Consumer Reports April 2005
 

I just picked one up and thought I'd point out some interesting things.

In the review of the new Mustang in this issue it says "But the Mustang lacks the finnesse of the best sports cars in this price range, including the Subaru Impreza WRX STi and the Mazda RX-8."

In the 2005 Ratings it was listed with the 4th highest Sports/Sporty Cars score. Got a below average on predicted reliability, an above average on owner satisfaction, and the highest on accident avoidance and crash protection. Highs: Smooth revving engine, handling, ride, shifter, braking, four passenger cpacity.
Lows: Fuel economy, reliability. But strangely enough it's not recommended even though cars with less scores are (ie the Z, RSX are recommended). Don't ask me.

In order:
Audi A4
BMW M3
Subaru STi
Mazda RX-8
Cadillac CTS-V
Mitsubishi Lancer Evo
Subaru WRX
Toyota Celica GTS
VW Beetle Turbo
Mini Cooper
Ford Mustang GT
Honda Civic Si
Nissan 350Z
Acura RSX Type S
Pontiac GTO
Chrysler Crossfire
Hyundai Tiburon

The poor Tiburon had one of its two highs as "Long warranty" and also the predicted reliability was the worst.

Let's see finally in their blurb of it:
The RX-8 is a sporty coupe and successor to the RX-7. While acceleration is not explosive, the Wankel rotary engine is exceptionally smooth and responsive, provided you keep it at mid-revs, which becomes natural and sounds invigorating. Handling is supr agile, with quick, communicative steering, and is forgiving at the limits. Unlike some competitors, the ride is fairly comfortable. This truly fun-to-drive car doesn't beat you up and seats four. The rear-hinged rar doors with no center roof pillar make backseat access relatively easy. Fuel economy is disappointing, as is first-year reliability.

i don't know why they are saying the reliability is so poor, mine hasn't had any problems yet. with over 20,000 miles, and averaging 19-21 mpg, i just don't agree with them not recommending the RX-8. but you know a lot of those car magazines are very biased in some of their reviews.

Oh yeah, also in the Nissan 350Z blurb it says "Handling is fairly agile but less so than the Mazda RX-8."

Now that I look at it, I'm pretty sure they don't recommend the RX-8 purely off of the reliability factor. The Mazda 6 says "Reliability has dropped to below average, so we no longer recommend the Mazda6". None of their recommended cars have below average reliability. I don't think Consumer Reports is biased myself. The RX-8 seems to have a lot of issues. Minor issues, sure, but they're there and definitely in a larger number than you would get with say a Honda or Toyota. Personally for me, I had something repaired under warranty already and while I could've lived without fixing it, it was still something to fix. (My air conditioner wouldn't be cool unless it was set to the lowest settings. Anything above the lowest 2-3 notches and the air would be hot.)

Mazda rated in the middle of the pack for reliability for new cars in 2005 with it's range being from like 45% below average to 50% above average with the median being smack in around 0% off average. Toyota DOMINATES this btw with Scion coming in first, Lexus second, and Toyota 3rd.

CR does have an interesting article about consumer bias though. About how some people are really satisfied with their cars even though their cars have a lot of problems.
"There's an enduring belief that any initial problems will go away, especially if the car is perceived as cool to begin with. Some brands just have a mystique about them." I think that's true for this car.

i guess i've gotten lucky with my car. the only thing i have had to be fixed under warranty was a blown speaker. i have heard a lot about other minor problems but i wouldn't necessarily think they would affect reliability. well, in any case, i don't really care what magazines say, i love my car and that isn't about to change.

I didnt know Audi A4 is a sports car, I thought thats like the economy saloon of Audi like a C classe or a 3 series, yah sure its semi-sporty, agile and all that, but boring... sure they dont mean the RS4?
Quick but with the price of a Porsche... so Id go for Porsche anyway.

Nice post spork!! I think maybe they meant the S4. Nice to see we are hanging around with the $50k cars!! Also......a VW Beetle and no G35?

- Irish :cool:

How CR determines the reliability verdict - "calculated from the problem rates for the 14 trouble spots and compared with that year's average [model]."

So the 14 categories are each rated against some unknown "average", then subjected to the magic "average" model" and deemed Better than average (red check), Average (gray dash) or Below average (black X) OVERALL RELIABILITY.

The "average model" has 13 of 14 ratings at "full red circle" which is "much better than average" and 1 rating of "half red circle" which is "better than average".

Scanning the cars rated, there are a few with two "half red circles" that were given the coveted "better than average overall reliability" verdict, showing its not, shall we say, "black and white".

