Consumer Reports Best and Worst Cars of 2015

Messages
2,828
Reactions
3,424
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/08/best-and-worst-cars-of-2015/index.htm
Lexus NX 200t/300h
The Lexus brand promises luxury trappings, a supple ride, and a soothing cabin. But the NX’s proletarian Toyota RAV4 underpinnings show through—with a firm, jostling ride. Its handling is no match for its German rivals. Some interior bits feel cheap, and the infotainment system’s touchpad is challenging to manipulate while driving. Lexus can do better.

tl;dr:

Best
VW Golf/GTI
Ford F150
Mercedes C-Class
Porsche Macan
Subaru Legacy
Kia Sorrento
Subaru Outback

Worst
Chrysler 200
Land Rover Discovery Sport
Lexus NX 200t/300h
Kia Sedona
 

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
Well it's a good thing that these "best of" lists matter little. What really matter are the long-term reliability data for various models. I mean several VW and Subaru models on the list, CR is sugar coating it. While being "eager" to await reliability results, VW reliability remains average at best, and numerous Subaru models over the last few years have had major oil problems, either oil leakage or oil burning problems.

Interesting view on the Lexus NX. It's so strange that the US market NX seemingly does not offer AVS. I feel like that is hurting the NX in US reviews.
 

IS-SV

Premium Member
Messages
1,886
Reactions
1,350
Not especially useful list from CR.

But when it comes to CR and cars, I primarily use them for reliability charts only.
 

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
Well it's a good thing that these "best of" lists matter little. What really matter are the long-term reliability data for various models. I mean several VW and Subaru models on the list, CR is sugar coating it. While being "eager" to await reliability results, VW reliability remains average at best, and numerous Subaru models over the last few years have had major oil problems, either oil leakage or oil burning problems.

The Subie problems generally stem from the piston rings used in the 2010-2014 N/A 2.0L and 2.5L flat-fours....premature wear can speed up oil consumption, though it is unclear how much is actually from premature ring-wear and how much is from the longer drain-intervals of many of today's oil-changes simply allowing the engine more time between changes to use more oil.

Interesting view on the Lexus NX. It's so strange that the US market NX seemingly does not offer AVS. I feel like that is hurting the NX in US reviews.

I have the October 2015 CR issue. They explained why they panned the NX.....stiff ride, lack of noise isolation, some cheap interior trim and surfaces. They felt it was not up to Lexus standards. I did a full-review on the NX200t myself and can partly (not fully) agree with them.
 

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
Not especially useful list from CR.

But when it comes to CR and cars, I primarily use them for reliability charts only.


Agreed. Their auto reviews are sometimes spot-on, other times clearly lacking or inaccurate, but, overall, it's hard to beat their reliability data. When someone asks me a question on auto reliability, if I don't already know the answer, that's usually the first place I check, too.

My biggest beef with CR is that they have two different subscription levels.......you don't get much of their on-line data (only a small part of it) if you just subscribe to the paper magazine copies. For an organization that claims to represent the consumer so much, IMO, that is being cheap.
 

RAL

Moderator
Messages
1,217
Reactions
1,757
We've owned 3 RX's and 2 ES's ... all new with the exception of the current pre-owned ES. I'm very picky when it comes to ride quality/sound insulation. I'd have never bought our current NX had I noticed this reportedly 'big' difference. In fact, the only noticeable differences besides size going from our '13 RX to the '15 NX is more hard plastic on the lower door panels (which I have found practically inconsequential) ... and the RTC is too sensitive/distracting. But, the NX is significantly more fuel efficient and a lot more fun to drive (only my G35 coupe handled better, but terrible reliability). Admittedly, I didn't drive the competition ... I'm a brand loyalist because I know the reliability and quality of service is incomparable. I've told anyone who has asked my opinion of the NX: "Its the best vehicle I've ever owned" ... and I've owned a lot of them since 1975. When I read this summary of the CR report I was incredulous.
 

IS-SV

Premium Member
Messages
1,886
Reactions
1,350
^ Yep, like I said when it comes to cars CR is mainly useful for auto reliability charts.

Ride quality reviews are very subjective, therefore it's best not done by appliance testing specialists. And all tall SUVs with good handling have firm rides, no surprise given CG as compared to a sedan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CIF

mikeavelli

Moderator
Messages
6,805
Reactions
15,210
I'm sorry but CR has to be on some sort of dangerous narcotic to put the NX on the worst list. I can easily think of worse cars.

rmdSx.jpg
 

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
I'm sorry but CR has to be on some sort of dangerous narcotic to put the NX on the worst list. I can easily think of worse cars.
Based on my review experience, unlike with former unimpressive versions, I don't agree with the current Chrysler 200 being on the worst list....especially the V6 version.

