2009 Annual Auto Reliability Survey: Best and worst models by car maker

It is easy to assume that certain automakers build only reliable cars and others don’t, however, nearly every manufacturer have their share of winners and losers in our annual reliability survey. Each company and even brand product portfolio runs a spectrum of reliability performance, with its own best and worst examples. For some, the range can span from much better than average to much worse than average, whereas other may be centered around average. The key lesson from scanning the data within an automaker is not to make assumptions.

For example, the best Toyota Motor Company model in our reliability survey is the Lexus SC—its predicted reliability score is the second highest out of over 300 vehicles, but the worst is the Lexus GS (AWD), which scores in the bottom 10 percent, and receives a much worse than average rating, and is not recommended in our testing. While it is true that Lexus models tend to be reliable and test well, this is not the case for all Lexus vehicles.

The greatest disparity comes from Volkswagen. The VW Golf (aka Rabbit) is one of the most reliable small cars you can buy, but the Volkswagen Touareg has the lowest predicted reliability score in our 2009 Annual Auto Survey.

In most cases, the best model for reliability is a recommended model and the worst is not. However, Honda’s top reliable vehicle in our survey, the Honda Insight, is not recommended due to low scores in our testing. The least reliable Honda vehicle is the Acura RL, but it has an average reliability score and is recommended. Honda is one of the more consistent manufacturers and has no model that scored below average in reliability.

The two more reliable General Motors products are from two brands that are leaving the GM umbrella. The Saturn Aura (4-cyl.) is newly recommended this year and the Pontiac Vibe will be phased out in the coming months.

Below are the best and worst models in reliability. Models with an * are based on data of one model year only.

BMW
Best: BMW 328i (RWD)
Worst: BMW 535i (AWD)*

Chrysler
Best: Jeep Patriot
Worst: Chrysler Town & Country/Dodge Grand Caravan

Ford
Best: Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan (4-cyl.)
Worst: Ford F-250 (turbodiesel, 4WD)*

General Motors
Best: Chevrolet Malibu (V6)
Worst: Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon (4WD)

Honda
Best: Honda Insight*
Worst: Acura RL

Hyundai/Kia
Best: Hyundai Tucson
Worst: Kia Sedona

Mazda
Best: Mazda3 sedan
Worst: Mazda CX-7

Mercedes-Benz
Best: Mercedes-Benz GLK*
Worst: Mercedes-Benz GL-Class (turbodiesel)*

Nissan
Best: Infiniti M35 (RWD)
Worst: Nissan Versa sedan*

Subaru
Best: Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
Worst: Subaru Impreza WRX*

Toyota
Best: Lexus SC*
Worst: Lexus GS (AWD)

Volkswagen
Best: Volkswagen Golf (Rabbit)
Worst: Volkswagen Touareg*

Volvo
Best: Volvo S40 (FWD)*
Worst: Volvo XC90 (V8)*

The main take away from this information is don’t judge a book by its cover. Avoid assumptions and do your research before you buy your next vehicle. It takes just a few minutes to browse the model overview pages, or use the interactive new car selector tool, which sorts and filters by the parameters that matter most to you.

Either path will reveal Consumer Reports recommended models that did well in our road tests, score average or better in reliability, and performs at least adequately if included in government or insurance industry safety tests.

For more details on our 2009 Annual Auto Survey including the full list of most and least reliable new cars by vehicle type, see our reliability report. Also, check out our guide to car reliability for more details on new and used car reliability as well as owner satisfaction.

—Liza Barth 

Choosing words wisely in the distracted driving discussion

During a question and answer segments at the Distracted Driving Summit, some folks took presenters to task for using certain phrases. They felt that they could be misconstrued. Two statements in particular applied:

“Driving is easy” — This replied to the simple physical act of driving a car. Indeed, driving down a straight road with little traffic and no inside distractions is easy for a capable driver. There are also the accidents avoided due to defensive driving by others. But it can all go very bad, very easily.

