[overcoil]

The November ‘22 car issue of consumer reports list in order Toyota, Lexus then BMW as top three most reliable car brands in this annual issue.

I hadn’t completely read the article but the new Tundra was an outlier with body finish & trim issues; one owner said his roof leaked. The Corolla Cross they had as the most reliable vehicle.

They had insufficient data for a lot of brands; Rivian, Dodge, Porsche …

[chassis]

Great job BMW. In fact BMW is the second most reliable manufacturer, because the first two brands are produced by the same manufacturer.

MB so bad...

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...s-a7824554938/

RANK &
CHANGE
1 ↑2 Toyota
2 ↓1 Lexus
3 ↑10 BMW
4 ↓2 Mazda
5 Honda
6 ↑5 Audi
7 ↓1 Subaru
8 ↓1 Acura
9 ↑6 Kia
10 ↑14 Lincoln
11 ↓7 Buick
12 ↑9 Genesis
13 ↓4 Hyundai
14 ↑2 Volvo
15 ↓7 Nissan
16 ↑1 Ram
17 ↓5 Cadillac
18 ↓4 Ford
19 ↑4 Tesla
20 ↓10 Chevrolet
21 ↓3 GMC
22 ↓2 Volkswagen
23 ↓1 Jeep
24 ↓5 Mercedes-Benz

[Sedoy]

I think the B-series line engines have been a huge success for BMW. Both performance and reliability have been outstanding. As a bonus, the gas mileage is industry-leading as well. There is a reason people call it modern 2JZ...

[Burrcold]

Great upward movement for BMW and Audi...not so much for MB lol

[BMWCCA1]

CR's problem has always been that their survey sample includes only their own members. It's pretty obvious they are not a fun-loving lot by looking at the makes they didn't have enough of to sample. Their auto ratings are like their toaster ratings. It's amazing to me that BMW is as high as it is, but that just convinces me that their methods and sample are skewed.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by BMWCCA1

CR's problem has always been that their survey sample includes only their own members. It's pretty obvious they are not a fun-loving lot by looking at the makes they didn't have enough of to sample. Their auto ratings are like their toaster ratings. It's amazing to me that BMW is as high as it is, but that just convinces me that their methods and sample are skewed.

I can believe CR's results. It's talking about their new models whereas the older models (10 years or so) rated poorly, which I believe also. The fact that their members who own cars are rating them is good thing. There is no reason or incentive for them to lie on how reliable their cars have been and they know they have to be truthful because all the members rely on CR's ratings/recommendations for their purchase choices.

I'm a Japanese car guy and I happen to have had a BMW (E70 X5M) because I know and understand where it fell short reliability wise and the trade off with the M car performance is fair for me.

They have been spot on before with the fact that generally speaking Asian cars are overall reliable so and German cars are not so. If they are saying the NEW BMW's are very good reliability wise, unless proven otherwise, I'll believe it too.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by chassis

Great job BMW. In fact BMW is the second most reliable manufacturer, because the first two brands are produced by the same manufacturer.

MB so bad...

https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...s-a7824554938/

RANK &
CHANGE
1 ↑2 Toyota
2 ↓1 Lexus
3 ↑10 BMW
4 ↓2 Mazda
5 Honda
6 ↑5 Audi
7 ↓1 Subaru
8 ↓1 Acura
9 ↑6 Kia
10 ↑14 Lincoln
11 ↓7 Buick
12 ↑9 Genesis
13 ↓4 Hyundai
14 ↑2 Volvo
15 ↓7 Nissan
16 ↑1 Ram
17 ↓5 Cadillac
18 ↓4 Ford
19 ↑4 Tesla
20 ↓10 Chevrolet
21 ↓3 GMC
22 ↓2 Volkswagen
23 ↓1 Jeep
24 ↓5 Mercedes-Benz

Yup. It's great to see that the new BMW's overall are now up there.

[BMWCCA1]

I stopped believing in them even before they rated the BMW E28 "black dots" for the electrical system. Upon questioning, it turns out owners (with pocket protectors) were driving their cars through the carwash with the antenna mast deployed, which bent the mast and made the antenna no longer retract. That got listed as "Electrical problems" with CR. Note the evolution to the imbedded-in-glass antenna on the subsequent E34.

Even before that they rated the Porsche 914 as conditionally unacceptable because if you did something like their test with (let's say) 40psi in the RF tire, 22ps in the LF, 44psi in the LR, and maybe 20psi in the RR, the car handled "dangerously". Likewise they rated the BMW 2002 conditionally "unacceptable" because with a trunk full of luggage to the maximum GVW with 5 passengers on-board, they didn't like the rear clearance and included a photo showing the diff would barely clear a pack of Pall Malls sitting on edge under the car. At that point I stopped believing they even knew anything about toasters or dishwashers, too. At some point they got into rating Hi-Fi components and said they all sound the same.

