|
This
page has been updated to include the data that became available in 2005.
A
model's Reliability Percentrank is a ranking of that model's Reliability Score
relative to all other Reliability Scores for the given model year and age range.
The percentrank was computed using the Percentrank function of Microsoft's Excel
2002 and, as the first part of the compound word percentrank suggests, is
a value between 0.00 and 1.00. If a model's Reliability Percentrank is near
0.00, it has a very low Reliability Score, and if a Percentrank is near 1.00, it
has a high Reliability Score. For a more detailed explanation of Reliability
Percentranks and Reliability Scores, click
here to be taken to the Methodology page.
The Reliability Percentranks and Percentrank Averages for 1988 to
1997 are
based on the performance of approximately 6 to 8 year old vehicles; those for
1998, on the performance of approximately 5 to 7 year old vehicles; those
for 1999, on the performance of approximately 4 to 6 year old vehicles;
those for 2000, on the performance of approximately 3 to 5 year old
vehicles; those for 2001, on the performance of approximately 2 to 4 year
old vehicles; those for 2002, on the performance of approximately 2 to 3
year old vehicles.
Benchmarks:
Site manager's conjecture is that if a person cares little about
what he or she drives, he or she still likely would not want to drive anything
worse, or easily noticeably worse, than a typical Big Three vehicle. This is why
Big Three Reliability Percentrank Averages are used to benchmark the bottom. At the other end, site
manager's conjecture is that if a person has an eye for quality, he or she likely
would not want to own a vehicle that is much, if any, less than a typical
Reliable Two (Toyota-Honda) vehicle. This is why Reliable Two Reliability Percentrank
Averages are used to
benchmark the top.
Extrapolations: The extrapolation of Nissan Reliability Percentrank
averages to model years is provided to give the visitor an idea as to the
relative reliability of the Nissan line for model years
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012. The extrapolations are linear regressions of
degree one and are based on vehicular ages that range from 2-4 years to 6-8 years, as noted
above. If the visitor plans to purchase a new Nissan vehicle and own it
for less than 3 years, the projections may have less applicability.
Advisories:
1.
This
site gives a Reliability Percentrank of .6 or below a Reliability Grade of F,
per the high standards, and a Reliability Percentrank of .76 or below a
Reliability Grade of F, per the exacting standards.
To view the table giving the Reliability Grades - High Standards for the
Nissan line, click here.
2.
Nothing
on this web page should be viewed as suggesting that site manager considers a
model-year with a Reliability Percentrank below .9, or a model with a 5-year
or 10-year Reliability Percentrank average below .9, to be acceptable for
purchase or lease.
3.
Some
models appearing in the Reliability Percentranks table for the
Nissan
Line may
not have a separate chart above.
To
view the table giving the Reliability Percentranks for the Nissan line,
click here.
|
Charts of 2008 Reliability Predictions |
|
(Each chart is linked to a news article providing additional
information.) |
|
Links to Articles on Consumer Reports' 2008 Reliability
Ratings for Model Years 1998 through 2007 |
|
(Each chart is linked to a news article providing additional
information.) |
| Some
Additional
Charts Pertaining to Reliability and Durability |
|
(Each chart is linked to a news article providing additional
information.) |
 
More Charts and Tables appear below the list of
news articles.
Some Nissan-related news articles:
|
November 2007: The Best and Worst 2008 Automobiles by CR's Reliability-Verdict History: Toyota Models Dominate Best and Account for All Perfect Reliability-Verdict Histories of 6 or More Years; GM Models Dominate Worst |
| July 2007: The 2007 Reliability-Durability Updates: For Vehicles 7-to-9 Years Old, Toyota and Honda Account for 11 of 12 Best, GM - 22 of 41 Worst: Will a Typical Toyota at 30 Years of Age Be as Troublesome as a Typical GM at 3 Years of Age? |
|
April 2007:
By Yet Another Quality Measure, Toyota and Honda Are Best and GM and DaimlerChrysler - Worst: The UCS 2007 Environmental Report |
|
March 2007:
Toyota and Honda Increase Dominance of Consumer Reports' Good Bets List: Toyota's Best Widen Quality Gap |
|
March 2007:
GM Expands Lead on CR's Used-Cars-to-Avoid List, a Tad |
|
November 2006:
By CR's Predicted Short-Term Reliability for Model Year 2007, Toyota and Honda Dominate Best and GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler Dominate Worst, per Detroit News Table |