In one crash that was used to illustrate the risks of driving while on the phone, a gust of wind hit a Ford Explorer while its inexperienced driver was on the phone. She over-corrected, crossed a center barrier, and killed herself and several occupants of the oncoming vehicle. There were multiple factors there: a short-wheelbase SUV with no stability control, driving inexperience (she had owned the Explorer less than a day before the crash), and the distraction of being on the phone.
 
This discussion brought up some interesting points. Very few drivers will say that they are below-average (or even average) in their driving capability. This mindset is furthered by the absence of feedback as to whether you’re doing a good job at driving. Sure, you might not have had a crash for decades. But that doesn’t account for near-misses, which studies show are quite frequent.
 
This lack of feedback on driving behavior makes driving harder as there is little way to know how to get better. Some vehicles, like the Volvo XC60 we tested, warn you when you’re following too close. This is done fairly unobtrusively, and other passengers wouldn’t see it. Also consider the success of hybrids at using interactive displays to aid drivers in getting better fuel economy. Even a fuel economy display readout or “eco” light lets the driver know their driving is saving gas. Of course, doing this with little distraction or annoyance is a challenge.
 
Another interesting question was posed that related to the difficulty of driving: can steps be taken to reduce the severity of distraction-related accidents? This is a difficult question, given the relatively high level of crash-worthiness of new cars. Another Volvo feature, City Safety, automatically brakes the car in low speed situations (like urban city traffic) if the car in front slows or stops completely. That reduces the consequences of driver inattention.
 
“Drivers using a cell phone tend to drive slower and at a longer headway.”This caption on a slide presented by Dr. William Horrey of the Liberty Mutual Research Institute for Safety could be taken out of context as meaning that cell phone users engage in safer driving behaviors than when they aren’t on the phone. (Headway = following distance.) Other studies do show that drivers will somewhat compensate for being on the phone, reducing its use in heavy traffic for example. But as Dr. Horrey quickly pointed out, the bulk of data showing increased crash risks confirms that driver compensation just isn’t working, especially if things go bad when reaching for a phone or when dialing.  

—Tom Mutchler

For more information on distracted driving see our related reports:
Distracted Driving Summit: The hands-free debate
Defining the problem: Casting a wide net over driver distraction
Automakers agree to ban
Anti-texting video to scare drivers straight
Using wireless communication devices while driving
Cell phone use and driving laws
Dangers of cell phones while driving
Should cell phone use by drivers be illegal?
Texting while driving
Talking in the slow lane

Sneak peek: Freshened 2011 Volvo C70 convertible

Ahead of its public debut later this month at the Frankfurt Motor Show in Germany, Volvo has released images and limited details of the 2011 Volvo C70. The freshened C70 convertible has a new front fascia, headlights and fenders, new tail lights, and some updated materials in the interior, including a new instrument cluster.
 
When we tested the retractable-hardtop C70 in 2008, we found the Volvo had a well-finished interior, but the ride was hard, the engine felt lethargic, and the handling was sound but unexceptional. It is notable as a convertible for having curtain air bags, which deploy from the tops of the doors.
 
The 2011 Volvo C70 convertible will make its North American debut at the Miami auto show in late October.
 
For more on the current C70, see our full road test (available to online subscribers). See our recommended convertibles and read our convertible buying advice.
 

—Eric Evarts

Updated 9/16/09

Test complete: Volvo XC60

Times sure have changed from my days of Volvo ownership. I had two old-school, mega-mile Volvos: a 1984 240GL sedan and a 1987 740 turbo wagon. Volvo built these models essentially unchanged for decades. These were introduced back in the days when Volvo’s image was built on two pillars: the turbos were fast, and--their biggest claim to fame--if you had to crash, you wanted to crash in a Volvo.

But what happens now that the much of the competition advertises 5-star crash test ratings or “Top Safety Pick” Insurance Institute for Highway Safety status? Beyond air bags and stability control, the next frontier in automotive safety is electronic aids that try and improve--or sometimes work around--the biggest variable in the system: the driver. Indeed, our XC60 has piles of electronics to improve safety, partially contributing to Volvo calling it their safest car yet.

But once you strip away all of the electronics, and get beyond considering how the car crashes, what remains is this: how good is the car? That’s been something of a problem for Volvo, since while their cars are mostly solid mid-pack performers, they haven’t really stood out.