Dizzy yet? The RX-8 had 9 much better than average and 5 better than average ratings, so it falls into the "Below average overall reliability" category which CR says "be wary of models with a "black X"

So "be wary of models with" all ratings of at least "better than average" I give up.

Reliability is overrated by USA consumers.

I'd much rather drive an RX8 that might spend an extra day in the shop each year than drive something like a Honda Civic that never breaks down.

You can tell it's a great car by the good owner satisfaction rating.

Oops, it is an S4. I didn't even realize I put A4!

My bad!

I have that issue of CR. As has been discussed in this thread, some of the ratings used don't seem to make sense. I get the mag and immediately look up my two favorite cars; the RX-8 and the 350Z. Comparing the reviews, I wonder why the Z is recommended and the 8 is not. Both cars have their pros and cons which IMO seem to even out overall. I would almost tend to think that the poor MPG is what might have brought the 8 down, but then again, the Z's ride is harsh and uncomfortable, yet it is still recommended. Hard to figure out.

Any ideas about how many miles the RX-8's engine will last to?

I was going to post similar to some of the above but have been beaten to it. So, I'll cover some different ground.

I am one of the 8 owners that respond to the CR survey every year (over 30 years now) and the last survey included my input on the 8. This car is the only car that I have owned since 1976 that has had a serious failure covered under warranty. (I have had numerous annoyances and minor breakages but this was the most serious) The ABS pump died or just the sensors freaked out but the complete unit had to be replaced since MNAO did not want the dealer attempting to diagnose or repair to a component level. Even though the ABS pump was the source of the problem, it actually prevented the power steering from working because they are all controlled by the same system. Anyway, a serious problem. Yes it was repaired and no it has not recurred but it was reported because it really happened.

When you look at the red dot charts, it becomes very clear that the "average" reliability has gotten very high for the industry overall. I remember when even the best rated cars had some black dots and semi-circles in the ratings. Now you have to have all full circle red and no more than two semi-circles otherwise your rating is "below average". CR will probably tighten their criteria - this is like every student scoring an A. As far as the 8 having a slightly below average predicted reliability but not earning a recomendation, you have to know a little bit about CR's underlying criteria.

Ever notice how a brand new Toyota or Honda model can earn a recomendation based upon "predicted reliability" while a brand new Chevy or Chrysler won't? That's because CR has tallied the trends of the manufacturer's entire product line and are willing to stake their reputation that a Toyota or a Honda will be reliable. They're not willing to say that for Chevy or Ford, or in this case Mazda. They also take into consideration the components of the vehicle. If it's a reskinned chassis with a good reputation (ie an new Avalon comes out on last year's proven Camry chassis), then they will factor that in and give the brand new car a recomendation.

So, to net this all out, what is Mazda's overall reliability predictability? Unfortunately, since Mazda started selling rebadged Fords (Tribute, Bxxxx), their brand reliability is reduced. Since the RX8 is a brand new chassis with a brand new engine, that further reduces their position of recomending the car.

I know that everyone likes to see their car lauded by the magazines (me too), but the 8 is just too new, too different and built by a manufacturer with a slipping overall rating to receive the recomendation. If the 2005's do well in the coming survey and the 2004's show that the infant mortality problems of the first year have been resolved, the rating will be upgraded.

Well stated beachdog. I personally think CR's rating of the RX-8 is right on the money considering the recalls / TSBs, flooding, and other assorted problems people have experienced and reported here. I still love my RX-8 :).

12

WHAT!!!! What infant mortality problems are you talking about??? I got the 8 because of the rear seat comfort and so I did not have to use my wife's car every time I wanted to go do something with my (WITH GOD'S HELP) future child.

Please explain more...I've never heard about the RX8's "infant mortality" problem???

I agree with what you said Beachdog about CR...but I think they really can't recommend it because it has a rotary engine. Put a V6 or V8 in the 8 and it would be ranked #1...I'll bet cha...

About the baby thing...please explain more...or anyone else!

Calm down, buddy. The term "infant mortality" is a standard industry reference to early failures of products and/or components. It has nothing to do with the safety of "infants" in the cars. :)

Likewise, I'd say Beachdog's comments are on the mark. The continuing and unsubstantiated belief that CR is somehow biased against the RX-8, Mazda, sports cars in general, or the rotary engine in particular should be set aside. Unlike mags that rate cars on the basis of a few editors/testers driving around for a couple of days, CR bases its ratings and recommendations on reports of problems from thousands of owners over a number of years. Unlike mags whose ratings mysteriously correlate with the amount of ad space for vehicles in their pages, CR does not accept advertising and refuses to allow manufacturers to use its ratings in their advertising.