|
October 2006:
The 2006 Updates: Toyota and Honda Account for 4 of 5 Most Durable Sport-Utility Vehicles; General Motors - 7 of 10 Worst: Will a Typical 1998 Toyota SUV Be More Trouble Free at 21 Years of Age Than a Typical 1998 GM SUV at 3? |
|
September 2006:
Reliability Updates: Best and Worst Cars and Trucks Tables: A Chart Summary |
|
August 2006:
U.S. Safety Recalls by General Motors, Chrysler, Nissan, Honda, and Toyota |
|
July 2006:
Toyota and Honda Dominate CR's Ten Best Family Sedans with Above Average Predicted Reliability; Big Three Score Zip |
|
July 2006:
In the U.S. in June 2006, Toyota Sales Surge to Set a New June Record; Legendary Corolla Sales Soar; Honda Sales Squeak Past Previous June Record; Big Three Sales Remain In or Near Friction-Free Free Fall, But GM's Prospect of Multiple Bankruptcy Filings Dims |
|
June 2006:
Chrysler Gets NHTSA Safety Probe; Nissan Issues Stop Sell Order to Dealers |
|
June 2006:
Toyota and Honda Dominate CR's 2006 Higher-Reliability, Higher-Owner-Satisfaction Quick Picks; Big Three Score Zip |
|
May 2006:
Toyota and Honda Account for 75% of CR's Top Picks, Alternatives, and Runners-up; Subaru and Nissan Account for Balance; Big Three Score Zip |
|
May 2006:
U.S. Safety Recalls by General Motors (2), Ford (3), Chrysler (4), Mazda (1), Nissan (3), and Toyota (1) |
|
February 2006:
Toyota and Honda Dominate Consumer Reports' 2006 Good Bets List, with Small Changes from 2005 |
|
January 2006:
In 2005, U.S. Consumer Shift to Quality Continues at Quickened Pace, But GM and Ford Avoid Disastrous Market Share Plunges with Big Discounts and Huge Financial Losses: Is a Big Three Product Worth a Dime? |
|
January 2006:
In December 2005, U.S. Consumer Shift to Quality Races On: Toyota Sets New December Sales Record, GM and Ford Sales Plunge |
|
December 2005:
By CR's Predicted Short-Term Reliability for Model Year 2006, Toyota and Honda Dominate Best, GM and Ford Dominate Worst |
|
June 2005:
In the U.S., Nissan Recalls 43,000 Sentras, Ford Recalls 260,000 Large Pickups and Vans and Investigates Others |
|
April 2005:
Toyota Tacoma Pickup Truck Scores Best on IIHS 2005 Crash Tests, Receives "Best Pick Frontal" Designation |
|
April 2005:
In the U.S. in March 2005, Toyota and Nissan Sales Advance, Ford and GM Sales Drop |
|
March 2005:
Toyota and Honda Dominate Consumer Reports 2005 Overall Quick Pick List; Big Three Score Zip |
|
March 2005:
Toyota and Honda Dominate Consumer Reports Owner Satisfaction Quick Pick List; Big Three Score Zip |
|
March 2005:
In the U.S. in February 2005, Toyota and Nissan Sales Advance, Ford Sales Drop, GM Sales Plummet |
|
February 2005:
In the U.S. in January 2005, Toyota and Nissan Sales Advance, Consumers Continue to Reward Toyota and Nissan Quality with Greater U. S. Auto Market Share and Again Take GM and Ford to the Shed |
|
January 2005:
In the U.S. in December 2004, Sales by the Quality Four Soar; General Motors and Ford Sales Drop |
The visitor may find the following tables and charts useful as well.
|
Cumulative Number of Auto on Info
Auto Manufacturer Awards for Motor
Vehicle Quality |
|
Cumulative Number of First Place Positions in Auto on Info's
Auto
Manufacturer Awards for Motor Vehicle Quality |
|
Auto Manufacturer |
Awards |
Auto Manufacturer |
First Place Positions |
|
Toyota |
42 |
Toyota |
39 |
|
Honda |
34 |
Honda |
5 |
|
Mercedes-Benz |
2 |
Mercedes-Benz |
0 |
|
Nissan |
1 |
Nissan |
0 |
|
BMW |
1 |
BMW |
0 |
|
Volvo |
1 |
Volvo |
0 |
|
General Motors |
0 |
General Motors |
0 |
|
Ford |
0 |
Ford |
0 |
|
Chrysler |
0 |
Chrysler |
0 |
|
This table is current as of 14
August 2007. |
This table is current as of 14
August 2007. |
|
Shares of Consumer Reports' 2005 Quick Picks, by Auto
Manufacturer and Motor Vehicle Line |
|
Manufacturer |
Share of
2005 Reliability Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Owner Satisfaction Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Fuel Economy Quick Picks |
Share of
2005 Overall Quick Picks |
|
|
Vehicle Line |
|
Toyota |
.63 |
.47 |
.46 |
.33 |
|
|
Lexus |
.11 |
.16 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
|
Toyota |
.53 |
.32 |
.46 |
.19 |
|
Honda |
.21 |
.26 |
.38 |
.33 |
|
|
Acura |
.11 |
.11 |
.08 |
.05 |
|
|
Honda |
.11 |
.16 |
.31 |
.29 |
|
Subaru |
.05 |
.11 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
Nissan |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
.14 |
|
|
Infiniti |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
.05 |
|
|
Nissan |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
.10 |
|
