Bottom of Consumer Reports ratings

[sajohnson]

CR isn't perfect, but they are the least biased of any source of consumer info.

One issue they have is that they cannot test every model of a product because a) testing takes time, b) there maybe hundreds of models (as with tires), and c) mfrs change their models frequently.

One thing I've found is that people heap praise on CR when they rate their favorite product/mfr highly; but when the rating is low/negative then suddenly the people at CR are a bunch of "toaster testers" who know nothing about 'X'. It's almost comical.

WRT to their auto testing dept, they have engineers, technicians, and people with extensive racing experience doing the evaluations.

One thing to keep in mind is that their 'overall ratings' unavoidably involve attributing a range of values/weight to a variety of factors. They have always given a lot of weight to safety and fuel efficiency for example. Some buyers may have different priorities that would result in different overall ratings.

The downrating of BS reliability due to recalls is a good example. As I said above, no one wants recalls, but once they are corrected the vehicle could be extremely reliable.

Sponsored

 

[hellb0y]

Brono Sport Ratings = Brakes means, when reversing. Fuel System mean, 1.5 fuel injectors. Climate System means, 1.5 water pumps. Most of the trouble are 1.5L engine models. Just saying. Have no issues at all with my Badlands.

sorry to shatter your world but the ratings are not as simple as you mention…if it was the Escape would be right there with it. In the Escape’s case though, the 1.5T is close to 80% of sales

21-22 BS have an extensive list of recalls and really tainted its image with CR…plus don’t forget the data we can’t see…

https://www.cars.com/research/ford-bronco_sport/recalls/?page=1

 

[Bucko]

Here is the page out of the January 2024 issue. And here is a video detailing the research.

Your first post stated "Consumers Reports". This is not Consumers Reports comments, but rather members survey data results being relayed by Consumer Reports.

 

[Granger Ford]

FWIW we run about 20 Bronco Sports in our service loaner fleet and have not had any issues with them. We've heard great customer feedback and they do awesome in inclement weather.

 

[Mark S.]

One thing I've found is that people heap praise on CR when they rate their favorite product/mfr highly; but when the rating is low/negative then suddenly the people at CR are a bunch of "toaster testers" who know nothing about 'X'.

Confirmation bias.

21-22 BS have an extensive list of recalls and really tainted its image with CR…

Ford's CEO has acknowledged that it has done much worse than other manufacturers as regards recalls and initial quality. No one should be surprised that CR has downgraded the Bronco Sport.

Granted, recalls are not good, but IMO they should not affect reliability scores as much as random failures and breakdowns.

Recalls are good in that they reflect a willingness on the part of the manufacturer to fix problems. I disagree that they shouldn't affect reliability scores. To me, "reliability" means you can drive a car without constant worry about visits to the shop beyond scheduled maintenance. Clearly, this doesn't apply to many Bronco Sport owners. This is especially true given the number of reports that show some of the work completed for recalls did not fix the problem it was supposed to.

 

[V8 Yankee]

My 21 is at 35K, so far a few recall items and no warranty work. I'm scheduled after Christmas to have the TSB for the rear brake growl remediated with new caliper pin bushings replaced and some new caliber hardware. I love the BS but it is a Ford and I expect something after I get out of the warranty period. Just being realistic, there is no comparison to Japanese reliability. With that I'll stick with my BS, its not the run of mill CUV here in S. Florida, I still get compliments and questions about it. Besides it turned out somewhat of a great commuter considering its not meant to be. With my intake and exhaust mods plus a few other tricks my 35K combined mpg is over 33. Pretty good for BS. The next year or two will be the big test as far as long term reluabilty goes.

 

[rocks]

"Are you feeling lucky"
Definitely a vehicle to buy a discounted extended warranty from Granger if you plan to keep it past basic warranty for peace of mind. I'll be buying one if I keep it.

 

[Bucko]

FWIW we run about 20 Bronco Sports in our service loaner fleet and have not had any issues with them. We've heard great customer feedback and they do awesome in inclement weather.

What other vehicles are being repaired that are using these as loaners?

 

[Cursed Bronco]

My 21 is at 35K, so far a few recall items and no warranty work. I'm scheduled after Christmas to have the TSB for the rear brake growl remediated with new caliper pin bushings replaced and some new caliber hardware. I love the BS but it is a Ford and I expect something after I get out of the warranty period. Just being realistic, there is no comparison to Japanese reliability. With that I'll stick with my BS, its not the run of mill CUV here in S. Florida, I still get compliments and questions about it. Besides it turned out somewhat of a great commuter considering its not meant to be. With my intake and exhaust mods plus a few other tricks my 35K combined mpg is over 33. Pretty good for BS. The next year or two will be the big test as far as long term reluabilty goes.

What did you do with the intake and exhaust?

 

[V8 Yankee]

I removed everything behind the CC and installed two Vibrant mufflers where the OEM muffler hung. Tipped those off with two 3" ceramic coated tips straight out below the bumper. All pipe was 2.25". I removed the stock air box and installed a aFe CAI that uses the factory air snorkle. There is no sense doing one mod without doing the other. Those two mods made a noticeable difference, especially with hwy mpg.

