5 Car Brands To Buy (And 5 You Should Avoid!)
#1
02-10-2016, 11:31 AM
#2
02-16-2016, 01:28 PM
I keep seeing bad press on Fiat/Chrysler. I've been driving one for the past 19 years and feel the reliability rating isn't deserved. They have been consistently behind the pack in fuel economy and engineering in my experience. I know this, and will most likely buy another when the time comes.
#4
03-03-2016, 10:51 PM
Record Breaker
Real brands to avoid by people who can give actual reasons beyond because the agenda driven hacks at CR said so:
Subaru (headgasket problems with Flat 4s and use of CVTs)
Volkswagen (numerous sludging engine problems, cheating on emission rules, horrible electronics, etc)
Mini (Prince engine equipped have carbon build up issues, problems with timing equipment breaking due to use of plastic parts, water pumps, electronics, etc., CVT on the first gen) (I guess they should have continued to use the Tritec engine)
Nissan (CVTs, I4 are poor track record, overall quality has fallen far)
Honda (weak auto transmissions, Civic recall on I4s, 2013 era V6 use about 1 quart per 1000 miles claiming it to be normal, ugly as sin)
Toyota (I4s in Camry known to use excessive oil in 2007 Camrys, 97-02 3.0L V6 and 2.2L I4 were known for oil sludge problems, stuck accelerators in the late 2000s, 4.7L V8s occasionally had oil sludge issues, even uglier, and plenty more on this link)http://www.consumeraffairs.com/autom...ta_engine.html
The fact is everybody has problems and I get sick of CR covering up Honda and Toyota flaws making them sound so perfect, there are far more than I listed, it's late and I'm tired. I get sick of dumb sites like the one that equinoxly listed because they tell you nothing. I get sick of people sighting CR because CR never has any real explanation of their ratings that a radio problem is equal to an engine problem. They never dive into the engine, transmission, or platform to break it down and tell you why a design is superior or inferior. The huge difference that used to exist between the Buick, Chevrolets, and Pontiacs underlined the inaccurancy of their methods as all were mechanically the same, and the Buicks in the real world had the easiest interior to break so it isn't that. There is no distinction between performance models which will be driven more aggressively and cars driven gently, how often brands are maintained and where (dealer or Jiffy Lube), whether they used the right fluids or used Dexron and Dexcool in Chrysler models, etc. They never give useful information that you can get on a good forum like this such as how to avoid common problems (flushing your transmission every 30K with ATF+4, change your waterpump and timing chain at 70K on a 2.7L and use synthetic oil). CR's ratings and my results are opposite. The things they suggest never work for me and the things they hate work perfectly for me. They can say they are bias free all they want because they don't get this or that, but the fact is they are still run by humans and they are very PC and environmentalist driven in their mentality. They should be used as toilet paper substitute as far as I am concerned when it comes to cars.
Subaru (headgasket problems with Flat 4s and use of CVTs)
Volkswagen (numerous sludging engine problems, cheating on emission rules, horrible electronics, etc)
Mini (Prince engine equipped have carbon build up issues, problems with timing equipment breaking due to use of plastic parts, water pumps, electronics, etc., CVT on the first gen) (I guess they should have continued to use the Tritec engine)
Nissan (CVTs, I4 are poor track record, overall quality has fallen far)
Honda (weak auto transmissions, Civic recall on I4s, 2013 era V6 use about 1 quart per 1000 miles claiming it to be normal, ugly as sin)
Toyota (I4s in Camry known to use excessive oil in 2007 Camrys, 97-02 3.0L V6 and 2.2L I4 were known for oil sludge problems, stuck accelerators in the late 2000s, 4.7L V8s occasionally had oil sludge issues, even uglier, and plenty more on this link)http://www.consumeraffairs.com/autom...ta_engine.html
The fact is everybody has problems and I get sick of CR covering up Honda and Toyota flaws making them sound so perfect, there are far more than I listed, it's late and I'm tired. I get sick of dumb sites like the one that equinoxly listed because they tell you nothing. I get sick of people sighting CR because CR never has any real explanation of their ratings that a radio problem is equal to an engine problem. They never dive into the engine, transmission, or platform to break it down and tell you why a design is superior or inferior. The huge difference that used to exist between the Buick, Chevrolets, and Pontiacs underlined the inaccurancy of their methods as all were mechanically the same, and the Buicks in the real world had the easiest interior to break so it isn't that. There is no distinction between performance models which will be driven more aggressively and cars driven gently, how often brands are maintained and where (dealer or Jiffy Lube), whether they used the right fluids or used Dexron and Dexcool in Chrysler models, etc. They never give useful information that you can get on a good forum like this such as how to avoid common problems (flushing your transmission every 30K with ATF+4, change your waterpump and timing chain at 70K on a 2.7L and use synthetic oil). CR's ratings and my results are opposite. The things they suggest never work for me and the things they hate work perfectly for me. They can say they are bias free all they want because they don't get this or that, but the fact is they are still run by humans and they are very PC and environmentalist driven in their mentality. They should be used as toilet paper substitute as far as I am concerned when it comes to cars.