Consumer Reports releases 2006 reliability data.
11-10-2006, 05:17 PM
#22
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 14,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davidv
And looking at the data above, the poor 2003 and 2004 transmission is a myth.
Maybe the "few" clutch/rear axle problems, fall under the "Drive system" category?
11-10-2006, 06:39 PM
#23
Registered User
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: So. cal.
Posts: 673
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ztalker
i thought the 06s are the ones with major oil consumption issues?
il consumption, diff. whine, window grease marks, pinging....all with only 13k miles. I still love the damn thing though.
11-11-2006, 06:34 AM
#26
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: NW Wisconsin
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, CR only likes Hondas. Take their recommendations with a grain of salt. I would never base a purchase decision on what they say. As a part of a bigger picture maybe, but not on it's own.
"Lol how do things that didn't change suddenly get better?
ie: paint, exhaust, audio (bose got mp3 playback, but everything else was the same)" Exactly!!!
"Lol how do things that didn't change suddenly get better?
ie: paint, exhaust, audio (bose got mp3 playback, but everything else was the same)" Exactly!!!
11-11-2006, 07:58 AM
#27
CR is the most creditable source of evaluating consumer products there is.
I've been following its advice for more than 35 years without one bad steer from it. The only time I've disagreed with CR was in its first evaluation of the Z which was pathetic. Since then it was treated the Z with the respect it deserves.
I do agree one should not buy a large ticket item soley on CR's take but to ignor its conclusions would be stupid.
I've been following its advice for more than 35 years without one bad steer from it. The only time I've disagreed with CR was in its first evaluation of the Z which was pathetic. Since then it was treated the Z with the respect it deserves.
I do agree one should not buy a large ticket item soley on CR's take but to ignor its conclusions would be stupid.
11-11-2006, 09:29 AM
#29
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 7,951
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IMAKIWI
Remember, CR only likes Hondas. Take their recommendations with a grain of salt. I would never base a purchase decision on what they say. As a part of a bigger picture maybe, but not on it's own.
11-11-2006, 10:55 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davidv
I am a little suspicious about the 2006 numbers since the car has been on the road for about 11 months. It will be interesting to see what happens when 2006 owners have accumulated a reasonable number of miles: say 30,000.
11-11-2006, 05:26 PM
#31
New Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZlleH
I don't know how Consumer Report really works, but isn't that data gathered by consumers' reports/complaints
So wouldn't the earliest models have the most consumer reports/complaints while the latest ones have the fewest consumer reports/complaints?
So wouldn't the earliest models have the most consumer reports/complaints while the latest ones have the fewest consumer reports/complaints?
The results look about right to me. The black marks for suspesnion is most likely the feathering issue, power equipment failures aren't surprising (both my window motors and regulators failed) and transmissions not doing so well is most likely the fairly high % of people who had their manual transmissions replaced.
I've been a subscriber to Consumer Reports on/off for years and find their reliability info to be fairly accurate. I may not agree w/their car reviews, but their reliability stats seem fine to me.
Last edited by cwerdna; 11-12-2006 at 12:50 AM.
11-12-2006, 01:21 AM
#33
I think you miss my point. I'm saying of course the 06 will have higher scores because it is new and has little miles for consumers to report problems while the 03 would have more miles and consumers would report more issues.
Originally Posted by cwerdna
See http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/c...ity-faq_ov.htm. You should also take a look at a Consumer Reports car buying guide at your favorite bookstore/newsstand. You can see how the Z stacks up against other cars.
The results look about right to me. The black marks for suspesnion is most likely the feathering issue, power equipment failures aren't surprising (both my window motors and regulators failed) and transmissions not doing so well is most likely the fairly high % of people who had their manual transmissions replaced.
I've been a subscriber to Consumer Reports on/off for years and find their reliability info to be fairly accurate. I may not agree w/their car reviews, but their reliability stats seem fine to me.
The results look about right to me. The black marks for suspesnion is most likely the feathering issue, power equipment failures aren't surprising (both my window motors and regulators failed) and transmissions not doing so well is most likely the fairly high % of people who had their manual transmissions replaced.
I've been a subscriber to Consumer Reports on/off for years and find their reliability info to be fairly accurate. I may not agree w/their car reviews, but their reliability stats seem fine to me.
11-12-2006, 01:27 AM
#34
New Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 2,129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZlleH
I think you miss my point. I'm saying of course the 06 will have higher scores because it is new and has little miles for consumers to report problems while the 03 would have more miles and consumers would report more issues.
11-26-2006, 01:57 PM
#37
Originally Posted by bofa
I didn't turn in my survey since I've had problems.. no sense in draggin down our resale value too...
