Add another lifelong ford/brand loyalist to the “I hate CR” list.
So rather than address the points raised you chose Ad hominem attacks?
Lets look into your initial rebuttal. CR is a single source. They have gathered and collated their data. Unfortunately there's no way to verify the data they've collected or it's veracity. And unlike a true blind poll a CR poll suffers from biases and are conditional right out of the gate. First. CR polls are contributed to by CR readers and subscribers. So the data set is limited from the word go. Next would be the condition that you must take affirmative action to complete their polls. You are also limited to the specific questions asked in the poll.
Now. All that being said you must also contend with the flaws in methodology. Is it a true representation of the the buying public? In a word.. No. You have a subset of the CR readers who diligently complete their annual surveys. These are people who enjoy taking a hour or more out of their lives to report on every car, truck, appliance, tool, etc that they own. Next you have 2 more sets of people. Those who rush to the poll to glow about their purchase.. or those who wish to complain. Proven human nature and studies on polling show us time and time again that a person who feels dissatisfied is orders of magnitude more likely to go out of their way to complain or speak up than someone who is satisfied. So.. on that alone it is enough to disqualify the CR polling as scientific and shuffle it into the personal opinion/anecdote bin. Because if you have a perfectly functioning item, vehicle, whatever.. It is merely as you'd expect it to be. What need would you have to sing it's praises? It's impossible to excel or go above the expectations that it will simply work. Therefore, out of a group of owners, based on nothing but collected polling and people with issues, real or imagined, will far outnumber those who have none in it's data set due to nothing more than predictable human nature. That is not a scientific study of failure rates or statistical process control. It's opinion.
Which is why I stated above. It's a single source. A collection of opinions and should be taken as such.
Now. Lets look at the data. 2018 was the first model year of a new car. It is expected that there will be issues that will be tweaked. However, that said, it's absolutely astonishing the turnaround Ford made from the 2018 (most unreliable vehicle in existence (tongue firmly in cheek)) to the 2019 model year. Looking at the 2019 year it's nothing but double green checks across the board. That's simply an amazing turnaround for a vehicle that, near as makes no difference, 100% the same components as the prior year. It's the same engine. The same transmission. The same electronics. Why the disparity? Second year vehicle improvements are mostly down to manufacturing processes and better fitment corrections during assembly. Neither of which contribute to the overall "reliability" of a vehicle. So where's the issue? Could it be that you have a large subset of people, who suffer from early adopter syndrome and are looking for any and everything to complain about coupled with a group of enthusiastic "I'm first!" poll takers.. Or is it that the vehicle is truly "trash", as is the claim? A "Trash" vehicle that, as I mentioned, went from garbage to the absolute highest reliability rating in a single year while changing nothing?
And here's the crux of the issue. Everything I've said above holds equally true for their "reliability review" of the 2018 Expedition. The 2019 Expedition. The 2017 Tahoe. The shark vacuum cleaner. A GE stove. The Vizio line of televisions. Toro lawnmowers and every other product reviewed or rated by Consumer reports. It is a source. A single source of opinions compiled into the product equivalent of a soundbite. I can get the exact same experience digging into the reviews on Amazon.. But in actuality Amazon is a better source of data as I have the ability to see the individual "poll" results and exactly what they had to say.
To your defense of their testing methodology.. CR has been scrutinized innumerable times for stacking the deck in product reviews. Comparing "like" vehicles that are optioned to put a hand on the scale for a particular vehicle. For instance.. Equipping a Toyota Tundra with the optional 5.7, the optional 4:30 axle and comparing it against a Silverado with a base engine and stock 3.73 axle. Then declaring that the Toyota Tundra is a superior truck in towing, acceleration, etc.
CR does this frequently. However they claim that they order their vehicles using a "most purchased" strategy to compile a roster of vehicles that are most often purchased by customers..
That's not a apples to apples comparison. It is flawed in every possible way. CR suffers from biases just like every other source.
As to your last, supposedly dismissive coup de grace.
Brand loyalist? Did you actually bother to look into my signature?
Wranglers, Gladiators, Volvos, Buicks, Lincolns and Fords.. And to that list I could also add a couple toyota's and a subaru. And in my personal anecdote I spoke specifically of a Dodge 1500 Tradesman. I could go into the specifics of why I purchased each and every vehicle I've ever owned and "Individual Automaker" would never make it on the list.
How does any of the above translate into "brand loyalty"?
