Anyone concerned with Consumers "not recomended rating"?

[SpiralGray]

Originally Posted by Frost

It's actually not as bad as people made it out to be - not good on the reliability front but that could mean a whole bunch of things.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to be an apologist here, but after looking at the report there's a couple of things that don't make sense to me.

In the detailed section the only thing that got a black mark was the fuel system. Engine and transmission minor got average ratings. So how does that rate an overall predicted reliability of worse than average? Of the eight detailed ratings five of them were above average, two were average, one was below average. I'm no mathematician but that would seem to average out (no pun intended) to something better than middle of the pack.

Overall the CR rating is 83 out of 100. If I got that on a test or as a performance review at my job I'd be pretty happy actually.

Finally, some of the stuff in the "lows" section does just piss me off. Knocking a small, lightweight sports car for "access", and "token rear seat" is just stupid in my opinion. This vehicle doesn't advertise itself as a family-hauler. Does CR knock SUVs for being slow, lumbering, behemoths that don't handle worth a damn? It seems stupid to knock things down for being what they are.

[unichip4sale]

Originally Posted by SpiralGray

Overall the CR rating is 83 out of 100. If I got that on a test or as a performance review at my job I'd be pretty happy actually.

Way to strive for mediocrity

[Luis_GT]

Funny thing about the crickets... I don't know of anyone in PR that has them... lol

[SpiralGray]

Originally Posted by unichip4sale

Way to strive for mediocrity

Nothing is ever perfect so 100% is an unreasonable expectation. 83% is pretty good. If a movie or video game got 8/10 you'd probably think it was pretty decent and worth your money. The idea that 83% is mediocre seems a little silly.

[Brzetto]

Originally Posted by lionbacker54

Looks like the fuel system is the only black marked aspect. Wasn't that the part developed by Toyota?

They also bitched about the audio system, which I found strange since the audio system in my brz sounds great to me. Then again I'm not a journalist from a magazine that gets to drive $100,000 cars whenever I want, I live in the real world not my own little car magazine bubble.

[spookyz]

Originally Posted by Brzetto

They also bitched about the audio system, which I found strange since the audio system in my brz sounds great to me. Then again I'm not a journalist from a magazine that gets to drive $100,000 cars whenever I want, I live in the real world not my own little car magazine bubble.

I'm as big a fan of the car as the next guy... but the audio system (sound quality + the stock head unit) definitely has a lot of room for improvement, even when compared to cars in its competition. For example, I think it would be pretty widely agreed the stereo in the Genesis Coupe is quite a bit better (especially the upgraded one) and I'd say that's a fair comparison.

But, that's just my .02. I'm no audiophile though, so the stereo is plenty adequate for me, but it is a fair gripe IMO.

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by Brzetto

They also bitched about the audio system, which I found strange since the audio system in my brz sounds great to me. Then again I'm not a journalist from a magazine that gets to drive $100,000 cars whenever I want, I live in the real world not my own little car magazine bubble.

I think it sounds pretty decent after changing the EQ settings.
It really doesn't sound as horrible as everyone makes it out to.

[lionbacker54]

Originally Posted by ArgentoAtl

Is the chirping a fuel pump problem, and is that thus a part of the fuel system?

i think so

[regal]

Anyone blowing this rating off probably isn't paying for their car. This is going to kill resale value, kill it. That single article probably cost us all at least $8k after warranty runs out (over if it was rated reliable.)


I personally don't car about cricket, windows, rattles, taillights, etc. But I have never seen a modern Toyota with so many posts about catastrophic engine failures.


And thy aren't going after that one, so its up to us and tuners to fix the crap factory tune that kills engines.

[Andrew025]

Originally Posted by regal

Anyone blowing this rating off probably isn't paying for their car. This is going to kill resale value, kill it. That single article probably cost us all at least $8k after warranty runs out (over if it was rated reliable.)


I personally don't car about cricket, windows, rattles, taillights, etc. But I have never seen a modern Toyota with so many posts about catastrophic engine failure.


And thy aren't going after that one, so its up to us and tuners to fix the crap factory tune that kills engines.

I paid for my car and I couldn't give a shit what this article says. Most people who buy this car are the enthusiast type who have usually done the research and already know what they're getting into.

Multiple posts about head gaskets, ring land issues and catastrophic engine failure didn't seem to do much to the resale of my STi.

[regal]

Originally Posted by SirBrass

These are subarus, not GLOCKs :-P (j.k.)

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Andrew025

Multiple posts about head gaskets, ring land issues and catastrophic engine failure didn't seem to do much to the resale of my STi.

Good point, but the guys drivig their WRX's and STI's hard have a huge support system in tuners who know how to correct the for emissions factory tune. They have the fluids down to a science. Just a lot more tribal knowledge. Also I'm guessing you didn't keep that STi very long?


What we have is a clash of Toyota vs Subaru buyer expectations. A Toyota buyer expects no engine problems for minimum over 200k miles. A Subaru owner usually expects having the engine pulled for something around 100k miles, but most trade-in before that..


Of course there are exceptions, I just wish Subaru built engines like they did before OBDII, those cars were strong and lasted for ever. And you are right the BRZ will probably hold resale much better than the Scion. Subaru vs Toyota buyer, they are different.

[BRZfan]

Not me.

Originally Posted by BRZnut

Just opened Consumer Reports and they have dropped the twins from recommended to not recommended. They also state the poor quality of the BRZ/FRS resulted in significant drop in the overall brand ratings of Subaru & Scion.

Any concerns? Comments??

From the posts on this forum, we saw it coming and we all knew the risk of getting a 1st year new model. I wonder if this will change the future of the twins, sale numbers, and their re-sale value.

[Alltezza]

I think I was watching SUBARUWRXFAN on youtube and he said something about consumer report is basically a bunch of BS because they said the FRS has a better engine than the BRZ when they use the SAME engine lol

[Ursam]

Originally Posted by Alltezza

I think I was watching SUBARUWRXFAN on youtube and he said something about consumer report is basically a bunch of BS because they said the FRS has a better engine than the BRZ when they use the SAME engine lol

I don't believe CR ever said that. CR does say that the FRS and BRZ are essentially the same cars with the only noticeable difference being the way in which the two suspensions are tuned. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. CR prefers the FRS because it's $2000 cheaper. I personally would pay for the extras in the BRZ Limited, but that's just a matter of personal preference.