Used Ford Bronco Sport SUVs

[sajohnson]

I don't really have a dog in this hunt, so I don't really care about CR, as I use so many resources when researching something that I think I am usually able to get things boiled down to facts after a while.

But out of curiosity, I did some searching and found multiple people pointing out that they bought products recommended by CR and had a lot of issues with them, although it could just be that they got a defective copy.

I also found the article below, which implies that there's no way to get the data behind their test results and conclusions. That's a review site as well, so it probably boils down to who you decide to trust. I did not find anything about a scandal where they were taking money from anyone.

3 Year Investigation Reveals that 75% of Consumer Reports’ Reviews in 24 categories are Potentially Fake - Gadget Review

That article focuses on electronics and appliances, and I may have missed it but I didn't see any rating for their auto reviews.

I clicked on the link but got this warning:

I didn't go any further.

Regarding the claim that 'there's no way to get the data behind their test results and conclusions' -- that's pretty vague. I'd like to see more granular data myself, rather than a 1>5 color-coded rating system, but the fact that CR doesn't do that is not evidence that they are somehow corrupt. Here's an example of what they publish:

They give the overall numeric score (X/100) but the performance test results are 1>5.

Let's say CR did make detailed test results available. Those who do not like CR would just claim they made the data up. CR can't win with some people.

Another thought -- if their tests were in any way biased, you can bet the mfrs would sue them into oblivion. They very rarely get sued, and when they do they usually win.

Most people with an anti-CR bias fall into one of a few groups:

* They purchased something based on a CR review and it failed early. Never mind the dozens of times they took CR's advice and got good products. There is no doubt that out of the millions of purchases made every year based on CR's ratings, a small percentage of those products will have problems. It's possible that CR missed something, but what's more likely is that most of the failures were/are due to reliability issues that cannot be detected in routine testing. There simply isn't time.

* Some unfounded political reason.

*CR hurt their feelings by giving something they own a poor rating.

If a person has decided they do not like a group, mfr, or organization, they can always dredge up some negative information about them. Whether it's true or not is another story.

 

[Arthonon]

I'm using the DuckDuckGo browser which is pretty good at ad-blocking, and the site loaded, so I think Malware Bytes might be targeted by the site.

Again, I don't really care about CR, just sharing what I found. This might work - it's an example from that site showing how CR used the exact same text when reviewing different items, and they found multiple examples of that, just as one of the issues they found.

 

[sajohnson]

I'm using the DuckDuckGo browser which is pretty good at ad-blocking, and the site loaded, so I think Malware Bytes might be targeted by the site.

Again, I don't really care about CR, just sharing what I found. This might work - it's an example from that site showing how CR used the exact same text when reviewing different items, and they found multiple examples of that, just as one of the issues they found.

YES! Absolutely, they do that routinely.

For that site to claim that noticing CR uses the same text in their reviews is a 'gotcha' is pathetic grasping at straws.

Of course CR uses the same description -- if the products perform the same. What else should they do?! Say one is 'superb', another 'excellent', and another 'a top performer'? Where would that leave readers? Wondering if 'excellent' is better than 'superb.'

If the test results are equal, the description should be the same. If it wasn't, people would (rightfully) complain about it.

You mentioned that your source is a review site. It seems fair to suggest that they may be attempting to get people to use them instead of CR.

 

[Arthonon]

Again, I'm not trying to say CR is bad, I really have no idea, but since you can't get to the site, I don't want to mis-represent what they are saying. As far as getting people to use them instead of CR, I'm not sure that is true, as they actually list three sites that they think do a better job than CR, and provide some info as to why.

 

[sajohnson]

Again, I'm not trying to say CR is bad, I really have no idea, but since you can't get to the site, I don't want to mis-represent what they are saying. As far as getting people to use them instead of CR, I'm not sure that is true, as they actually list three sites that they think do a better job than CR, and provide some info as to why.

I touched on this in another post. When it comes to in-depth testing of specific products (TVs in this case) there are absolutely many sites that get into the weeds much more than CR.

The example I used in my other post was "DPReview" for cameras. It is geared toward professional photographers and serious amateurs. CR is targeted at a general audience. Their reviews of most products are adequate for the majority of people. In fact, they often have more info than the average person wants, but they will not satisfy many 'enthusiasts'.

Since I am a technician, I generally prefer to get as much info as possible, or at least more than most people would care to look at. So in the past, when buying cameras, I would go to CR first to get an idea of what's available and compare features side-by-side. I'd read about the features CR considers useful, etc. Then, after narrowing the choices down some, I'd go to DPReview and do detailed photo comparisons.

In short, both are useful. I trust CR more than other sites to be unbiased and objective, but DPReview seems like a solid website. I'm sure there are others that are similar for other products.

