Sorry, I accidentally hit the enter key on my computer. What I meant to say was that I don't get how Consumer Reports gave poor reliability ratings to the last 960s/S90s (1997-98). The BMW 5-Series, Mercedes E-Class and Lexus ES300 all best the 960 in overall reliability; even Volvo's own 850, for that matter.

MANY good comments here.

First let me say: I am a CR subscriber.

I think they (CR) indeed are a tool to use as a datapoint. In general the tendency from CR input seems to be well founded, but a little vague. Just when I want the meat, it's not there. Also I sometimes am quite disappointed in their "best buy" recommendations - I'll buy the item and I will get the ONE bad one (yeah right).... Or for example just why did these two get "b.b." recommendations and these two didn't? Not enough meat to distinguish.

As for cars - I do believe they get some good feedback - but when I own the cars - I the things they say are weak don't correspond with my reality and vice versa.

Now several have mentioned CR's political viewpoint. Yeah it sucks. The answer for EVERYTHING: Slap more government on. That'll solve it. And lately they have been coming on way too heavy for me. Don't know if I'll re-up next time around.
--
www.fidalgo.net/~brook4

My wife was subscribing to CR. She did not re-new the subscription. I think it was the year wait for the annual Buyer's Guide which she was promissed when she started the subscription.

Strange we always get that book right away. She should complain to CR :)

When you start new with them they send you 3 mags right away....as in last months, this and the latest...so suddenly a 1/4 of the annual sub is taken care of in one delivery. Someone should complain to CR :)
--
http://www.fidalgo.net/~brook4/oilslubesfilters.html

"She should complain to CR :)"

The wife is a busy person and she didn't feel that CR was worth her time. It was easier to drop them.

Well, next time try opening up a bit more provocative discussion..heh?
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 94K

First I'd like to respond to the idiot discounting statistics.... While any statistician can poke holes in any survey, CU doesn't try to mislead the public in any way and they do try their best for the average consumer.

We here at the brickboard, and any other car enthusiast's site fall well beyond the scope of the average consumer as we do a lot of repairs ourselves, and do PM on a regular basis and know and understand our cars. Sadly most of america and most of CUs readers dont behave this way

We have read with great interest the commments on the Consumer Reports reviews of the 960. CR is not a government organization, refuses all advertising, and is staffed by professional engineers. However, we take extreme exception to clasifying CR readers as ill informed or stupid. I and my wife are both Professors of automotive engineering at universities in the northwest, and we own two 960's.

We have been CR subscribers for fifteen years, and consider ourselves to be extremely well informed and well researched. Before we bought our 960's, we read the reports, and with few exceptions the items cautioned have been troublesome in our cars: air conditioning, rad and brakes. But knowing the items of concern in advance, we were able to take precautions and have these items serviced regularly, avoiding major repairs. The CR reports are based on huge independant sample sizes - with used cars, 480,000 people, from multiple countries, who do not know eachother, and who have no vested interest in lying. Further, the CR 960 reports reflect almost exactly the subsequent Volvo 960 service bulletins. Statistics don't lie, there are however, many who don't understand them.

This is a serious question, I would like to hear your in-depth reasoning. Secondly, will your next purchase be a Volvo?

Our decision to buy 960's was several fold. First and foremost, was safety. We checked with Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, and noted that the 960 was highly rated. Then we checked with several published insurance reports on damage to 960's and occupants, with favourable results. We will pay considerably more to ensure our family is as well protected as possible.

Second, wecollected data on the low speed repair costs. This gave us an idea of the insurance costs. Next we figured out the 48 month resuiidual value and retained aggregate value, to see if the 960 would being a good dollar if and when we decided to sell them.

Third, we checked Phil Edmonston's book, Lemon Aid, and the Automobile Protection Agency's reports on the 960 going back several years. 1995 was the first year of the retrofit,and generally it is good idea to avoid a car in the first two model years. However, we hoped there would be little change from older 960's. Then we checked government safety recalls, warnings, and TSB's, as well as Alldata re problems with that model and year. Consumer Reports was naturally among our sources, and we noted that overall Volvo held a 20% above average rating for reliability.

There are several independant engineering companies that review products. We have an associate who made these available to us, which was invaluable. After this, we called ot bank and received the red and black book values of the car at different stages. We took the lowest of these, and offered it to a dealer, saving us a considerable amount on the purchase prices. Naturally we checked the local court cdockets with the Better busienss bureau re the dealer.

The 95 960 was initially well rated. So, for us atleast, the decision to buy a 960 was a synthesis of many sources. Research is like a puzzle: one piece on its own is meaningless, but all together they paint a picture. This may seem like a lot of work, but if you do it for a living, it takes little time compared to the time it takes to deal with, and pay for a problem car. CU is not perfect, but we have found in balance that their findings bear themselves out in the long run. Hope this answers your questions!