I agree that, overall, they dissed on the NX too much, but Lexus, IMO could indeed have done better.
 

mikeavelli

Moderator
Messages
6,805
Reactions
15,210
Based on my review experience, unlike with former unimpressive versions, I don't agree with the current Chrysler 200 being on the worst list....especially the V6 version.

I agree that, overall, they dissed on the NX too much, but Lexus, IMO could indeed have done better.

I don't have much experience with the 200. The NX won a major comparo, has been raved by owners and is now 2nd best selling in class in just a few short months. I've driven it multiple times and its arguably best in class. No idea how they could consider it worst.
 

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
The Subie problems generally stem from the piston rings used in the 2010-2014 N/A 2.0L and 2.5L flat-fours....premature wear can speed up oil consumption, though it is unclear how much is actually from premature ring-wear and how much is from the longer drain-intervals of many of today's oil-changes simply allowing the engine more time between changes to use more oil.

I have the October 2015 CR issue. They explained why they panned the NX.....stiff ride, lack of noise isolation, some cheap interior trim and surfaces. They felt it was not up to Lexus standards. I did a full-review on the NX200t myself and can partly (not fully) agree with them.

Well yes, we already both know of the Subaru details. The important point is, these problems haven't been solved and new Subarus are still affected with these issues.

I agree with Lexfather though; even though I myself have not test driven an NX yet. There are far worse vehicles I can think of for 2015 that should have taken the NX's place. I wonder if CR expectations were too high? Were they expecting RX levels of refinement at an NX price?
 

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
I really should test drive an NX one of these days.
Both me and LexFather have done NX full-reviews. Give us one of your own (even if it is a short one), if you have the time to write it up.:)
 

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
One rating we haven't (yet) picked up on this list is the Kia Sedona rated down there with the NX in the "worst" category. Although not as popular as the Odyssey/Sienna or the Chrysler minivans, the (several) buyers I know who have bought Sedonas have been well-pleased with them.
 

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
One rating we haven't (yet) picked up on this list is the Kia Sedona rated down there with the NX in the "worst" category. Although not as popular as the Odyssey/Sienna or the Chrysler minivans, the (several) buyers I know who have bought Sedonas have been well-pleased with them.

While arguable, I see some reasoning behind that decision. Full disclosure, I have not driven the new Sedona, nor do I have much interest to. This is based on my own observations from seeing detailed video reviews and examinations of the new Sedona. For example, unlike the NX, the interior seems quite pedestrian, and not class-leading or unique. The Sedona, as pointed out in several reviews, also has some puzzling features, or lack of features that do not fit well with families, or typical minivan buyers and owners.

To add a few more things and summarize, the new Sedona compared to the competition:

- has an interior that does not stand out in any appreciably good way
- has noticeably less cargo room behind the third row seats than competitors
- third row seatbelts having more awkward placement than top competitors
- 2nd row seats not removable at all in any trim level
- has far less front center cargo and passenger space, due to floor-mounted, vs dash mounted shifter
- has slightly less interior passenger room than key competitors (small difference, but this adds up combined with other lacking measures)
- lacks rear entertainment system for the kids

The Sedona has a lot of features and touches that seem to cater more to car buyers, rather than minivan buyers or families who need lots and lots of space and flexibility to manage kids. Overall for its intended market and function, the Sedona does quite poorly as a minivan, again compared to the competition.
 
Last edited:

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
While arguable, I see some reasoning behind that decision. Full disclosure, I have not driven the new Sedona, nor do I have much interest to. This is based on my own observations from seeing detailed video reviews and examinations of the new Sedona. For example, unlike the NX, the interior seems quite pedestrian, and not class-leading or unique. The Sedona, as pointed out in several reviews, also has some puzzling features, or lack of features that do not fit well with families, or typical minivan buyers and owners.

To add a few more things and summarize, the new Sedona compared to the competition:

- has an interior that does not stand out in any appreciably good way
- has noticeably less cargo room behind the third row seats than competitors
- third row seatbelts having more awkward placement than top competitors
- 2nd row seats not removable at all in any trim level
- has far less front center cargo and passenger space, due to floor-mounted, vs dash mounted shifter
- has slightly less interior passenger room than key competitors (small difference, but this adds up combined with other lacking measures)
- lacks rear entertainment system for the kids

The Sedona has a lot of features and touches that seem to cater more to car buyers, rather than minivan buyers or families who need lots and lots of space and flexibility to manage kids. Overall for its intended market and function, the Sedona does quite poorly as a minivan, again compared to the competition.

