|
|
2012's Worst
Small SUVs Sold in North America:
Table and Charts
by James Bleeker
This page provides the table giving the 2012 Auto Reliability GPAs of the
worst small sport-utility vehicles in 2012, a chart of manufacturer shares of the worst
small SUVs in 2012, and a chart depicting the Overall Reliability GPAs of the 9 best small SUVs in 2012
and the 11 worst small SUVs in 2012.
The Table
The table below provides the 2012 Auto Reliability GPAs and Grades of the worst of
the small sport-utility vehicles sold in the U.S.
Reliability GPAs for 4 age ranges are given so that the
visitor may examine more closely the age range that is of
greater interest to him or her.
Letter grades for automobile reliability are determined thusly: A if the Auto Reliability GPA is 3.50 to
4.00, B if the Auto Reliability GPA is 2.50 to 3.49, C if the Auto Reliability GPA is 1.50 to 2.49, D if
the Auto Reliability GPA is 0.50 to 1.49, and F if the Auto Reliability GPA < 0.50.
The list of the worst small SUVs in 2012 includes those vehicles with an Overall Auto Reliability GPA
from 0 to 1.84 - in letter grade, from the lowest F to a low C. The list is in
ascending order of Overall GPA, i.e., from worst to less worse.
The list of the worst small SUVs in 2012 is of value to
those buyers who want to avoid the worst, but are rather
indifferent to whether a vehicle model is among the best.
The Reliability
GPAs and Grades of the Worst Small SUVs in 2012
|
| ID |
Auto Manufacturer |
Line |
Model |
Model GPA for 0-to-4 Year Old
Vehicles |
Model GPA for 2-to-6 Year Old
Vehicles |
Model GPA for 4-to-8 Year Old
Vehicles |
Model GPA for 6-to-10 Year Old
Vehicles |
Overall Reliability GPA |
Grade Based on Overall GPA |
Minimum Reliability GPA |
Grade Based on Minimum GPA |
Number of Model Years of Data |
| 196 |
General Motors |
Chevrolet |
Blazer |
|
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
F |
0.00 |
F |
3 |
| 114 |
Chrysler |
Dodge |
Nitro |
|
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.00 |
F |
0.00 |
F |
1 |
| 361 |
Volkswagen |
Audi |
Q5, V6 |
0.33 |
0.00 |
|
|
0.17 |
F |
0.00 |
F |
3 |
| 100 |
Chrysler |
Chrysler |
PT Cruiser,
non-turbo |
0.50 |
0.33 |
0.00 |
0.50 |
0.33 |
F |
0.00 |
F |
8 |
| 94 |
Chrysler |
Jeep |
Wrangler,
4-door |
1.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.33 |
F |
0.00 |
F |
5 |
| 298 |
Mazda |
Mazda |
Tribute, 4 cylinder, awd |
1.33 |
0.00 |
|
|
0.67 |
D |
0.00 |
F |
3 |
|
92 |
Chrysler |
Jeep |
Patriot |
1.67 |
1.00 |
0.00 |
|
0.89 |
D |
0.00 |
F |
4 |
|
88 |
Chrysler |
Jeep |
Compass |
|
1.00 |
1.00 |
|
1.00 |
D |
1.00 |
D |
1 |
|
91 |
Chrysler |
Jeep |
Liberty |
1.67 |
1.25 |
1.25 |
1.75 |
1.48 |
D |
1.25 |
D |
9 |
|
93 |
Chrysler |
Jeep |
Wrangler, 2-door |
1.75 |
1.50 |
1.75 |
2.00 |
1.75 |
C |
1.50 |
C |
10 |
|
252 |
General Motors |
Saturn |
Vue, V6 |
2.00 |
1.75 |
1.75 |
1.75 |
1.81 |
C |
1.75 |
C |
8 |
|
| |
Note that among the worst small sport-utility vehicles in 2012, there is not one by
Toyota Motor Corporation, Honda Motor Company, Suzuki Motor Corporation, or the
Subaru Division of Fuji Heavy Industries Ltd.
The manufacturers which have offered one or more of the most trouble prone
small SUVs in 2012, as reported by Consumer Reports subscribers and
measured by the Overall Reliability GPA, are the Chrysler Group (with 7 of the
11 worst), General Motors Corporation (with 2 of the 11 worst), Volkswagen AG,
and Mazda Motor Corporation.
Charts of Manufacturer Shares of the Worst Small SUVs in 2012
Below is a bar graph of the auto manufacturer shares of the 11 worst
small sport-utility vehicles in 2012.
Chart of the Reliability GPAs of the Top 9 and Bottom
11 Small SUVs
The following bar graph depicts the Overall Reliability GPAs of the 9 best
small sport-utility vehicles and 11 worst small sport-utility vehicles in 2012.
|
Caution |
When the number of model years of
data (appearing in the far right column) for a vehicle
is limited to more recent years, the reliability GPAs,
Average GPA, and Minimum GPA of that vehicle may be less
reflective of the vehicle's reliability over a longer
period of time. |
The Auto Reliability GPAs are automobile reliability
statistics that are obtained from Consumer Reports' auto reliability
survey data summarized in the reliability tables of (1) Consumer Reports: New Car
Buying Guide: 2012, (2) Consumer Reports: Used Car Buying Guide: 2012, and
(3) the April 2012 issue of the Consumer Reports magazine.
The method of computation of the GPAs is probably familiar to nearly every college, technical school, and high school student.
A Grade Point of 4.00 (that is, an A) is given to a Consumer Reports Used Car Verdict
of "Much Better Than Average," a GP of 3.00 (that is, a B) is given to a CR
"Better Than Average" rating, a GP of 2.00 (that is, a C) to an "Average"
rating, a GP of 1.00 (that is, a D) to a "Worse Than Average" rating, and a
GP of 0.00 (that is, an F) to a "Much Worse Than Average" rating. A
4-year Grade Point Average (GPA) is an average of the Grade Points and is computed using
Microsoft's Average(a:b,[c:d],...) function. The Overall GPA given in the
table and chart above is the average of the four 4-year GPAs.
AutoOnInfo.net: Helping to inform consumers which autos, brands,
and manufacturers are better than good and worse than bad since 2001.
|