The XC60 continues this tradition. It’s certainly not devoid of charms: the interior is very well finished, the turbocharged inline-six pulls well, and the XC60 is a handy size. But it still has Volvo’s typical stiff ride, and handling isn’t sporting. Despite Volvo’s reputation for creating great seats, these leather seats are too slippery, causing fidgeting.

Like a lot of other upscale compact SUVs, the Volvo ultimately gets squeezed from both directions. The larger three-row Acura MDX drives better and costs about the same if you skip all of the electronic doo-dads. From the bottom, loaded versions of the Toyota RAV4 and Subaru Forester Turbo have similar space and pace yet cost much less. (But they won’t beep and flash a light at you if you’re tailgating someone.)

Learn more about the Volvo XC60, with road tests, pricing, and more, in the model overview (available to online subscribers). 

Also, see our related blogs:
Driving the Volvo XC60 with City Safety
From the logbook: 2010 Volvo XC60 
How I learned to stop worrying and like distance-sensing cruise control

—Tom Mutchler

Volvo celebrates 50 years of the three-point safety belt

It was 50 years ago today that Volvo forever changed the automotive safety scene with the invention of the three-point safety belt. The Volvo PV544, outfitted with the newly designed belt, was delivered to a Volvo dealer in Kristianstad, Sweden, in 1959. Designed by Volvo engineer Nils Bohlin, the belt consisted of a lap belt and body belt that formed a “V” shape pointing towards the floor. The design was created to help absorb the force on the pelvis and chest, while keeping the belt in position and not moving under the load. It took a few years before the rest of the auto industry embraced the new safety system, but its life-saving ability would soon see it become ubiquitous in new cars.

In 1963, Volvo introduced the three-point belt in the United States after performing a number of crash tests that validated their claims that it offered the best protection to occupants. In 1967, the Swedish automaker presented data from collisions in Volvo cars over a one-year period that found the seat belt saved lives and reduced injuries by 50-60 percent. That same year, Volvo offered the seat belt as standard on front and rear outboard seats.

The use of seat belts in motor vehicles is the most important safety invention for occupant protection. (Electronic stability control, which will be standard on all vehicles in 2012, is considered the most important safety advance since the development of the seat belt.) In 2006, the use of seat belts saved an estimated 15,383 lives. During the five-year period from 2002 through 2006, seat belts have saved over 75,000 lives.

Currently all U.S. states except New Hampshire have seat belt laws. However, 18 states do not have primary enforcement laws, meaning penalties can only be applied if the car is pulled over for another infraction. Studies show that stronger laws lead to higher use rates. Seat belt use continues to climb in the United States with 83 percent of all occupants buckling up.

We hope the other 17 percent wise up to the common, invaluable safety device and buckle up.

—Liza Barth 

Crash tests: Scion tC loses CR recommendation, coupes added to high-impact video collection

When weighing the myriad considerations in choosing a car, all it takes is a minute watching your favorite car careen into an offset barrier at 40 mph to place safety as a top concern. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) recently rated a group of two-door coupes for crash safety—the Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Scion tC, and Volvo C30. This marked the first time IIHS had tested coupes. (In the past IIHS has tested two-door convertibles and hatchbacks.) There was a relatively wide difference in crash test performance among these five cars. (Read: "Crash tests: IIHS tests five coupes, two get top marks.")

The good news: the Ford Focus coupe and Volvo C30 were IIHS “Top Safety Picks,” scoring good in frontal, side and rear crash tests, thereby proving that small, two-door models can excel in these crash tests.

Most disappointing: the Scion tC achieved only an acceptable rating in its frontal offset test. This is troubling given that almost every new car gets a good rating in this test. The tC didn’t redeem itself in side crash performance either, scoring acceptable in that test, as well as being marginal in rear crash protection.

This new data, combined with the tC’s lack of electronic stability control, mean it scores only “fair” in Consumer Report’s overall safety rating. That rating is a composite of IIHS and NHTSA crash test results; dynamic safety performance, including handling and braking, from our track testing; and the availability of ESC, including whether it is standard or optional. We currently do not recommend cars that have an overall safety rating below good. This means that we no longer recommend the Scion tC.

