Three possibilities:Why does Consumer Reports rate Forester reliability much better than Outback
True ... and the relative weighting that CR applies to the reliability of different aspects of vehicle operation (e.g. drive train vs. infotatinemt system) is not clear.A lot of outback trouble comes from infotainment.
A lot of outback trouble comes from infotainment.
Mine has been fine so far, with the occasional blutooth oddity. The only thing thats broken on mine in 10 months is the 12v plug in the center console. Which, I need to get fixed.
5) CR relies upon consumer self-reported incidents for assembling their statistics, rather than conducting a scientifically sampled polling of the owner base. This injects a statistical bias into the sample population. We have the same issue with our HG failure log, FWIW.1) CR reliability ratings are based on data self-reported by owners. Despite the large sample size, those ratings may or may not be statistically representative of the entire fleet.
2) The Forester and the Legacy/Outback are assembled in different plants, in Japan and the U.S. respectively, and there may be some difference there.
3) Different designs may stress the components in subtly different ways.
[4)] Statistical scatter. Consider that even the mechanical twins ... Legacy and Outback ... have slightly different ratings within most model years.
Look here it says 3/5 overall reliability. And yes, individual reliability does not look bad for 2016 and 2017 but prior years were bad.FWIW - The OB scored excellent (5) in the following areas surveyed for vehicle reliability - Engine Major/Minor, Engine Cooling, Transmission Major/Minor, Drive System, Fuel System, Climate System, Electric System, Suspension, Brakes, Exhaust, Paint, Trim, Body Integrity & Hardware,
It scored Good (4) in these two areas - Power Equipment and In-Car Electronics. That's all the areas. There's no way you can come up with a Reliability score of 3 when the lowest score received is a 4.
I can almost hear the economy collapsing now.I do not give much credence to "infotainment" issues. I do not not own a cellular device and only expect a vehicle to provide reliable transportation of my ass from point A to point B. I RARELY turn on the audio system in my vehicles.
There are much better sources out there than CR to learn about performance, specifications and dependability.I've been a CR subscriber for almost 40 years and have noticed some changes in how they review. It seems to me that they weight their scores for "value" and/or "affordability". When I research a vehicle I want to know about performance, specifications and dependability. I will make the determination about Value and whether or not I want to pay more for a vehicle that has the features and characteristics I want.
I can't help but wonder why they still sell them together. I would much rather buy the car with a tidy little void in the dash, then get it fitted with good electronics elsewhere.A lot of outback trouble comes from infotainment.
Quite a bit of damage, apparently.Perhaps I can say it better this way- I'm surprised to see how much damage automakers are willing to accept to their reputations in exchange for the profits on these in-car electronics.
Don't both Forester and Outback use the same infotainment system? If yes, what (other than the place where cars are assembled) should explain such a drastic difference in predicted reliability 3/5 vs 5/5?
I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that assembly problems do not often lead to long term reliability concerns and CR reliability ratings are mostly influenced by long term reliability problems.
Any thoughts ?
I think johnre covered it well- if they simply did the same sampling procedure again they may well come up with different results.Don't both Forester and Outback use the same infotainment system? If yes, what (other than the place where cars are assembled) should explain such a drastic difference in predicted reliability 3/5 vs 5/5?