Now that you have owned them, will your next cars be Volvo's, and if not, what will they be?

thanks,John

Would we buy Volvo's again? I am not sure I would. We had a service dispute with the dealer that eventually reached the president of Volvo. Notwithstanding that we clearly demonstrated that the dealer in question had not performed service we had paid for, Volvo sided with the dealer suggesting that the dealer was an independant business.

Years ago, I had a Honda Civic that had an ignition ignitor failure. We had the item replaced, and two years later, found out about a service bulletin from Honda that was in effect at the time of our service. We wrote a polite letter to Honda's head office with the service bulletin number. Much to our surprise, we received a cheque in the full amount of the repair. So for a car that cost four times the amount of the Civic, Volvo offers paltry customer service compared to Honda. We will likely buy a Lexus or Acura in future. They are rated even higher than Volvo in customer satisfaction, much higher in reliability, and as discussed above, the Japanese consider it an honor to help a frustrated customer.

I am continuing to have a problem with noise from the front end of my 98 V-90, which the dealer could not find.

While under warranty, in order to "solve" the problem the dealer said the left front strut was bad, and replaced it. I was surprised that only one strut rather than the pair was replaced. I always thought that struts had to be replaced in pairs, and my Chrysler, when under warranty also had pairs of struts replaced.

The dealer said that Volvo would not pay for a pair, only a single strut. That is kind of shabby customer service, and reflects the aggressive approach by Volvo to minimize warranty costs at the customer's expense. Only the most vocal complainers get some kind of accommodation, and one really has to fight.

Now that my warranty has expired, I am still, after three years, trying to solve the front-end problem.

Volvo's are not as durable and reliable as they used to be. Consumer reports does not have a vested interest in one car/make over another, so is more reliable. Most car magazines give favorable reviews to ensure advertising dollars from the auto companies and will not bash a car in their reviews. And I know for a fact that auto companies like Volvo special prep the cars they deliver to car magazine reviewers by having employees put mileage on the cars and report any problems to the shop so such can be fixed before the cars are loaned to reporters. This is really not very honest, but it is done as a matter of practice.

"Statistics don't lie, there are however, many who don't understand them.

Put another way, "figures don't lie but liars can figure". One can make "stats" say anything they want.

I'm not sure at all what you're trying to say here, but of course you can 'lie' with statistics..in fact it's the topic of a book. But if you're suggesting that CU manipulates data or statistics to present a false impression, then I think you'll be safe as long as you check behind you....
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 94K

So then we should assume from your post, that all statistics are false? I am pleased to know that Volvo's do not have problems with air conditioning, Firestone tires are inherently safe, Suzuki Swift's do not tip over, and all products are exactly as the manfacturer presents them. What a relief! Could I interest you in some real estate? I have some choice swamp land in Florida, and I will give you a 40% discount on the Brooklyn Bridge! You assert that because all statistics should be interpreted correctly and in context, all statistics are false. It offers me great confidence that you are here on the discussion group protecting us from ourselves.

I don't think CR makes any attempt to lie with statistics. They try to do their best, but with too little data. From my experiences with automobiles I think that CR does not use large enough sample populations and I don't think they have checked the reliability of their statistically sampling. They might make those checks and tests today, but the blatant inaccuracy of some of their previous automobile reliability tables tells me there has been something wrong with their methods.

While CR has good intentions, and a good staff, I have observed major discrepencies in CR's automotive reliability tables.

From about 1976 through 1996 we owned a VW Dasher. The Audi Fox was the same car with a mostly cosmetic differences. This particular VW/Audi product was made without significant changes over several years, just as the 240 and 740 Volvo products have been made. At the time I was well aware of the changes made through the production of this line of VW/Audi cars, and I took those changes into account when looking at the CR reliability tables. It was quite interesting to note the major discrepencies in the reliability tables on items such as brakes, cooling system, electrical, and exhaust when there were no differences in the parts used between the Audi and VW products across several years of production.

My conclusion was that CR was using too small of a sample population on those cars. CR should look more closely at their statistical results. It has been many years since I took a grduate major credit class in statistics, but I do remember there are excellent tests to determine the reliability of your sample data. I don't think CR was doing that. Is that a T test? I don't remember.

In addition CR sometimes downgrades a particular car because the tester doesn't care for the method of operation of a particular component. The headlight switch in the early Mercury Capris comes to mind here. The CR tester stated the headlight/parking light combination switch was too complex to use. I will admit the switch was different, but anyone bright enough to pass the written part of a driver's license exam could master the switch in about 10 seconds. While operation of this type of switch might be of concern if you were renting cars, I think CR made too large an issue of the switch.

I concur with the above comments regarding CU. There are often discrepencies in small and sometimes large portions of their data. You always have to blend this data with your own personal knowledge and preferences. I too remember them ranting on about some controls that I thought were certainly acceptable. My previous point was to dismiss the assertion that CR is a usless government tool, or some such thing...

