# Consumer Reports no longer recommends E46



## berford (Sep 10, 2002)

*Re: Re: The perils of owning an exciting car ...*



berford said:


> *Last year CR said the 530i was the best car they had ever driven...and it's not boring. And they didn't even test the 540! I'm sure they would have liked that even better. *


Obviously, I was being redundant. I should have read more posts before posting. Sorry, guys.


----------



## Cadetdrivr (Apr 27, 2002)

Toast said:


> *alternatively, maybe the manufacturer is producing the 2 types of car (with the same components) on the same line, but are alternating their production on a weekly basis (meaning, this week they'll produce the Dodge, and next week they'll produce the Chrysler). The above could lead to serious differences in quality, especially if the production is nearing a holiday (ie: the week before, where only one of the cars are produced). :dunno: *


That is not the case. In photos of the DaimlerChrysler plant you can actually see the different models moving down the line together. Of course, the _*only*_ parts that are different are the exterior panels and minor interior trim, so from a manufacturing standpoint it's really easy to do. But somehow CR still rates the shared components differently. And that's just one example. You can compare CR's ratings for Ford, GM, and many others that produce similar products that CR rates differently.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

In the report the 3-Series received a "Predicted depreciation - best"... heck I'll take excellent resale value over minor reliability problems anyday. 

The car does come standard with a 4 year 50,0000 Full Maintenance warranty.


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

Somehow I feel like a cow willingly wandering down the line towards that big bang to the head....  As PhilH notes, I test automotive aftermarket products (as well as others) for CR.



eboller said:


> *Why is there a red checkmark and black checkmarks in the verdict area when there seemed to be alot more problems (earlier years). The past 2-3 years have had much fewer problems in the list yet they don't get the checkmark. Their logic is illogical.*


*

As cars age, they have more problems. Therefore, the "average" performance of a car for an older model year will reflect more problems than it would for a 1-2 year old car. So, while the older car has more problems than the newer one, it might have fewer problems than the "average" car of that year.

A few notes:

1) This is all reader data. It's not edited by us - that's why you can sometimes get quirks between cars that are different nameplates on the same basic car. We're not "rating" the different components, but merely stating what our readers have found. We could mush the results of, say, the Sable and the Taurus together, but that would be manipulating the numbers.

Also, consider that because of brand image, otherwise similar cars that differ by a nameplate could have different equipment - my father's Chrysler Town & Country has fewer engine options and more electrical gadgets (on average) than a cheaper-priced Dodge Caravan, which could affect reliability.

2) I don't see the data analysis methods, so I'm not quite certain about this - but I think the overall "average" does shift. But if cars like the IS300 and Mazda 6 do wind up changing the average, why not? Car companies should keep up with the changing expectations of the market.

3) Interestingly enough, many vaunted Japanese models (Camry, Impreza, Civic) also slipped to average in this most recent data. This hints that maybe (2) above isn't as big of a factor as one might think.

4) The E46 didn't change that much - it went from "average" to "below average."

All opinions my own, not CRs.

Tom*


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

Welcome, Tom!

I hope you enjoy your stay at bimmerfest. You might even pick up some info on that 325iT you've been "looking at"...


----------



## NYM325 (Oct 8, 2002)

When is the last time you heard somebody with a Camry talking about how they went back to the dealer for a seat belt rattle? They don't. I had a Civic for a long time and I had a lot of small rattles but I didn't expect better. We BMW owners always expect better so we complain more. In my opinion that is why we rank low in reliability. Because we want everything to be perfect..:thumbup:


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

PhilH said:


> *I hope you enjoy your stay at bimmerfest. You might even pick up some info on that 325iT you've been "looking at"...   *


Must resist temptation...must stay away from Westchester BMW Certified used car lot...must not buy topaz blue 525it with sports package from last "good-looking" model year. 

Tom


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

NYM325 said:


> *When is the last time you heard somebody with a Camry talking about how they went back to the dealer for a seat belt rattle? They don't. We BMW owners always expect better so we complain more. *


Some Toyota owners do complain. You should see the letters we get. Besides, a Camry can be a $30k car - plenty of motivation to complain there.

One MOPAR fan site which blasts CR says that since Japanese car owners expect better, they don't complain as much. Compare that to BMW owners expecting better so complaining more! Hard to say which one is right - but it's probably somewhere in between.

All opinions my own, not CRs.