 

[sajohnson]

Ford's CEO has acknowledged that it has done much worse than other manufacturers as regards recalls and initial quality. No one should be surprised that CR has downgraded the Bronco Sport.

Recalls are good in that they reflect a willingness on the part of the manufacturer to fix problems. I disagree that they shouldn't affect reliability scores. To me, "reliability" means you can drive a car without constant worry about visits to the shop beyond scheduled maintenance. Clearly, this doesn't apply to many Bronco Sport owners. This is especially true given the number of reports that show some of the work completed for recalls did not fix the problem it was supposed to.

To clarify, in post #30, I said:

"Granted, recalls are not good, but IMO they should not affect reliability scores as much as random failures and breakdowns."

For an example of that, I went on to say:

"IOW, once recall repairs are completed, a vehicle might be extremely reliable. My WRX was like that. It had several recalls but then it was rock-solid reliable, even running a Cobb Stage 2 tune."

IOW, yes, of course, recalls should ding reliability scores, at least in the short-term. They MAY indicate the vehicle is a total POS (like my Pontiac Sunbird Turbo) or they may simply indicate that there were some initial issues that had to be squared away on an otherwise rock-solid car. My WRX has 200,000+ trouble-free miles on it, but judging from the # of recalls, it should have been one of the least reliable cars in history.

In post #31 I said:

"The downrating of BS reliability due to recalls is a good example [of how much weight to give various factors]. As I said above, no one wants recalls, but once they are corrected the vehicle could be extremely reliable."

"Could be."

My point is just that recalls are not necessarily an indicator of long-term reliability. IMO, CR should separate recalls from overall reliability. Recalls -- esp minor ones -- are not as bad as unknown issues that crop up without warning, possibly leaving the driver stranded.

If the 1.5L BS continues to have random problems -- because the recall does not solve them, or because they are not the subject of a recall, then CR should slap a poor reliability rating on it.

 

[CableXJ]

Almost at 27,000 km and the only thing I needed fixed was the driver’s side mirror. It stopped heating up. Replaced by dealer. Problem solved.
I have the usual rattles in the usual places. I just turn up the tunes.
This is the second brand new vehicle I’ve ever bought and the Bronco Sport and dealer service is miles better than what experienced from Kawasaki when I bought my KZ-250 in ‘79. That thing was a lemon from day one. Two weeks in and the kickstarter recoil cracked the crankcase and broke my foot. Downhill from there.

 

[hellb0y]

To clarify, in post #30, I said:

"Granted, recalls are not good, but IMO they should not affect reliability scores as much as random failures and breakdowns."

For an example of that, I went on to say:

"IOW, once recall repairs are completed, a vehicle might be extremely reliable. My WRX was like that. It had several recalls but then it was rock-solid reliable, even running a Cobb Stage 2 tune."

IOW, yes, of course, recalls should ding reliability scores, at least in the short-term. They MAY indicate the vehicle is a total POS (like my Pontiac Sunbird Turbo) or they may simply indicate that there were some initial issues that had to be squared away on an otherwise rock-solid car. My WRX has 200,000+ trouble-free miles on it, but judging from the # of recalls, it should have been one of the least reliable cars in history.

In post #31 I said:

"The downrating of BS reliability due to recalls is a good example [of how much weight to give various factors]. As I said above, no one wants recalls, but once they are corrected the vehicle could be extremely reliable."

"Could be."

My point is just that recalls are not necessarily an indicator of long-term reliability. IMO, CR should separate recalls from overall reliability. Recalls -- esp minor ones -- are not as bad as unknown issues that crop up without warning, possibly leaving the driver stranded.

If the 1.5L BS continues to have random problems -- because the recall does not solve them, or because they are not the subject of a recall, then CR should slap a poor reliability rating on it.

yeah or if the 2.0 coolant engine contamination continues to increase, slap a poor reliability there too!

 

[sajohnson]

yeah or if the 2.0 coolant engine contamination continues to increase, slap a poor reliability there too!

Coolant contamination?!

The hell you say! My BS BL is perfect!

In all seriousness, I haven't heard about that. Is it a head gasket issue?

If it turns into a recall, my point remains the same -- if the recall repair corrects the problem, there is a reasonably good chance that the vehicle will be reliable from then on.

Or maybe not -- but just the fact that a car has a recall (or 2 or 3) does not necessarily mean it will continue to have problems. My 2002 WRX had a stupid number of recalls (mostly minor) early on. Since those issues were addressed though, it's been a great car.

Bottom line, both POS and really solid reliable cars can have recalls.

 

[Mark S.]

Granted, recalls are not good, but IMO they should not affect reliability scores as much as random failures and breakdowns.

I read what you wrote, I just disagree with you. A recall results in the same hassle for an owner as a breakdown--a visit to the dealership service department. It IS evidence that a manufacturer is working to proactively fix problems, but it's still a hassle for the owner subject to one.

Sponsored