. But that would greatly surprise me. There's no disgrace in being average for a new and relatively-inexperienced company like Tesla, especially considering how much cutting-edge technology is in their cars. I don't believe the technology to build my Roadster even existed a decade before it was built.

 

[RickAnstey]

In 2008, CR had 8 million print subscribers. Today, they have 3.8 million. This is a desperate attempt to be relevant in a world that has passed them by.

 

[daniel]

In 2008, CR had 8 million print subscribers. Today, they have 3.8 million. This is a desperate attempt to be relevant in a world that has passed them by.

Who buys print magazines any more? I get the digital version. I used to subscribe to the print version of CR. Now I subscribe to the digital version.

 

[kort677]

Who buys print magazines any more? I get the digital version. I used to subscribe to the print version of CR. Now I subscribe to the digital version.

While getting mags and newspapers digitally works well I still enjoy getting my daily delivered and reading it.

 

[JRoque]

Hi all. CR has been "reviewing" cars for many decades pretty much the same way: go around the car once, turn the radio on/off, ask the reviewer's neighbor how s/he like their car. That's it.

Aside from the above, the problem with CR's reliability model seems to be the lack of weighing on what constitutes a problem that makes a car less reliable. It seems that Tesla's problem with retracting door handles is equal to Toyota's highway unintended acceleration. Or a rattle in a Model X is about the same at exploding airbags in others.

True, Tesla has had its share of growing pain issues with their cars, but the rate of making their vehicles more reliable in their short 10 years of existence far exceeds that of 100 year old manufacturers that continue to introduce new issues to this day.

I'm sure the Model 3 will have some issues when it comes out in large numbers. I'm also sure Tesla will fix those, perhaps even over the air as no one else can. I wonder if CR considered that in their reliability assessment.

 

[Sportstick]

Hi all. CR has been "reviewing" cars for many decades pretty much the same way: go around the car once, turn the radio on/off, ask the reviewer's neighbor how s/he like their car. That's it.

Aside from the above, the problem with CR's reliability model seems to be the lack of weighing on what constitutes a problem that makes a car less reliable. It seems that Tesla's problem with retracting door handles is equal to Toyota's highway unintended acceleration. Or a rattle in a Model X is about the same at exploding airbags in others.

True, Tesla has had its share of growing pain issues with their cars, but the rate of making their vehicles more reliable in their short 10 years of existence far exceeds that of 100 year old manufacturers that continue to introduce new issues to this day.

I'm sure the Model 3 will have some issues when it comes out in large numbers. I'm also sure Tesla will fix those, perhaps even over the air as no one else can. I wonder if CR considered that in their reliability assessment.

Quite the cynic! Have you been to their test faciities and spoken to their engineers? My colleagues have when setting objectives for a new vehicle program or getting deeper in to what they did not like which we had launched (I worked for a domestic car company, often-enough not well regarded by CR). Although there might not be agreement on assessments or the preferred objective, it's a very professional operation of talented and experienced folks who do detailed analysis. But, even if you dismiss the inevitably subjectively-affected road test assessment, the reliability data is based on large sample (abeit biased in that it is the subscriber base - not the gen pop) data. And, they do not lump all problems together, but report out in specific categories. Take a very current example...the new Subaru Impreza....strong green up arrows in almost all categories, but one very red double down arrow for the new 2017 model for in-car electronics. This lets the buyer decide if they otherwise happen to want that car, whether they want to deal with potential problems with the radio or connectivity if all else about the car performs so well. I know it's easy and traditional to bash CR, but it's actually not warranted. I also subscribe digitally, but used to be print-only.

 

[daniel]

Hi all. CR has been "reviewing" cars for many decades pretty much the same way: go around the car once, turn the radio on/off, ask the reviewer's neighbor how s/he like their car. That's it.

Aside from the above, the problem with CR's reliability model seems to be the lack of weighing on what constitutes a problem that makes a car less reliable. It seems that Tesla's problem with retracting door handles is equal to Toyota's highway unintended acceleration. Or a rattle in a Model X is about the same at exploding airbags in others.

True, Tesla has had its share of growing pain issues with their cars, but the rate of making their vehicles more reliable in their short 10 years of existence far exceeds that of 100 year old manufacturers that continue to introduce new issues to this day.