Tom


----------



## Cadetdrivr (Apr 27, 2002)

Welcome Tom!



mutcth said:


> *1) This is all reader data. It's not edited by us - that's why you can sometimes get quirks between cars that are different nameplates on the same basic car. We're not "rating" the different components, but merely stating what our readers have found. We could mush the results of, say, the Sable and the Taurus together, but that would be manipulating the numbers.
> *


Thanks, Tom, for clearing that up. It really is garbage-in, garbage-out. Of course, it also demonstrates that 'perception is reality' as readers give different reports based on perceived quality.



mutcth said:


> *Also, consider that because of brand image, otherwise similar cars that differ by a nameplate could have different equipment - my father's Chrysler Town & Country has fewer engine options and more electrical gadgets (on average) than a cheaper-priced Dodge Caravan, which could affect reliability.
> *


That is correct.

However my biggest concern is where an individual component (like an engine) is identical, but yet is rated differently in say, the Taurus or the Sable. When that happens, you know there is a collection problem with the data (whatever the cause). Look at the past history for the Taurus/Sable or Intrepid/Concorde: there are different ratings on the same subsystems over the years. WTF??? The components involved have the same part numbers!!

The big problem arises when a group like CR derives a conclusion based on a collection faulty data. If each subcategory contains errors, adding them up and then drawing a conclusion only amplifies the errors! CR needs to update their data analysis to reflect that in the 21 century, automakers use platforms, and most components of each platform are identical. The Ford may indeed be better (overall) than the Mercury, but its not because it has a better engine, transmission, brakes, suspension, or cooling.

Thus, except for the 'big picture' CR provides little or no benefit for this consumer. I may make a macro decision that I'd rather buy a midsize Ford (either division) or a midsize Chrysler product (either), but to suggest that the Concorde is better than the Intrepid is ridiculous and just exposes the sad sham of the 'consumer report.'

Cheers!

PS What kind of blender should I buy???


----------



## OBS3SSION (Oct 1, 2002)

Tom, still haven't gotten that 5er out of your head? Seems like you're on the bimmer boards as much as me!  Just get it. You'll love it! (Looking forward to mine!  )

This is all starting to sound a lot like epinions.com. My wife wanted a deep fryer/pressure cooker and did all kinds of research including epinions. She chose to buy a model based on good consumer feedback for a certain model. When she got it, it said right in the instructions NOT to do pressure deep frying, which was the primary reason for wanting the cooker. The unit wasn't designed for that. Yet, the consumers (who probably don't read instruction manuals) gave the unit great ratings for doing something that was conceivably dangerous.

In a nutshell, it's beginning to look like you can't trust consumer ratings. There is just way too much room for error... and most American consumers are brainless morons anyway.


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

> The big problem arises when a group like CR derives a conclusion based on a collection faulty data. Thus, except for the 'big picture' CR provides little or no benefit for this consumer. I may make a macro decision that I'd rather buy a midsize Ford (either division) or a midsize Chrysler product (either), but to suggest that the Concorde is better than the Intrepid is ridiculous and just exposes the sham of the 'consumer report.'


But it's not faulty data. It is the data that is received by owners of those cars. As an engineer and a car buff, I know that those cars are basically the same. Yet our readers say they have different reliability. Maybe the Concorde has different buyer demographics than the Intrepid, which lead to different maintenance habits.

I wouldn't call it a "sham" either. It's a data point, which could and should (we encourage this) be combined with other resources to make a decision. Note that the same thing can - and does - happen from JD Powers as well.

Anyway, if the data is contradictory for "badge-engineered" cars, does that mean the data is wrong for cars like the E46 that have no counterpart?

We'll probably agree to disagree. All opinions my own, not CRs.

BTW - I wish I knew what blender to recommend; we need a new one ourselves. 

Tom


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

OBS3SSION said:


> *Tom, still haven't gotten that 5er out of your head? Seems like you're on the bimmer boards as much as me!  Just get it. You'll love it! (Looking forward to mine!  )*


LOL! You found me - but it was Phil that drug me over - really! (This is beginning to become the Passat-owners thread....)

I'm trying to fight the good fight and save up for the wedding and a down-payment on a house, but the lure of the E39 is a mighty tempting one.... (Indeed, I was TOLD not to buy another car until after the wedding....)

Tom


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

mutcth said:


> *LOL! You found me - but it was Phil that drug me over - really! (This is beginning to become the Passat-owners thread....)
> 
> I'm trying to fight the good fight and save up for the wedding and a down-payment on a house, but the lure of the E39 is a mighty tempting one.... (Indeed, I was TOLD not to buy another car until after the wedding....)
> 
> Tom *


HIJACK.

Look into an off-lease or 3-5 year old E39. Maybe a '98 or '99 528i.

But I agree, house and wedding comes first, especially for marital bliss...Unless she gets her own BMW.


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

The HACK said:


> *But I agree, house and wedding comes first, especially for marital bliss...Unless she gets her own BMW. *


I'd definitely buy used, and likely certified. Despite my fiancee being the one with the PhD (and a MBA in the works - she jokes that she'll buy a BMW for this poor engineer), she's decreed that she just doesn't care about driving that much to have a BMW. Although she likes the C230k coupe.... 