I figured the poor ratings for BMW were always because their typical Honda Accord member who at some point "graduated" to a BMW like you guys wear your Rolexes (obviously for the jewelry aspect—not to tell time) and for the money they spent they expected bland, appliance-like, reliability and were passionate only when something went wrong.

Perhaps the new survey shows the average late-model 330i today is really just a good appliance?

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by BMWCCA1

I stopped believing in them even before they rated the BMW E28 "black dots" for the electrical system. Upon questioning, it turns out owners (with pocket protectors) were driving their cars through the carwash with the antenna mast deployed, which bent the mast and made the antenna no longer retract. That got listed as "Electrical problems" with CR. Note the evolution to the imbedded-in-glass antenna on the subsequent E34.

Even before that they rated the Porsche 914 as conditionally unacceptable because if you did something like their test with (let's say) 40psi in the RF tire, 22ps in the LF, 44psi in the LR, and maybe 20psi in the RR, the car handled "dangerously". Likewise they rated the BMW 2002 conditionally "unacceptable" because with a trunk full of luggage to the maximum GVW with 5 passengers on-board, they didn't like the rear clearance and included a photo showing the diff would barely clear a pack of Pall Malls sitting on edge under the car. At that point I stopped believing they even knew anything about toasters or dishwashers, too. At some point they got into rating Hi-Fi components and said they all sound the same.

I figured the poor ratings for BMW were always because their typical Honda Accord member who at some point "graduated" to a BMW like you guys wear your Rolexes (obviously for the jewelry aspect—not to tell time) and for the money they spent they expected bland, appliance-like, reliability and were passionate only when something went wrong.

Perhaps the new survey shows the average late-model 330i today is really just a good appliance?

How many owners with erroneous reviews did you actually investigate and have evidence to give credence to your claim that CR's reviews are overall inaccurate? LOL I totally believe that Honda overall is more reliable than the older BMW's. I know for a fact that my E70 X5M, as much as I loved it, was not as reliable as my Lexus or Nissan, on par with what a BMW service manager told me beforehand about them validated by simply perusing this very forum and problems owners have. Feelings don't count, actual data you can provide does. Provide it and I'll believe it when I see it.

[wtwo3]

Another thing that skews CR results is the availability of data at an individual model level. MB is showing up last but if you drill deeper you'll see only the E class and GLE were rated. So theoretically the rest of mercedes' lineup could have bulletproof reliability, but because of the unavailability of data, only their worst 2 models are featured, skewing the results into last place.

I'm not saying MB is a reliable brand, I just refuse to believe they're at the bottom.

As for BMW, I'm assuming once CR starts featuring iDrive8 models, that'll knock their reliability rating down quite a bit.

[chris719]

Worthless interpretation of small-sample-size data. CR is not very good for many things. It'll drop 10 places next year, don't worry lol.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by chris719

Worthless interpretation of small-sample-size data. CR is not very good for many things. It'll drop 10 places next year, don't worry lol.

How many actually was there for BMW and it's referring to NEW BMW models, not the older ones.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

Another thing that skews CR results is the availability of data at an individual model level. MB is showing up last but if you drill deeper you'll see only the E class and GLE were rated. So theoretically the rest of mercedes' lineup could have bulletproof reliability, but because of the unavailability of data, only their worst 2 models are featured, skewing the results into last place.

I'm not saying MB is a reliable brand, I just refuse to believe they're at the bottom.

As for BMW, I'm assuming once CR starts featuring iDrive8 models, that'll knock their reliability rating down quite a bit.

Okay. Do you have a more reliable survey that will prove CR's ratings are grossly inaccurate. No survey is going to be perfect and you can have a case that is it inaccurate if their cutoff number to have enough data to have a rating is too low. If that is the case, do you know what their cutoff number is? MB may not be at the bottom but talking to an MB Mech, I know for sure they do get a LOT of business and why I opted for a BMW over an MB.

[Miszka80]

is there any report that shows which BMW models/series are most reliable?

[Burrcold]

Originally Posted by Miszka80

is there any report that shows which BMW models/series are most reliable?

Yes, Consumer Reports lol

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

Okay. Do you have a more reliable survey that will prove CR's ratings are grossly inaccurate. No survey is going to be perfect and you can have a case that is it inaccurate if their cutoff number to have enough data to have a rating is too low. If that is the case, do you know what their cutoff number is? MB may not be at the bottom but talking to an MB Mech, I know for sure they do get a LOT of business and why I opted for a BMW over an MB.

I don't know what their cutoff number is and that's part of the problem. I wish they'd democratize some of the data - at least show us sample sizes for each model that has a rating.

And my comment is based on common statistical logic. Mercedes has a large lineup, but if you base your aggregate rating on only 2 cars out of their 15+ car lineup - that presents a big likelihood of skeweing of results.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by BMWCCA1

I stopped believing in them even before they rated the BMW E28 "black dots" for the electrical system. Upon questioning, it turns out owners (with pocket protectors) were driving their cars through the carwash with the antenna mast deployed, which bent the mast and made the antenna no longer retract. That got listed as "Electrical problems" with CR. Note the evolution to the imbedded-in-glass antenna on the subsequent E34.

