Consumer Reports Reached Out To Me: My Opinion Didn’t Change

I recently wrote a commentary titled "Consumer Reports—Selling Car Fears For Over 70 Years."  I knew it would generate some reaction, but I honestly didn't expect one of those reactions to come directly from Consumer Reports itself.

To their credit, they reached out. The Senior Communications Specialist was professional, courteous, and took the time to explain exactly how they arrive at their reliability ratings. I genuinely appreciate that because too many organizations today simply ignore criticism or dismiss anyone who disagrees with them. Consumer Reports didn't do that. They explained their methodology in detail.

I read every word.

After reading their explanation carefully, my opinion didn't change.

In fact, if anything, their response reinforced what I've been saying on my radio show for years.

One of the biggest points Consumer Reports made was that it primarily evaluates the three most recent model years when determining reliability. If a vehicle has been redesigned, it focuses only on that new generation because it believes those components are the best predictor of how the current model will perform.

I understand that philosophy.

I simply don't think that's the best way to help consumers make one of the biggest purchases they'll make.

Take the Toyota Tundra as an example. Consumer Reports pointed out that the current Tundra has climbed back to an "average" predicted reliability rating after overcoming the early problems that followed its redesign.

That's good news.

But it's also exactly the point I was making in my original article.

For more than two decades, the Toyota Tundra built one of the greatest reliability reputations of any pickup truck sold in America. It wasn't built through advertising campaigns or clever marketing. It was built because hundreds of thousands of owners drove those trucks for years, often accumulating 300,000, 400,000, and even 500,000 miles. Contractors trusted them. Ranchers trusted them. Small business owners trusted them. They earned that reputation the old-fashioned way—through decades of dependable service in the real world.

Then Toyota introduced a redesigned truck and experienced well-publicized engine problems. It happened. Toyota acknowledged the issue, accepted responsibility, and worked to correct it.

Today Consumer Reports says those growing pains have largely been overcome.

That's great.

But here's the question that still lingers in my mind.

How many people decided not to buy a Toyota Tundra because of the earlier headlines?

That's why context matters.

A manufacturer's reputation shouldn't be built over decades and then judged almost entirely by a snapshot in time.

Consumer Reports also explained why the current Ram 1500 ranks near the bottom of its reliability ratings. According to its data, owners reported electrical accessory problems, unexplained battery drains, malfunctioning keyless entry systems, and infotainment screens that froze or required replacement.

Those are legitimate complaints, and I never suggested they weren't.

What struck me, however, was that their explanation actually reinforced another point I made in my first article. Many of the reported issues involve electronics and convenience features rather than catastrophic mechanical failures. Consumer Reports correctly pointed out that it gives engine, transmission, cooling system, drive system, electric motor, and EV battery problems greater weight than trim or infotainment issues when calculating reliability scores.

I'm glad to hear that.

But consumers don't read weighting formulas.

They read headlines.

Most readers don't know how much additional weight Consumer Reports assigns to one category versus another. They simply see a truck ranked near the bottom of a reliability list and naturally assume it's a truck they should avoid. That's my concern. Methodologies are complicated. Headlines are simple, and headlines create lasting impressions, and frankly, sell magazines and get clicks.

Consumer Reports also explained that it compares today's vehicles only against other vehicles from the same model year rather than comparing them with vehicles built ten or twenty years ago.

Again, I understand the methodology.

I simply believe consumers deserve a broader perspective.

When someone asks me whether they should spend $70,000 on a pickup truck, I don't ignore the fact that one manufacturer has spent decades building dependable trucks simply because one redesign experienced growing pains. History matters. Reputation matters. Long-term performance matters. To me, the complete body of work tells a more meaningful story than the most recent report card.

Perhaps the biggest difference between Consumer Reports and me isn't the data.

It's the philosophy.

Consumer Reports believes the most recent data deserves the greatest emphasis.

I believe the most recent data should be viewed within the context of everything that came before it.

Consumer Reports also reminded me that Toyota currently ranks as its most reliable overall automotive brand. I don't disagree with that. In fact, I've been telling listeners for years that Toyota builds some of the finest vehicles in the world.

Which brings me back to my original question.

If Toyota is your most reliable manufacturer overall, how does a consumer reconcile that with headlines suggesting the Tundra is among the least reliable pickup trucks?

That's exactly why context matters.

One area Consumer Reports didn't really address was something I still believe deserves more discussion.

Pickup trucks simply don't live the same lives as passenger cars.

They're worked harder.

They're modified more often.

They're used commercially.

They tow heavy trailers.

They haul equipment.

They spend years doing jobs that most SUVs and crossovers will never experience.

When owners report problems, I think it's fair to ask additional questions. Was the truck maintained according to the manufacturer's schedule? Was it towing within its rated capacity? Had it been modified? Was it being used commercially? How many miles were on it when the problem occurred?

Those questions don't excuse defects.

They provide context.

History also reminds us that Consumer Reports isn't beyond criticism.

Many longtime automotive enthusiasts remember the Suzuki Samurai controversy, when Suzuki alleged that Consumer Reports altered its testing procedures until it achieved the rollover result it was seeking. Consumer Reports denied those allegations, and the dispute became one of the most closely watched legal battles in automotive journalism. Years later came the Isuzu Trooper controversy, another case where testing methodology became the subject of intense debate.

The point isn't to relitigate those cases decades later.

The point is much simpler.

Consumer Reports isn't infallible.

Neither is J.D. Power.

Neither are automotive journalists.

Neither am I.

That's why I've never encouraged anyone to make a buying decision based solely on my opinion—or anyone else's.

I've always encouraged people to read multiple sources, talk to owners, drive the vehicle themselves, ask questions, and make an informed decision based on as much information as they can gather.

Consumer Reports and I actually share the same goal. We both want consumers to make smart buying decisions.

Where we continue to disagree is how consumers get there.

I believe they deserve more than a snapshot.

They deserve the entire picture.

That means considering today's problems alongside yesterday's successes. It means recognizing the difference between a troublesome redesign and a manufacturer with decades of proven dependability. Most of all, it means understanding that while a headline may grab your attention, it rarely tells the complete story.

So, I sincerely appreciate Consumer Reports taking the time to write me.

They explained their methodology very well.

It simply didn't convince me that it's the best way to evaluate a vehicle that many people will own for the next ten or fifteen years.

After more than forty years in this business, I still believe consumers are better served by looking at the complete body of work rather than just the latest report card.