OKTB today..?

[dbsb3233]

I think it's irresponsible and misleading for Consumer Reports to "rate" vehicles they have never evaluated based on assumption of what it will be.

In my opinion it reflects poorly on CR and decreases my trust in them. I say this because the need to hurry up and post opinions on products they've never seen wreaks of them trying to "scoop" the industry by being able to say "you heard it here first". I'd rather just have accurate quality product reviews ... where the review *actually* took place.

It's a tricky situation. It's actually just a "predicted reliability" they issued, not an overall vehicle rating. But because there's a void in the latter, the former carries more weight.

They exist to provide advice for shoppers. For a vehicle that isn't available yet, they can either say nothing and ignore buyers considering a 1st year model yet to launch, or serve them with "predicted" ratings like this. I can see how they'd feel compelled to try and serve those buyers too.

But it should be taken with a grain of salt, IMO.

Sponsored

 

[ClaudeMach-E]

Ford took a beating in a recent Consumer Reports article. They are giving the Mach-E a bad rating, even before testing the car!!!

So Ford wants it to be right. I am giving them the time they need on this one....

Here is that article:

https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/reliability-problems-plague-newer-electric-cars/

Jim

But in the article they say that they didn't test the car yet but they are lowering their reliability status to below average ????. Strange on what basis if they didn't test the car yet. Besides the fact that many of the tech on the Mach-E is an upgrade of existing tech, it's not like they where completely new at it so a below average reliability is a bit exagerated IMHO. Where in that article are they classifying ALL Tesla models has more then below average reliable, that is more then strange has all the Tesla models are very well known for there reliability and quality problems. IMHO they should not emit a reliability status of any given car before they are out on the road and wait for the problems to come out has reliability cannot be tested on a track anyway.

< As a result of these findings, CR is changing the predicted reliability for several cars. While CR has not yet tested the Ford Mustang Mach-E and the Mercedes-Benz EQC, their reliability predictions are now below average.

 

[machefan]

Ford took a beating in a recent Consumer Reports article. They are giving the Mach-E a bad rating, even before testing the car!!!

So Ford wants it to be right. I am giving them the time they need on this one....

Here is that article:

https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/reliability-problems-plague-newer-electric-cars/

Jim

This article frankly sucks and basically is click-bait in my opinion. Nothing is perfect, that we can all agree on.

It's all based on this statement "These latest results mirror what we’ve known for a long time: All-new cars and new technology are prone to growing pains. CR data have consistently shown that first-year models tend to be less reliable than ones that have been on the market for a few years. EVs are no exception, although specific electric components, such as batteries and drivetrains, are often not the issue. "

OK, sure that is true except that the MACH-E is years in the making vs the usual one year build cycle. Ford is betting a well know name on this, I have faith that reliability is in focus. If one wants an EV this is what you get. If you want ICE your fait will be no different, the article make it sound as if your outcome would be different. Most first year releases have issues, so what? I doubt waiting till late 2022 will yield a huge difference or even any real data. Anyone buying an EV has to know going in to it that they buying into a new technology, which will age faster than a traditional ICE counterpart. I personally am fine with it and know what I am getting into.

Looking forward to OKTB and delivery.

 

[dbsb3233]

But in the article they say that they didn't test the car yet but they are lowering their reliability status to below average ????. Strange on what basis if they didn't test the car yet.

Reliability is always a future prediction though. Not something a physical review of a brand new product can really determine.

I've always taken CR with a grain of salt, for that reason. By the time a model is old enough to show reliability issues, new ones are usually redesigned anyway.

 

[OttawaGuy]

It reminds me of the age old "Toyota is reliable, it's a Toyota" kinda statement.

Come on, test the car first, then make a judgement on it. And come back with some long term testing results to confirm or not your initial judgement. That's more like the article of a journalist/reviewer that had no inspiration and nothing to do!

 

[engnrng]

I think it's irresponsible and misleading for Consumer Reports to "rate" vehicles they have never evaluated based on assumption of what it will be.

In my opinion it reflects poorly on CR and decreases my trust in them. I say this because the need to hurry up and post opinions on products they've never seen wreaks of them trying to "scoop" the industry by being able to say "you heard it here first". I'd rather just have accurate quality product reviews ... where the review *actually* took place.

This is yet another unjustified attack on electrified vehicles by Consumer Reports in their 15+year war. In 2004, with the introduction of the Prius, CR got people thinking they would need to replace the hybrid battery every year or two at $5,000 a pop. (I was questioned for years by strangers in parking lots and gas stations about how often I needed to replace the battery - and they all cited CR as the reference!) Took CR about 10 years to actually acknowledge that the Prius had an extremely low cost of ownership and high reliability and was actually far better than an expensive Toyota Corolla, a comparison they made for years after the Prius was introduced. With Ford products, their biggest "reliability" complaint was the difficult to use infotainment system. As an engineer, my opinion is that difficult infotainment software has nothing to do with the car reliability. It may be a design problem, but does not belong on their Reliability Report pages. I could rant for a long time about the damage to the environment caused directly by CR with their misinformation and attacks on electrification that has been going on for over 15 years... Well, I guess I just started!

 

[JamieGeek]

OK, sure that is true except that the MACH-E is years in the making vs the usual one year build cycle. Ford is betting a well know name on this, I have faith that reliability is in focus. If one wants an EV this is what you get. If you want ICE your fait will be no different, the article make it sound as if your outcome would be different. Most first year releases have issues, so what? I doubt waiting till late 2022 will yield a huge difference or even any real data. Anyone buying an EV has to know going in to it that they buying into a new technology, which will age faster than a traditional ICE counterpart. I personally am fine with it and know what I am getting into.