Even before that they rated the Porsche 914 as conditionally unacceptable because if you did something like their test with (let's say) 40psi in the RF tire, 22ps in the LF, 44psi in the LR, and maybe 20psi in the RR, the car handled "dangerously". Likewise they rated the BMW 2002 conditionally "unacceptable" because with a trunk full of luggage to the maximum GVW with 5 passengers on-board, they didn't like the rear clearance and included a photo showing the diff would barely clear a pack of Pall Malls sitting on edge under the car. At that point I stopped believing they even knew anything about toasters or dishwashers, too. At some point they got into rating Hi-Fi components and said they all sound the same.

I figured the poor ratings for BMW were always because their typical Honda Accord member who at some point "graduated" to a BMW like you guys wear your Rolexes (obviously for the jewelry aspect—not to tell time) and for the money they spent they expected bland, appliance-like, reliability and were passionate only when something went wrong.

Perhaps the new survey shows the average late-model 330i today is really just a good appliance?

I stopped reading CR car reports when they rated the 1984 Ford Thunderbird Turbo Coupe as "poor" because it was difficult to get out of the driver's seat with two paper grocery bags of groceries...

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by Miszka80

is there any report that shows which BMW models/series are most reliable?

Good question. I don't know of one. However, just peruse the different forums in here and you can get real world input.

For example: In the E70 X5M forums there are more issues (which i had) compared to the F85/F86 X6M forums, some of which I believe were because BMW corrected them with the general consensus that the later edition is more reliable. For example I had a 2013 CPO N63TU 650i which is notorious for its oil burning issue/BMW car care package. The current N63 models do not seem to have the same oil burning issue anymore.

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

I don't know what their cutoff number is and that's part of the problem. I wish they'd democratize some of the data - at least show us sample sizes for each model that has a rating.

And my comment is based on common statistical logic. Mercedes has a large lineup, but if you base your aggregate rating on only 2 cars out of their 15+ car lineup - that presents a big likelihood of skeweing of results.

Well the fact that they disclosed it was based on a limited sample because they actually had a minimum cutoff should already tell you it's not going to be conclusive so you cannot treat is as gospel. Obviously you can think that every BMW model is now very reliable because it clearly says it is overall BASED on models that met their minimum cutoff. To throw away the results because on an assumption made when the survey already discloses its limitation is really just throwing bricks at a glasshouse. Anybody in here going to dispute that a Lexus overall very reliable just because they feel CR's survey is worthless for whatever reason? I don't think so

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

Well the fact that they disclosed it was based on a limited sample because they actually had a minimum cutoff should already tell you it's not going to be conclusive so you cannot treat is as gospel. Obviously you can think that every BMW model is now very reliable because it clearly says it is overall BASED on models that met their minimum cutoff. To throw away the results because on an assumption made when the survey already discloses its limitation is really just throwing bricks at a glasshouse. Anybody in here going to dispute that a Lexus overall very reliable just because they feel CR's survey is worthless for whatever reason? I don't think so

I'm confused... why are you taking this so personally? do you work for CR?

I never said to throw away the results or that they were worthless. I was just pointing out a statistical weakness in their analysis that could potentially skew the results we see. To be discerning of the results rather than blindly following them, I thought, was the point of a discussion.

I'm actually a subscriber to CR, so I'm well aware of what they DO disclose vs. what they don't. And they've never fully disclosed their data (which to some extent I understand - data is $$). But as someone who works closely with data in day to day profession, I have to take what they show with a grain of salt, ESPECIALLY when something jumps 10 places from one year to the next.

[wtwo3]

Originally Posted by Autobacs

Good question. I don't know of one. However, just peruse the different forums in here and you can get real world input.

For example: In the E70 X5M forums there are more issues (which i had) compared to the F85/F86 X6M forums, some of which I believe were because BMW corrected them with the general consensus that the later edition is more reliable. For example I had a 2013 CPO N63TU 650i which is notorious for its oil burning issue/BMW car care package. The current N63 models do not seem to have the same oil burning issue anymore.

If we're talking about which models CR considered to develop their rankings, for BMW that can be found by simply clicking on the rating to expand it:

[Autobacs]

Originally Posted by wtwo3

I'm confused... why are you taking this so personally? do you work for CR?

I never said to throw away the results or that they were worthless. I was just pointing out a statistical weakness in their analysis that could potentially skew the results we see. To be discerning of the results rather than blindly following them, I thought, was the point of a discussion.

I'm actually a subscriber to CR, so I'm well aware of what they DO disclose vs. what they don't. And they've never fully disclosed their data (which to some extent I understand - data is $$). But as someone who works closely with data in day to day profession, I have to take what they show with a grain of salt, ESPECIALLY when something jumps 10 places from one year to the next.

Not at all personal and no I don't work for them. My diatribe, the parts about not throwing out the baby with the water, was directed at those saying because they listed this model as this then I don't believe anything they say in their survey