Here is the reliability study in its PDF entirety http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2014-10/81798343-27151634.pdf
Two jeeps on the Worst SUV list...
Ok.. another wacky quesiton for what kind of crack does CR smoke.
One.. compact trucks.They are all better than average. So what is the average based on? Can't be the segment.
Two. to go with the mtisu is the best small SUV, but mitsu isn't in the ranked list of manufacturers, how do you posisbly make up this list, and NOT have the ford F-150 on the full sized pickup list. It's only the top selling vehicle of that segment.. easy to miss right?
Three, how the heck does the jeep compass get the only one model year predictive guess asterisk? Did I miss a meaningful redesign not on the roadmap? Other than pacific rim clickbait sites, nobody seems to think I did. (heck, more than 1/3 of that entire small SUV segment is asterisked).
Not that I think jeep is the end all be all of quality, but if I believed those charts, I should be hearing a lot more complaints form people I know and discuss cars with. They drive a lot of things CR doesn't say are good. And CR's presentation of mystery data sticks in my craw. So frogive me fro being a bit ranty.
Also of note, notice everything is percentage delta from some unspecified average. What is it. Form their segment charts it's not he average fro the segment because there are segments where everything is above average. Is it number of incidents? An example of pointless differentiation that you can hide with that.
Take luxury midsized/large SUV the range in the segment goes from 45% better than the average to 80% worse than the average. Lets jsut say the average is 2... uh whatevers, they don't tell us. But lets just call it two incidents that exceed the threshold of my car is fine to awesome and make you frown or cost you money. Normalize the average to 2 of those, and that means the worst one in the segment has 3.6 incidents and the best has about 1 incident. If that's trips to the shop jumbled up with not liking the infotainment system, they all might as well be the same with regards to reliable transportation. If it's non warranty reapairs it might matter. It's a huge difference between a $50 fix and a $5000 fix. I'd rather count on 3+ of the $50 ones than roll the dice on the ~1 $5k fix. Normalize it to say 100, and you have 180 vs. 55 whatevers. If they are non warranty fixes, both are annoying POSs. If that is how many times you curse at the infotainment system in one year, that's not a matter of reliability for a piece of transportation. Satisfaction, sure. Annoying? most definitely. Will it leave me stranded or with a multi kilo-buck bill on an upside down vehice? No.
They tell you what areas they ask questions in, and the number of surveys answered, but they don't tell you any meaningful information, and stuff is SOOOOO cooked down that how you cook it is basically 100% of the meaning. We know only a few things. CR's subjective assessment goes into the secret sauce in addition to the data. CR does some mangling of numbers to deal with underrepresented vehicles. CR does some projection/.number mangling to deal with new new vehicles. CR has changed the weighting of different parts of the car (two we know for a fact is that corrosion has been decreased in value, and infotainment systems has been increased in value).
I can, and do, argue that this isn't really data. In fact, without more info, this could be the equivalent to staring a channel of static long enough that you think you can almost
see images trying to take shape and sounds trying to be formed. You can't deny that there is information present, and you cna' deny that people's brians try to process it, but objectively, it's static that conveys no meaning. If you want me to believe the ghosts talk ot you through it, you need some evidence. If you want me to beleive that the static is a series of huge QR codes, hand me the algorithm for decoding it.