I'm sure the Model 3 will have some issues when it comes out in large numbers. I'm also sure Tesla will fix those, perhaps even over the air as no one else can. I wonder if CR considered that in their reliability assessment.

The above is complete and utter nonsense, but it's the sort of thing that people say when a car they like gets a low rating. As Sportstick notes above, CR's testing is thorough and reliable, though as noted some assessments are necessarily subjective.

My 2.5 Roadster has had just a few issues, but one of those left it inoperable until it was fixed, and a few others were significant inconveniences. By comparison, My 2004 Prius has only ever had one issue, and it did not prevent the car from operating. Thus my experience with Tesla reliability places it in CR's "average" category: Better than the other U.S. car makers, not as good as the Japanese. I'm just one person, but I've read plenty of posts here on TMC Forum about issues with Tesla cars. Before getting my Tesla I was on a chat board concerned with Toyota cars. There were far fewer issues with those cars. Tesla has not been as reliable as Toyota.

I'm driving a Tesla, and my next car will be another Tesla (Model 3) because reliability is only one factor: I hate gasoline, and Tesla makes excellent cars. (Including the best car ever made, according to CR!) Average reliability is an accurate assessment for Tesla, and average is pretty good, and it's good enough for me, considering the many advantages of driving electric.

 

[kort677]

Quite the cynic! Have you been to their test faciities and spoken to their engineers? My colleagues have when setting objectives for a new vehicle program or getting deeper in to what they did not like which we had launched (I worked for a domestic car company, often-enough not well regarded by CR). Although there might not be agreement on assessments or the preferred objective, it's a very professional operation of talented and experienced folks who do detailed analysis. But, even if you dismiss the inevitably subjectively-affected road test assessment, the reliability data is based on large sample (abeit biased in that it is the subscriber base - not the gen pop) data. And, they do not lump all problems together, but report out in specific categories. Take a very current example...the new Subaru Impreza....strong green up arrows in almost all categories, but one very red double down arrow for the new 2017 model for in-car electronics. This lets the buyer decide if they otherwise happen to want that car, whether they want to deal with potential problems with the radio or connectivity if all else about the car performs so well. I know it's easy and traditional to bash CR, but it's actually not warranted. I also subscribe digitally, but used to be print-only.

All true however in the case of the model 3 how much hands on evaluation went into to their review of the car? From what I see there was no real evaluation. I expect more than a guess from CR

 

[Sportstick]

All true however in the case of the model 3 how much hands on evaluation went into to their review of the car? From what I see there was no real evaluation. I expect more than a guess from CR

I would question a "guess" as well. There have been enough quotations earlier in this thread on what really happened, but what CR did was an estimate based on what relevant information they could glean. We used to call this "scenario planning", taking the facts and trends and projecting alternative possible outcomes and assigning weights to predict what is most likely. Given the course of improvement from MS over model years, the techinical simplicity of the M3, the exclusion of the features which plague MX, the learning curve they have observed at Tesla, and the historical lower levels of launch quality of any new program versus old/orior programs, they made an "estimate", so-labeled and assessed that the good score of "Average" for a first-year vehicle among all vehicles on the market was the most reasonable expectation. The part which confuses me is why people here are not celebrating this actually good projection...given how established manufacturers fare, often below-average for a first-year new program, attaining "Average" is a very good sign of confidence. I don't get the negativity.

 

[JRoque]

Quite the cynic! Have you been to their test faciities and spoken to their engineers

I can assure you no engineer signed off on that complete speculation of CR's. They are only looking to create marketing buzz around their name. They get me to give my opinion here and you to call me a cynic, all good marketing for them.

I subscribe to CR and have done so for many years. They are an excellent resource for when I need to buy a new clothes washer, that's about it.

 

[daniel]

I can assure you no engineer signed off on that complete speculation of CR's. They are only looking to create marketing buzz around their name. They get me to give my opinion here and you to call me a cynic, all good marketing for them.

I subscribe to CR and have done so for many years. They are an excellent resource for when I need to buy a new clothes washer, that's about it.

It would not be an engineer's job to "sign off" on what CR said right up front is a guess at reliability based on past performance of Tesla cars. They said they're guessing, and their guess is that Tesla will do better than other American car companies do on the first year of a brand-new car. I think that CR has given Tesla a big vote of confidence. And with half a million reservations, Tesla will not be hurt in the slightest if the more cautious and conservative people on the list choose to wait a few months before placing their order.

