|
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 extrapolations of Saab Reliability Percentrank
averages and Saab 900/9-3 Reliability Percentranks are provided to give the visitor an idea as to the relative reliability of the
Saab line and the Saab 9-3 for model years
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. The extrapolations are linear regressions of
degree one and are based on vehicular ages that range from 2-3 years to 6-8 years, as noted
above. If the visitor plans to purchase a new Saab vehicle and own it
for less than 3 years, the projections may have less applicability. Note
that of late questions regarding the viability of GM and its lines have arisen;
should GM disappear from the automotive world, the extrapolations are, of
course, without meaning.
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
Saab
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
Saab
Line may
not have a separate chart above.
To
view the table giving the Reliability Percentranks for the
Saab
line, click here.
4.
Saab is a division of General Motors Corporation.
For those disposed to trawl trenches or troll at depths, the
following chart of Big Three Reliability Percentrank averages and extrapolations is provided.
For reference, the Reliability Percentrank averages, and an extrapolation
thereof, for Toyota Motor Corporation are included.
The extrapolations are linear regressions of degree one.
The above chart shows (1) a quite steady decline in the Reliability Percentrank
average of Chrysler through 1994, followed by a rather steady, but modest recovery, (2)
a quite steady decline in the Reliability Percentrank average of General Motors
Corporation through 1997, followed by a very modest recovery, and (3) a very
steady rise in the Reliability Percentrank average of Ford Motor Company from
1990 through
1997, followed by a rather steady decline toward the averages of Chrysler and
GM. The more recent decline by Ford suggests that its lofty extrapolation is
highly questionable. (See the
Bottom Line on Auto Reliability.)
Likely a better
guide to the reliability of a typical product for any of the Big Three comes
from an extrapolation of the Reliability Percentrank averages for the Big Three
as a group. The following chart provides this. Again, the extrapolation of the
Reliability Percentrank averages for Toyota Motor Corporation provides
reference.
Disclaimer:
Site manager views the purchase of any Big-Three-engineered vehicle as ill-advised.
|
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 Saab-related news articles:
|
March 2008: GM's CEO Gets Pay Raise to $2.2 Million, But Doesn't Such a Talented Fellow Deserve $22 Million? Or $220 Million? |
|
March 2008: Chevrolet Upholds and Expands a Tradition in Infamy: GM's Chevrolet Line Worst by CR's 2008 Used Cars to Avoid |
|
February 2008: The January 2008 U.S. Automobile Sales Statistics: As Hyundai Clobbers GM in Quality, GM Clobbers Hyundai in Sales; Overall, the U.S. Consumer Trek to Quality and Out of Big Three Products Slows to the Leisurely Stroll of the Mid-1990s |
|
December 2007: In the
Race to Quality and Out of GM Products, Aussies Hold Lead, Mexicans Closing Fast, Americans May Finish Last |
 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 |
|
June 2007: The J.D. Power Surveys: Gleaning Values from Things That May Be Worth, Individually, Something Close to Nothing: GM in the Dumps Again |
|
May 2007: Does GM Mean Junk and Ford Too? Toyota and Honda Shine Again. |
|
April 2007:
As the Earth Warms, Senator Boxer Pushes Hard for CO2 Regs and GM's Vice Chairman Robert Lutz Fiddles a Refrain |
|
April 2007:
By Yet Another Quality Measure, Toyota and Honda Are Best and GM and DaimlerChrysler - Worst: The UCS 2007 Environmental Report |
|
March 2007:
Chevrolet Upholds a Tradition: GM's Chevrolet Line Worst by CR's 2007 Vehicles-to-Avoid List |
|
March 2007:
GM Expands Lead on CR's Used-Cars-to-Avoid List, a Tad |