Mazda |
.05 |
.05 |
.15 |
.051 |
|
BMW |
0.00 |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Mitsubishi |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Ford, Chrysler,
General Motors, and all others |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1
Mazda's one entry, the Mazda3 i, may have been pulled from Consumer
Reports' Overall Quick Pick List due to a
"Poor" side-impact crash test rating
by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Insurance
Institute's rating did cause Consumer Reports to pull the Mazda3
from its recommended list. |
|
All shares are rounded to two
significant digits. |
|
CR 2005 Quick Picks are quick pick
models of model year 2005. |
|
Note: A rebadge of a product
engineered by Toyota, but sold by another auto manufacturer, is
omitted from the latter's share. |
|
Source for Consumer Reports' Good
Bets: "Quick Picks," Consumer Reports, April 2005, P. 31 |
|
Shares of Consumer Reports'
2007 Good Bets for Model Years
1997-2006 with Selected 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Averages,
by Auto Manufacturer and Motor Vehicle Line |
|
Manufacturer |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .80 |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .85 |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .90 |
Share of CR 2007 Good Bets
with a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank Average1 Greater
Than or Equal to .95 |
|
|
Vehicle Line |
|
Toyota |
.54 |
.55 |
.72 |
.83 |
|
|
Lexus |
.16 |
.19 |
.28 |
.50 |
|
|
Toyota |
.38 |
.35 |
.44 |
.33 |
|
Honda |
.27 |
.32 |
.22 |
.17 |
|
|
Acura |
.11 |
.13 |
.06 |
0.00 |
|
|
Honda |
.16 |
.19 |
.17 |
.17 |
|
Subaru |
.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Nissan |
.14 |
.10 |
.06 |
0.00 |
|
|
Infiniti |
.08 |
.10 |
.06 |
0.00 |
|
|
Nissan |
.05 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Mazda |
.03 |
.03 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
Ford, Chrysler,
General Motors, and all others |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
1
If the vehicle model is too new for a 1998-2002 Reliability Percentrank average to exist, the early 2003 Reliability Percentrank
is used when such exists. |
|
All shares are rounded to two
significant digits. |
|
CR Good Bets are models that have
several
model years between 1997 and 2006 of better-than-average reliability
and have performed well on Consumer Reports' road tests. An auto
Reliability Percentrank is
a measure of relative overall reliability used by Auto on Info. |
|
Note: Two rebadges of products
engineered by Toyota, but sold by another auto manufacturer, are
omitted from the latter's share. |
|
Source for Consumer Reports' Good
Bets: "CR Good Bet: The Best of Both World's,"
Consumer Reports Cars: Used
Car Buying Guide 2006, p.
25 |
|
Source for Reliability
Percentrank averages:
Table I-MVRP |
|
Table I: Number and Percentage
of Entries in CR's 2007
Much-Worse-Than-Average List, by Manufacturer |
|
Auto Manufacturer |
Number of Entries |
Percent of Entires |
|
General Motors Corporation |
14 |
36.8% |
|
DaimlerChrysler AG |
7* |
18.4% |
|
Ford Motor Company |
6** |
15.8% |
|
Volkswagen AG |
5 |
13.2% |
|
Nissan Motor
Company |
3 |
7.9% |
|
BMW AG |
2 |
5.3% |
|
Kia Motors
Corporation |
1 |
2.6% |
|
All Others |
0 |
0% |
|
*
Three are from DaimlerChrysler's North American Chrysler group and
four are from the Mercedes-Benz division. |
|
**
Two are from Ford's North American group, two are from the
Jaguar division, one is from the Land Rover division, and one is
from the Volvo division. |
|
Source: "CR Bad Bets," Consumer Reports,
April 2007, p. 81 |
|
Median Value of a New Big Three
Vehicle as Assessed by Mini-Survey Respondents Reporting
Ownership of a Quality Four Product on or before July 8, 2005,
by Manufacturer |
|
Manufacturer |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at More Than
What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at What Is
Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Only 95%
of What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Only 80%
of What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Only 50%
of What Is Currently Asked |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Nothing |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Nothing
Plus Respondent Would Require $20,000+ per Year to Drive It |
Big 3 Vehicle Valued at Nothing
Plus Respondent Would Require $200,000+ per Year to Drive It |
Respondent Unwilling to Own a Big
Three Vehicle under Any Circumstance |
|
Toyota Motor Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
Honda Motor Company |
|
|
|
Supporting Auto on Info