Tom


----------



## bmw325 (Dec 19, 2001)

Tom-

Its great to have you on board-- both as a prospective BMW owner and as an 'insider' at CR. We're always ragging on CR here, so it'll be good to have someone to balance our slander. 

Is it possible to get the actual number of problems reported for each category for a given car and model year? It would be good to be able to tell if a car falls from average to below average due to the overall average moving up, or if it truly did have more problems than the prior model year.

Regarding the 5 you're "considering"  -- may I recommend that you take a look at the pricing via euro-delivery--I've noticed that its often comparable to the price of a 2-3 year old certified used car and you get to have a new car and take a trip to Germany! You can check out the prices at http://www.eurobuyers.com. I have an e46, but am really tempted to trade up to a 525i or 530i before they're uglified next year. The 5 w/ sport pkg is the best BMW in my opinion.

BTW, what types of cars do the automotive guys at CR tend to drive? I'm betting that they drive a lot of the cars that are rated 'average' and 'below average' since they're probably all car buffs- and are attracted to German cars... I think I remember reading that the head CR tester drives an A4 for example.


----------



## mutcth (Dec 9, 2002)

robg said:


> Is it possible to get the actual number of problems reported for each category for a given car and model year? It would be good to be able to tell if a car falls from average to below average due to the overall average moving up, or if it truly did have more problems than the prior model year.


Wish I could get that, but I can't get anything beyond what we publish. Even if I could get it from the fists of the statistician at Auto Test, I couldn't report on it here due to company policy. There is a reason for the disclaimer at the end of my CR related posts.



> Regarding the 5 you're "considering"  -- may I recommend that you take a look at the pricing via euro-delivery--I have an e46, but am really tempted to trade up to a 525i or 530i before they're uglified next year. The 5 w/ sport pkg is the best BMW in my opinion.


I agree with you on both Euro delivery and the merits of the E39, but sadly I'm just not comfortable departing with $37k before the Bangled versions come out.



> BTW, what types of cars do the automotive guys at CR tend to drive? I think I remember reading that the head CR tester drives an A4 for example.


The former head auto tester has an A4. The current head of Auto Test has a Passat 4Mo wagon for his wife, a Range Rover (he worked there as a development engineer), and a bunch of Jags in various states of mobility. (He's obviously British.) Most of engineers don't have daily drivers for themselves because there are 20 or so test cars around to drive home. There are a few race cars, including a MR2 and an RX7, usually parked around the place.

You might be interested to learn that while we sell off the test cars to the staff a few months after publication, we still own the 530i - it's going on its second year of tire testing. Guess they don't want to let it go...just like the Boxster and Corvette we tested....

All opinions my own, not CRs.

Tom


----------



## Cadetdrivr (Apr 27, 2002)

mutcth said:


> *But it's not faulty data. It is the data that is received by owners of those cars. As an engineer and a car buff, I know that those cars are basically the same.
> *


Tom-

If the cars (or at least the components) are the same, then the results _should_ be the same. If CR is receiving different data because of demographic or perception dynamics how do I (as a consumer) know which CR report to believe??? Is there a key that converts Honda Accord reports to VW Passat reports???



mutcth said:


> * Yet our readers say they have different reliability.
> *


I guess that _is_ my point. The readers are providing different results for the same components. Perhaps it's even a self-selective reporting issue??? I dunno.

In any event thanks for 'stepping up to the plate' here. Hopefully we'll see you soon in a bimmer, even if they aren't perfect. 
:bigpimp:

Cheers!


----------



## pps-325xit (Jan 18, 2002)

4 problems (in 1.5 years), one of which was the aux-fan recall. My former car (Mazda 626) was recalled 4-5 times within the first year, some of which were for safety issues (defective seat belts, improperly assembled brake assemblies). The problems I've had so far at least have been well-documented issues (final stage resistor, thermostat, speaker mounting ring crack), so I just expected these to happen eventually (no big deal). Known problem, easy fix, no big deal for me :thumbup: I'm expecting to go a full year (next April) without a trip back for any service.


----------



## jamietre (Aug 16, 2002)

Cadetdrivr said:


> *Consumer Reports is on crack. If you look at CR's own table, the overall reliability trend is positive, especially for the '02's. Why on earth could they predict the '03's will be worse???
> *


CR may be on crack, but an increasing relaibility trend from older to newer is hardly surprising... would you expect people with new cars to report as many problems as old cars? I think you will find the same is true for _any_ car.

Their concolusion about reliability is clearly not based on that chart, nor should it be.

-- Jamie


----------