|
February 2007:
Does GM Mean Junk of the 7th Level of Abomination? |
|
September 2006:
Reliability Updates: Toyota and Honda Still Tops, But Lose Luster; General Motors Still Worst of Major Auto Manufacturers; Hyundai Clobbers GM Yet Again |
|
September 2006:
Reliability Updates: Best and Worst Cars and Trucks Tables: A Chart Summary |
|
August 2006:
Reliability Updates: For Model Year 2002, Toyota Accounts for 11 of 16 Best, GM - 16 of 53 Worst |
|
August 2006:
For 2-to-3-Year-Old Model-Year-2003 Vehicles, Toyota Garners 8 of Top 9 and 9 of Top 14, General Motors Accounts for 18 of Bottom 46 |
|
August 2006:
Moody's Cuts Ford Debt Two Notches Deeper into Junk: Which of the Big Two Will Win the Race to Bankruptcy? |
|
August 2006:
In the U.S. in July 2006, Toyota
Sales Surge to New Monthly Record and Past Ford's; Legendary Corolla Sales
Soar Again; Honda Sales Jump Past Previous July Record; Big Three Sales
Remain In or Near Friction-Free Free Fall, But GM's Prospect of Multiple
Bankruptcy Filings Dims Again |
|
June 2006:
S&P Cuts Ford Debt Deeper into Junk: Which of the Big Two Will Win the Race to Bankruptcy? |
|
June 2006:
Moody's and S&P Cut GM Creditworthiness Deeper into Junk |
|
June 2006:
Fitch Cuts Ford Debt Deeper into Junk, but GM Retains Solid Lead in Race to Bankruptcy |
|
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 |
|
April 2006:
If GM Is Really Worth a -$43 Billion, Should Its Executives Be Executed? |
|
April 2006:
In the U.S. in March 2006, Consumers Continue Their March to Quality: Reliable Two Sales Set New March Records; GM Sales Plunge; Ford Sales Drop |
|
March 2006:
Moody's Cuts GM Creditworthiness Another Notch Deeper into Junk |
|
March 2006:
GM Expands Lead in Race to Bankruptcy: Fitch Cuts GM's Credit a Notch Deeper into Junk, Puts Post-Filing Bond Recovery at 30% to 50% |
|
March 2006:
In the U.S. in February 2006, Reliable Two Sales Set New February Sales Records; GM's Market Share Drops Another Notch and Ford's Inches Up a Notch; Toyota RAV4 Sales Surge Again |
|
February 2006:
GM Strengthens Lead in Race to Bankruptcy: Moody's Cuts GM's Credit a Notch Deeper in Junk |
|
February 2006:
General Motors and DaimlerChrysler Again Dominate CR's Used-Cars-to-Avoid List |
|
January 2006:
U.S. President Bush Says GM and Ford Must Make a Relevant Product, But Can They and Should They Try? |
|
January 2006:
Toyota Overwhelmingly Dominates Another Measure of Durability |
|
January 2006:
Ford Cuts GM Lead in Race to Insolvency: Which Big Three Will Go Bust First? |
|
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:
MPR's Senior Economics and Business Editor Predicts GM Bankruptcy in 2006 |
|
December 2005:
Ford's Debt Cut to Junk by Fitch, but GM Retains Big Lead in Race to Bankruptcy |
|
December 2005:
Relentless U.S. Consumer Shift to Quality Prompts S&P to Cut GM Debt Deeper into Junk |
|
December 2005:
By CR's Predicted Short-Term Reliability for Model Year 2006, Toyota and Honda Dominate Best, GM and Ford Dominate Worst |
|
November 2005:
Fitch Cuts GM Debt Deeper into Junk |
|
November 2005:
Moody's Cuts GM Debt Deeper into Junk |
|
October 2005:
Parts Division Jettisoned by GM Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; S&P Cuts GM's Debt Deeper into Junk |
|
August 2005:
Former Parts Division GM Dumped on Shareholders Has Rating Slashed: S&P Cuts Delphi's Debt Deep into Junk |
|
April 2005:
In the U.S. in March 2005, Toyota and Nissan Sales Advance, Ford and GM Sales Drop |
|
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 |
|
Median Reported
Severity of Engine Knock for Various Classes of GM Vehicles as
of July 12, 2005 |
|
Class |
0 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
|
GM pickup trucks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM sport utility vehicles |
|
|
|
|
|
|
√ |
|
|
|
GM minivans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supporting Auto on Info