The tC’s shabby safety performance is all the more troubling given that this inexpensive sporty coupe is popular among young drivers. That group of drivers is relatively inexperienced and more likely to take risks when driving. Combine this with the tC’s lackluster crash test results and lack of ESC, and it isn’t really a surprise that the tC has a substantially worse-than-average record in injury losses, according to Highway Loss Data Institute data. (See our safety feature comparison guide.)

We have added the crash-test videos of these tests to our free crash-test video player and on their respective model overview pages, available to online subscribers. There are now more than 300 vehicles featured in the player, with narrated segments clearly showing how the vehicles perform in the Institute’s test, along with ratings.

See how your car performs in crash tests at: consumerreports.org/crashtest

—Jeff Bartlett and Tom Mutchler

How I learned to stop worrying and like distance-sensing cruise control

Cruise control. To listen to some people describe it, you’d think it was a scourge put upon us by evil doers. Most naysayers dislike it because they feel the system takes away their feeling of vehicle control. To me it’s a way of saving fuel (and keeping money in my pocket) and making my right foot happy.

I like traditional cruise control of the Ron Popeil variety: Set it and forget it. But the distance-sensing systems? Well they’ve always left me cold, unable (in my opinion) to balance a safe following distance with leaving too much room behind the car in front. They left an open space that literally beckoned other drivers to hop right in. Drivers cutting in then resulted in my vehicle throwing out an anchor and rapidly slowing down, taking away momentum and annoying me and the drivers following in my wake.

After driving our Infiniti FX35 and Volvo XC60, however, I’ve come around to giving the distance-sensing systems less of the Rodney Dangerfield treatment, even if I still can’t embrace them with open arms.

The XC60 treated me well on a long trip from Connecticut to southern New Jersey. It still had its annoyances, particularly when rounding a bend and passing cars. The radar would sometimes sense the cars in the other lane and immediately slow the Volvo, as if it couldn’t recognize steering input and thought I was mindlessly going to plow into them.

But on a limited-access road like the NJ Turnpike, the system worked well. I latched on to the car ahead of me and followed for miles and miles. It resulted in a comfortable trip and better than the alternative of not using cruise control at all.

Our Infiniti had a system I liked even better. It allowed the driver to toggle between both types of cruise. The initial setting was for distance sensing, but holding down the button activated traditional cruise control. This, I feel, is better for roads and highways with more frequent access points. The CT Turnpike has exits every mile (or more frequently) in some parts. The constant merging and dicing of traffic makes distance-sensing cruise frustrating to use in this scenario, where I find using regular cruise control to be comfortable.

While I won’t be running out to buy a car with a distance-sensing system anytime soon, a vehicle with a toggle-type system certainly wouldn’t turn me off.

—Jon Linkov

Crash tests: IIHS tests five coupes, two get top marks

For the first time the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has rated a group of two-door coupes for crash safety—the Chevrolet Cobalt, Ford Focus, Honda Civic, Scion tC, and Volvo C30. (In the past IIHS has tested two-door convertibles and hatchbacks.) All five of the cars rated acceptable or better in frontal, side, and rear crash tests.

The Volvo C30 (which only comes as a two-door) and Ford Focus two-door model earned the Institute’s highest Top Safety Pick award, indicating they offered Good protection to occupants in front, side, and rear collisions, and offer electronic stability control. The Honda Civic and Chevrolet Cobalt coupes rated just behind with Good front and rear crash test ratings, and Acceptable side crash ratings.

The IIHS rates cars on a scale of Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Poor. None of the two door cars had any Poor ratings.

The Scion tC ranked at the bottom of the pack. It received Acceptable ratings in front and side crashes and a Marginal rating for rear crashes. But the IIHS criticized it most for not offering electronic stability control even as an option, pointing out that the Scion appeals to younger drivers who would benefit from the added safety ESC provides.

Coupes often have different structures and sometimes other features than the related sedan equivalents. IIHS usually focuses on testing family vehicles, but felt it was time to check in on some of the most popular two-doors on the market. While the frontal offset part is largely unchanged between the two- and four-door versions, the side impact test reveals some differences. The two-door Honda Civic and Chevrolet Cobalt did not perform as well as their four-door versions. The two-door Focus actually performed better than the previously tested four-door.