Is there a "bias" in their approach? Sure. They place a very high premium on reliability, no doubt because they believe that is the single most important trait for "consumers," their constituency. At the same time, and has been noted, the editors/testers at CR give the RX-8 high marks for its features, its handling, and its overall "fun to drive" factor, all subjective criteria and noted by CR as such.

Take CR for what it is, an organization that is not influenced by advertising, either by specific manufacturers or by the auto industry as a whole, with a specific agenda: safety, reliability, and economy, all highly prized by "consumers" in general. It's not a bible for auto enthusiasts, but it serves a worthwhile purpose and an interesting data point in auto ratings.

Yep, I was baffled by the lack of a "recommendation" consumer reports didn't give the RX-8 at first but after looking through the magazine a little more it really is the reliability issue. Consumer Reports WILL NOT recommend any car with less than average reliability, no matter how great it is. If the Lexus LS430 had less than average reliability, CR would not recommend it. (As is, CR LOVES the LS430).

CR actually does like the RX-8 a lot. It's pretty obvious by the comments they make and how the RX-8 gets a mention in the Mustang review and the 350Z blurb (saying that the 8 is superior to both of those cars in terms of handling). It's amazing to me though how many people think that CR has a secret anti-Mazda agenda. It sounds to me that they hit the car on the button. Great car. Lacks some low end grunt but keeping the car in mid revs is a joy. Reliability and gas mileage are the only real problems.

As for the "infant" mortality thing... the RX-8 is considered the infant. It's the first year, hence it's still in its "infancy". :)

The RX7's are going till 60-100K. I imagine with the Renesis redesign and updated technology and materials we should easily reach 120,000 + no problem. As long as the engine is cared for and maintained of course.

Oh thank GOD...

I've never heard that term...thanks for the knowledge. I would love to see the data that CR got back...I'll have to get their mag. But, do they go into specifics? Like...out of 1,000 RX8's 10 had X happen, 15 had Y, etc etc

I just wonder about it because it's not like I hear a bunch of people at rx8club constantly complaining that their 8 failed them. I also wonder how often the flooding problem happens? How often does the 8 fail to start or the engine breaks down on us?

THANK GOD, I'm loving the experiance so far and I've had vertually no issues.

:o Sorry for the panic. :D If you were kidding.
Never realized that this term wasn't universally known. All products are released based on the cross purposes of the engineers wanting to build the perfect product and the accountants chipping away at perfection till it's just good enough to sell. This means that every product is turned over to the final quality control department, the customer. Sometimes with varied results. Cars are especially subject to infant mortality because so much can go wrong.

Again, as others have commented, CR does not have an attitude
about Mazda, the RX8 or the Renesis. Their automotive department is made up of car fanatics and engineers the same as the car magazines. The difference is that they also have a staff of statisticians. There's at least one tester on staff at CR that was hoping and praying that the RX8 would be good enough to get the coveted recomendation because one or more of those guys wrote great things about the 8.

BTW, ever wonder what CR does with all of the cars when the testing is over? Employees get first shot at buying them. Make you a bet that the 8 is still in their parking lot.

http://cdn.consumerreports.org/static/0504pic2_f.html

Consumer Reports removes Ford Focus as Top Pick for small sedans
Six other vehicles no longer recommended because of crash test results.
------------------------
Consumer Reports has removed the Ford Focus as its Top Pick for small sedans because it performed poorly in insurance industry crash tests that were announced on Sunday.

Two other small cars that received favorable ratings in Consumer Reports' April Auto Issue, the Hyundai Elantra and Mazda3, also are no longer recommended by the magazine because of poor performance in the new side-impact crash tests, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

The 350Z is recommended and the RX8 not. Right? Both cars had some teething pains - the Z with the mad consumer TIRE wear (suspension) and the radio system, the RX8 with the flooding issue and the thermal shroud thing. I believe that any new car that is a new model will have some issues. I was one of the people CR surveyed and regretably I had to share my situation with my AC compressor that failed the first few months. I DID add that it could happen to any car - bad bearings on a component but...

I still like my car and that is what matters. It is NOT a problem prone car as best we can tell and that too is important.

Well, I just did TWO consumer reviews on my RX8 these past two days. Today I mailed out the JD Power Assoc listing. I thought I'd share what I said with you guys/gals.

Overall I've had virtually NO issues at all. I have like 1 or two interior issues and the fact that my paint job (NEW) had swirl marks.

I also complained that the tranny is not as smooth as I expected BUT it seems to be getting better with age...so it might be a break-in thing.

Everything else is great but I did mention to them that it could use another 40HP to better compete with it's compitition. (Note: I also said 30lbs of torque but I probably should have said 50lbs)

Great, so it is all your fault that the 8 didn't get reccomended! :D