There is a statistical procedure that permits you to look at the standard error measurement and establsh a confidence interval around it. This would be helpful information with respect to the reliability charts (along with sample size), but this might be too much to ask.
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 94K

Like anything else, go into something with your eyes OPEN. I have used CU on many occasions, it is a tool, nothing else, and when used in conjunction with other tools, a valuable one at that. When I need to remove a spark plug, I do not use only a ratchet handle, I utilize an extension and socket, too. Same goes with car purchases, I research various sources and then, using data I have collected, make an INFORMED decision. Perhaps other information leads me in a direction not overtly apparent but at least my eyes are open.

I sincerely doubt CU would rate a 1968 Shelby GT500 highly on its list of used cars to own, yet I own one. When other factors such as sheer, gut-wrenching torque enter the equation, reliability is less important to me (it is not the family car to take on a vacation however).

I continue to use CU in making appliance purchases but I usually follow this rule which I formulated a long time ago when shopping at Sears. Go with the higher rated products, there is a reason they may be more expensive. Top-of-the-line Sears products outlast their "value priced" lines. Same goes with other stuff.

Remember, CU is targeting the average citizen who takes their ride to the local mechanic for service and would no more know the difference between a ball peen hammer and a torque wrench than they would a B230FT and a B234. We love our Volvos and care for them in ways not normally followed by the general public. I doubt Joe Citizen would get into heated debates over the merits of synthetic vs. dino lubricants as we do here. He is happy with whatever the local Jiffy Lube puts in his engine. As such, he should steer clear of vehicles with known quirks such as the 960's.

That leaves more of them for us.
--
Bob Kraushaar '94 945T, '91 940T(back from retirement), '88 240, '84 242T, '94 F-150, '89 560 SL, '68 Shelby GT-500 KR

"Remember, CU is targeting the average citizen who takes their ride to the local mechanic for service and would no more know the difference between a ball peen hammer and a torque wrench than they would a B230FT and a B234. We love our Volvos and care for them in ways not normally followed by the general public. I doubt Joe Citizen would get into heated debates over the merits of synthetic vs. dino lubricants as we do here. He is happy with whatever the local Jiffy Lube puts in his engine. As such, he should steer clear of vehicles with known quirks such as the 960's."

Those are some real words of wisdom. You said it very well!

One of the quirks of CU and their reporting of mechanical problems would be the large differences noted between vehicles that are the same mechanically but badged differently. If you have the same engine, tranny, etc, in the same vehicle, then why the difference in the reliability reports?

Here is an interesting link from Allpar (Very Chrysler centric), but it applies. Pay particular attention to the question of repair frequency as relating to Chrysler products versus that on a Japanese car. It is an interesting perspective.

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

"One of the quirks of CU and their reporting of mechanical problems would be the large differences noted between vehicles that are the same mechanically but badged differently. If you have the same engine, tranny, etc, in the same vehicle, then why the difference in the reliability reports? "

Since the reliability data come from consumer reports, it could be that this is source of the differences. The two cars may also have been assembled at different plants with different quality controls. One thing you can be assured of is that CU is not manipulating the data to their advantage, whatever that might be.


--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 94K

I strongly agee with your response. To call CU a bunch of idiots or government co-conspirators is just plain silly. It is not a bible, however, and anyone who blindly follows CU recommendations without weighing other (personal) factors can be disappointed. It is a good first/second pass at an objective appraisal of products. Others may argue that CU tests are flawed or simplistic, but these folks likely don't understand controlled trials, or choose to ignore them. CU often provides good criteria for judging products to help you make an informed decision. I've relied on CU for innumerable purchases over the past 15 or so years, and I will continue to do so.
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 94K

I thoroughly DO NOT TRUST Consumer Reports. In fact, I didn't even bother to look at one before I bought ANY of my recent vehicles, new or used.

I see them as having one agenda-more government interference in everything we buy. In my distant past, when I have relied on them for guidance buying appliances and things like that, I found their recommendations were nearly worthless.

Having said that, I tend to ignore car enthusiast magazines, too.

I'd also consider the comments in Brickboard's 7xx/9xx FAQs "Buying a used 7xx/9xx" and the innumerable 960 nightmare stories (read "The Ballad of Christine".) and conclude that they may have real reasons to put the 960-SV90 on their "Used Cars to Avoid" list.

CR recommends a couple of Volvos at the moment. Are they wrong about that, too?

-Punxsutawney Phil

CU is basically a group of idiots who get their info from polling idiots. The majority of their respondants can't even find the bathroom and don't have sense enough read a gas gauge and then complain because the car just quit or the ashtrays fill up and don't empty themselves automatically. Take um with a grain of salt.

Sampling error....? I dunno actually, but while I like CR overall, I've seen times where a car will shift from a best buy to not being one in just one year. Not likely w/o major changes in my opinion...BMW 3 series being one this year.
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 94K