Just to clarify this: Building a new car from "scratch" like the Mach-E typically takes 3 years or more.

A "one year build cycle" is just model year refreshes/upgrades.

The "new" vehicles CR is talking about here with predicted reliabilty all are new from scratch vehicles and thus all take longer than a year to create.

Even so "new from scratch" can be troublesome LOL (look at last years Explorer which was more new than it wasn't--they re-designed the platform from FWD to RWD).

 

[dbsb3233]

Just to clarify this: Building a new car from "scratch" like the Mach-E typically takes 3 years or more.

Yep. And from what I've read, 3 years is actually pretty fast for a totally new model from scratch.

And that's not even counting how Ford scraped the first design and started almost completely over a year in.

 

[machefan]

Just to clarify this: Building a new car from "scratch" like the Mach-E typically takes 3 years or more.

A "one year build cycle" is just model year refreshes/upgrades.

The "new" vehicles CR is talking about here with predicted reliabilty all are new from scratch vehicles and thus all take longer than a year to create.

Even so "new from scratch" can be troublesome LOL (look at last years Explorer which was more new than it wasn't--they re-designed the platform from FWD to RWD).

So it only took Ford 20 years to prefect the Explorer? That's hardly a scratch pad, kidding.

We all know Ford has weaknesses, but I am betting with a purchase they got this one right. Time will tell right as the same with reliability. With that said BEV's are less maintenance due to the lack of a traditional engine.

and I quote from the Edmunds Experts

"It would be an understatement to say that the Ford Explorer is an important SUV. Before it debuted as a 1991 model, the family-oriented four-door sport-utility vehicle segment hardly existed at all. The Explorer formula turned out to be a huge success, and soon after everyone got into the game. We all know what happened after that.

Now entering its sixth generation, the 2020 Ford Explorer represents a complete rethink of this three-row family SUV. Early Explorers were built on truck frames and were primarily driven by the rear wheels, and the outgoing model employed a front-wheel-drive layout and used car-like unibody construction."

Again hoping to take delivery before Jan, my build date is Monday.

 

[machefan]

Yep. And from what I've read, 3 years is actually pretty fast for a totally new model from scratch.

And that's not even counting how Ford scraped the first design and started almost completely over a year in.

Time can be shortened by additional resources, if you take too long you run the risk of being outdated before you launch. The EV market I would think is just that, you need to get it going fast or your outdated before you get off the ground. I would think EV's are like computers, there's going to be faster, better and cheaper following each year. Battery size is where the technology is going to change for sure, bigger (more miles), faster to charge and cheaper to build.

Sorry for the senseless rant, looking for OKTB to happen and just passing time

 

[generaltso]

So with OKTB delayed i get the feeling there wont be any deliveries this year. At max some southern most states might get some cars but with everyday that passes theres less and less chance of that

Ford has said that they will make special arrangements to deliver at least some cars before the end of the year so that they can honor their promise of deliveries "starting in late 2020". As we get closer to Christmas, the cost of those special transportation arrangements goes up. But even if the OKTB happens the day after Christmas, they can spend money to send a car transport truck directly from the factory to a dealer to make the deadline. There just won't be very many of those.

 

[Badger_Prof]

I think it's irresponsible and misleading for Consumer Reports to "rate" vehicles they have never evaluated based on assumption of what it will be.

In my opinion it reflects poorly on CR and decreases my trust in them. I say this because the need to hurry up and post opinions on products they've never seen wreaks of them trying to "scoop" the industry by being able to say "you heard it here first". I'd rather just have accurate quality product reviews ... where the review *actually* took place.

It is not a "rating." It is "predicted reliability." CR is very clear that this prediction is not based on a rating of the Mach-E and that they have not examined or tested the car. This is somewhat the equivalent of predicting the outcome of an upcoming football game based on the past history of the competing teams. A team that has a bad track record will be predicted to perform less well compared to a competing team with a good track record. Predicted reliability is useful information but was never intended to be a rating and should not be interpreted as such. The fact is that some car manufacturers and some car types have a better reliability track record than others and it is useful for consumers to know that. After the vehicle is actually available, it will be possible to see if the team (Team Ford in this case) has outperformed its past and produced better than predicted reliability. Let's hope that is the case but there is legitimate reason for concern that a team that has performed poorly in the past might do so again.

 

[engnrng]

Meh.
CR has not tested or rated the Mach E. Their *predicted reliability* (emphasis mine) of the Mach E is below average, and this prediction was made in the context of general EV complexity, including the (also not yet tested) MB EQC.

The article is mostly about the idea that more complexity and more electronics *can* result in quality issues, especially on new platforms, whether ICE or EV. Seems reasonable to me.

" Our extensive survey data, combined with our technical knowledge, allows us to expertly predict the reliability of new and redesigned models." That is the same as asserting with high confidence (expertise) that the Mach-E WILL be a terrible vehicle and smart consumers should avoid it for a few years until "reliability" is proven by consumer surveys. I have sent them a request for what "technical knowledge" was applied to the Mach-E prediction. They do not say "can", they instead provide their EXPERT rating.

 

[dbsb3233]

That is the same as asserting with high confidence (expertise) that the Mach-E WILL be a terrible vehicle

No, not even close. "Below average" is not "terrible", it's just below the average of other vehicles. And it's only referring to predicted reliability. Doesn't say a thing about the myriad of other aspects that combine to make something a great or 'terrible' vehicle.

It's simply one slice. For all we know they'll say all the other aspects are great once they're able to drive one.

 

[timbop]

They're still building, just waiting to ship. There will still be plenty of deliveries this year. Just more will be loaded on the trains now when OKTB is announced.

right, but those trains will be close to 2 weeks late leaving the facility.

Sponsored