Learn more about crash tests in our guide to car safety. View more than 300 crash tests performed by the IIHS in our crash test video player.

—Eric Evarts

First drives of Consumer Reports’ latest vehicle purchases

At Consumer Reports we buy, anonymously, all the cars we test, about 80 per year, and put thousands of miles on each of them. So, we are constantly at dealerships buying new vehicles to put through our exhaustive test program consisting of more than 50 tests. As vehicles start the evaluation process, we share our initial, raw impressions through the "Logbook" posts on this blog. When vehicles start the test process, we provide initial First Drive reports on popular models before their road tests are completed.

The most recent First Drives include the Dodge Challenger, Ford Fusion and Fusion hybrid, Hyundai Genesis Coupe, Nissan Cube, Nissan 370Z, and Volvo XC60. The full tests of all these vehicles will be published in the coming months.

Dodge Challenger: The classic muscle car is reborn into a powerful cruiser, but faces stiff competition from the revived Chevrolet Camaro and freshened Ford Mustang. Read the complete First drive.

Ford Fusion/Fusion hybrid: The Fusion is well-rounded and enjoyable to drive and is now fully competitive with the best family sedans. Read the complete First Drive.

Hyundai Genesis Coupe: This new coupe is eye-catching and generously equipped with an affordable sticker price, but the manual transmission is not up to par. Read the complete First Drive.

Nissan Cube: This boxy wagon has abundant interior room and great fuel economy for a low price. Read the complete First Drive.

Nissan 370Z: The Z is a true sports car with precise handling and fun-to-drive appeal, but the ride is stiff and road noise loud. Read the complete First Drive.

Volvo XC60: The XC60 luxury SUV is a pleasant vehicle, which showcases the latest safety advances, but it’s not as exciting to drive as it’s competitors. Read the complete First Drive.

We add new First Drives to ConsumerReports.org on a regular basis. These can be found on our First Drives hub linked on the main Cars page and secondary New Cars page. First looks can also be found in the model overview pages (available to online subscribers) until they are replaced with a final road test.

--Liza Barth

Car brands: Who owns what?

The auto industry is very complicated these days, with constant change across all corners of the globe. The worldwide economic slowdown dictates widespread cost reductions, inspiring partnerships and changes in ownership. Further confusing the scene are past commitments between companies: For example, the new 2011 Jeep Grand Cherokee is based on a Mercedes-Benz platform–even though Chrysler and Mercedes are no longer joined at the hip.

To help clear up some of the confusion, here is a road map to navigate who owns what brands among the major companies that sell in the U.S. car market.

BMW owns: BMW, Mini, and Rolls Royce

Fiat owns: Alfa Romeo, Ferrari, Fiat, Lancia, Maserati; Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep–20-percent stake

Ford Motor Company owns: Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo (for now), and still owns 13.4 percent of Mazda

General Motors owns: Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC. Also owns a controlling interest in Daewoo, as well as Opel and Vauxhall in Europe and Holden in Australia. (Pontiac to be discontinued)

Honda owns: Honda, Acura

Hyundai owns: Hyundai, Kia

Tata Motors (India) owns: Jaguar and Land Rover

Mazda (partially owned by Ford)

Mitsubishi

Daimler AG owns: Mercedes-Benz and Smart

Nissan owns: Nissan and Infiniti (Nissan is owned by Renault--France)

Porsche owns: Porsche and a majority share in Volkswagen

Subaru (A controlling interest of Subaru is owned by Toyota)

Suzuki

Toyota Motor Company owns: Lexus, Toyota, Scion, Daihatsu and Hino Motors, with a stake in Fuji Industries (Subaru’s parent company) and Isuzu

Volkswagen owns: Audi, Volkswagen, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and overseas SEAT and Skoda.

In formal negotiations to be sold:
Hummer: Tengzhong (China)
Saturn: Penske Automotive Group
Saab: Koenigsegg (Sweden)

--Liza Barth