 

[dhanson865]

I have real trouble understanding how they can predict anything having never sat in the car. CR is really testing its own credibility.

I started reading consumer reports in the 70s and they have always put in projected reliability as though it's fact. I never put much faith in any consumer reports reliability rating for a car less than 3 years old. You could just scan down the page and every car would have red balls for year 1 and 2, and then the black balls would show up on year 3 when they finally had some data.

and it was a rolling window. You could save up the magazines year after year and compare and year 3 would roll around the same for 80% or more of the cars. If the black balls didn't show up on the 3rd year it became the standout that they highlighted in their used car ratings. If they did show up they quietly ignored how inaccurate the 1st and 2nd year ratings were in comparison.

Essentially if they had just deleted the most current year from the results printed it would have been more accurate but then they'd have all the hate mail for not covering the new car year. And it would highlight that their survey results come out in a different part of the year vs the fall new car season. By design their survey is always a year behind when they do the annual Car Buyers Guide edition.

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Given Tesla's history, I think CR is being generous.

 

[xav-]

Maybe something like Consumer Reports made sense in ancient times like the 1970s and 1980s when computers and color TVs did not exist.

Nowadays with forums, YouTube and all I am not sure I get what it's for.

As a side note I was a subscriber in 2009 then canceled when they tried to charge me for something that was available for free elsewhere. I was also pretty annoyed by their overall anti apple propaganda... remember that overheating iPad story that was all over the news?

 

[206er]

honestly didn't know that Consumer Reports was still in business, let alone had anyone actually paying attention to them, be it print or digital. People really give companies money in exchange for op-ed tire kick reviews in the days of Yelp, YouTube, Amazon, and search engines?

All I generally consider as far as product or service reviews goes is 1) my experience with the brand, 2) YouTube, 3) what my friends, family and/or and co-workers have to say about their experiences, and maybe 4) Amazon reviews (provided there's a decent sample size).

 

[MotoEvCA]

Hi all. CR has been "reviewing" cars for many decades pretty much the same way: go around the car once, turn the radio on/off, ask the reviewer's neighbor how s/he like their car. That's it.

As others have mentioned you either are ignorant of the Consumer Reports annual survey process or a complete idiot for lying when the facts are present online and on the CR web site. Consumer Reports has a data analytics team that uses statistical sampling and modeling methods.

Tesla apologists are doing the company no favors by attacking CR. The company praised the Model S initially and gave it their highest review score but over time their three purchased vehicles along with owner surveys required them to temper their rating accordingly.

I have a Model 3 reservation and will be purchasing my vehicle in 2018. Rational thinking adults can put the quality control challenges Tesla is working through in context of them being a relatively new company without the billions in reserve. The Model S has demonstrated Tesla is on the right track and I expect no less from the Model 3.

The Ranger service model along with the good-will Tesla has earned from many consumers since inception should temper new owner expectations however, if new Model 3 owners are expecting problem free Model 3s out of the initial production batch their expectations may not be met. The Model 3 has many major components that are not shared with the Model S or X and the risk of supplier or long-term problems may not have been discovered up to this point.

 

[SageBrush]

Whether their prediction is likely to be true or not is not the issue I have with them. They are a publication that purports to test products in an unbiased manner. By announcing a largely baseless "prediction" about a product they haven't touched, they are not only introducing bias, they're trumpeting it loudly. It smells to me like CR is trying to capitalize on the Model 3 publicity to gain more attention for themselves. "Quick! Everyone else is talking about the Model 3, so we must say something, too."

Right or wrong in their prediction, simply making it is counter to their self-proclaimed ethos.

Question for you then:

Let's say your priority is reliability and you have to choose between a brand new Toyota model or a brand new Fiat model. Are you swayed by past manufacturer performance ? The statistical answer is, you should be.

My only comment is that Tesla is too young a company, with too few products under its belt, to give much credence to its manufacturing history. So while I accept the notion that CR is using I find it to be too blunt an instrument to mean much of anything in this case.

I give CR credit where it is due, and they continue to provide a valuable consumer service and protection. That said, I cancelled my subscription over annoyance with their auto reviews. I don't think they are wrong per se, but they have a built-in bias towards the fifty-ish, fat, and pampered crowd I do not belong too, so their conclusions and report cards kept striking a discordant cord with me. I do think they represent the buying preferences of White middle class America quite well.