That said, it is ridiculous for the source you found to suggest that CR is inferior because they do not dive into an in-depth technical analysis of every product they review. CR is written for the average buyer. Most people are not interested in granular details of every product they are considering purchasing. In addition, that degree of extensive testing on the thousands of products CR reviews every year -- and getting it published quickly -- would be incredibly expensive and time consuming.

It comes down to different sources of info for different audiences.

 

[Arthonon]

To be fair to the site I linked, there's more to it than that, but I'm not going to keep quoting it here and duplicating their content.

 

[sajohnson]

To be fair to the site I linked, there's more to it than that, but I'm not going to keep quoting it here and duplicating their content.

Sounds good.

My goal is just to counter the people who make inaccurate claims about CR because they are upset that they were critical of the Bronco Sport.

Out of curiosity I checked the CR info on the BS, and how their reliability ratings are determined: There is a lot of good info. For example:

"Are Recalls Factored into Reliability Ratings?
No. We are strictly examining the problems that owners reported experiencing. Most vehicles involved in a typical recall have not exhibited a problem, but they have been identified as being at risk for a preventable safety concern. Where recalls and reliability overlap is that owners may experience the same problem that is covered by a recall; in that case, it counts as a reported reliability issue.

While recalls can be inconvenient, they are ultimately a good thing—the automaker has identified the risk of a problem and will correct it for free."

So the reliability ratings are based exclusively on feedback from BS owners. There may be a paywall:
https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/consumer-reports-car-reliability-faq-a1099917197/

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that CR says the more recent BS models are looking good, esp 2024:

Below "Build Quality" was "In-Car Electronics." It has about the same ratings as "Powertrain", except the 2022 model rating was 'very good' (4/5).

Bashing CR for these ratings is classic 'shoot the messenger.' The data CR uses comes from fellow BS owners.

One solid criticism is that CR lumps all trims together. I'm sure they assume that different trims of the same model are similar. That may typically be the case, but not with the BS.

 

[ShowBlacks]

My 21 BB BS has lost just about half its value in the single year I've owned it. Not half from msrp, that woild be normal 5 years later... No i mean blue book value the day i bought it 350ish days ago. Its blue book vlue is now cut in half. The most recent price drop actually officially out me underwater on it. Love that, thanks ford

 

[wireman]

I've been watching this just for S&G's and it's gone from an asking price of $38K to $33K in a couple of weeks.

Not sure why.

https://www.dolanautogroup.com/used/Ford/2025-Ford-Bronco-Sport-Reno-84b19403ac18184bb68a12c60d5feb7e.htm?utm_source=cargurus.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cargurus_listings

 

[Dude]

Used vehicle prices are coming down, a gradual correction not a price collapse.
“ Sedans, smaller SUVs, and especially used EVs are seeing steeper price drops “

 

[Greeno]

Used 21' Bronco Sport Badlands, TSB's done, fluids changed.... been a great vehicle from 30-50K! Even used for Uber 6-10 hour stints at a time.... only issue was the underhood Evap purge valve. Did myself for the cost of the part (120? bucks). Love this thing!

 

[sajohnson]

I've been watching this just for S&G's and it's gone from an asking price of $38K to $33K in a couple of weeks.

Not sure why.

https://www.dolanautogroup.com/used/Ford/2025-Ford-Bronco-Sport-Reno-84b19403ac18184bb68a12c60d5feb7e.htm?utm_source=cargurus.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=cargurus_listings

Do you know if the $44,095 they say is the original price is accurate?

Roughly $33,000 for a 2025 Badlands with just ~3,300 miles seems like a good deal (without looking into it).

I noticed the salespeople are salaried (no commissions). Too bad more dealerships aren't that way.

 

[dwrufus53]

Do you know if the $44,095 they say is the original price is accurate?

Roughly $33,000 for a 2025 Badlands with just ~3,300 miles seems like a good deal (without looking into it).

I noticed the salespeople are salaried (no commissions). Too bad more dealerships aren't that way.

That price matches the original sticker for that vehicle. (Click on the CarFax logo, and then the link for the original window sticker).

 

[wireman]

Do you know if the $44,095 they say is the original price is accurate?

Roughly $33,000 for a 2025 Badlands with just ~3,300 miles seems like a good deal (without looking into it).

I noticed the salespeople are salaried (no commissions). Too bad more dealerships aren't that way.

It's a really good deal. Always the hidden costs not shown if there are dealer add ons.

As I mentioned before, I bought a used 2025 BL with 5800 miles. 5 months old.

Window sticker was $43895. Listed for $38k. My price was $36,840. It is a Gold Certified with the factory extended warranty. No dealer add ons.

Bought in October. I thought I got a pretty good deal.

This one's hard to figure out.

 

[wireman]

Price drop again. Today $31,494

Sponsored