I can agree with some of, but not all of that. I did a full-review earlier this year, including a test-drive, on a top-line Sedona SXL. Now, granted, that is not an inexpensive vehicle (starting at 39K), and it is far nicer inside than less-expensive versions of the Sedona....which tend to be more along the lines of what you listed. One of the reasons why the seats are not easily removable is that they come with so many different functions, depending on price-level.......First-class Lounge-seating in the rear, Stow and Go features, seat heating/cooling, etc.... I agree that it lacks a specific Kiddie-entertainment system, but most of today's kids above toddler-age have their own electronic toys and gadgets for amusement...automakers don't necessarily have to provide them. And on the road, I found the Sedona SXL's manners and refinement as good as the Sienna or Odyssey. Now, of course, that did not include a test-drive of cheaper versions, where you (and Consumer Reports) may have a point about its comparison to other minivans. But, even so, IMO, it's difficult to imagine the Sedona in a "Worst New Vehicle" category.
 

CIF

Premium Member
Messages
1,675
Reactions
1,825
I can agree with some of, but not all of that. I did a full-review earlier this year, including a test-drive, on a top-line Sedona SXL. Now, granted, that is not an inexpensive vehicle (starting at 39K), and it is far nicer inside than less-expensive versions of the Sedona....which tend to be more along the lines of what you listed. One of the reasons why the seats are not easily removable is that they come with so many different functions, depending on price-level.......First-class Lounge-seating in the rear, Stow and Go features, seat heating/cooling, etc.... I agree that it lacks a specific Kiddie-entertainment system, but most of today's kids above toddler-age have their own electronic toys and gadgets for amusement...automakers don't necessarily have to provide them. And on the road, I found the Sedona SXL's manners and refinement as good as the Sienna or Odyssey. Now, of course, that did not include a test-drive of cheaper versions, where you (and Consumer Reports) may have a point about its comparison to other minivans. But, even so, IMO, it's difficult to imagine the Sedona in a "Worst New Vehicle" category.

I think that very highly depends on the perspective you were reviewing the Sedona from.

With respect, I don't think you reviewed the Sedona from the perspective of a family with kids, or a large family. Those are a large percentage of minivan buyers, and a very large percentage of minivan drivers are females (with kids).

Also to add, the Sienna has had optional "lounge chair" 2nd row seats for years now, before the Sedona. Significantly, those 2nd row optional lounge chairs on the Sienna are removable. In fact, looking at the top 3 competitors in the segment, all of them have removable or 100% stowable 2nd row seats. So this applies to the Caravan, Odyssey, and Sienna. The 2nd row in the Sedona is not removable, regardless of whether you pick the base model without lounge chairs, or the top end model with lounge chairs. So given the fact that even the non-lounge 2nd row chairs in the Sedona cannot be removed, that is a glaring omission in a vehicle segment where seating and cargo flexibility is paramount.

With regards to the rear entertainment system, the key point here is choice. The Sedona simply doesn't offer the choice or option that the competitors do. Kids these days having access to lots of gadgets and electronic toys is irrelevant. What if one day the kids forget their gadgets at home? The flexibility of having a built-in rear entertainment system still remains a big selling point.

With regards to interior quality and ride, let's assume that ALL minivans in the segment are "good enough". If you put that aside, then the Sedona's omissions compared to the key competitors still remain glaring. A 1st row seating area with very low storage space. So low, that a female driver has nowhere to put a purse close to her. She could put it on the passenger front seat, but that's a far and inconvenient reach. The top competitors ALL have highly flexible and large center front storage between the front seats for things like purses. A 2nd row seating area that is a lot less flexible then competitors in the segment. A third row seating area not as good as the class leaders. Finally, a cargo area behind the third row that is smaller than the class leaders.
 
Last edited:

mmcartalk

Expert
Messages
4,157
Reactions
2,675
I think that very highly depends on the perspective you were reviewing the Sedona from.

With respect, I don't think you reviewed the Sedona from the perspective of a family with kids, or a large family. Those are a large percentage of minivan buyers, and a very large percentage of minivan drivers are females (with kids).

I tried to review it from that perspective, but you're correct in one sense....I'm not married, nor have kids of my own. So, I'll just respect your view of the Sedona...and vice-versa. When you get a chance, though, since you haven't driven one, you might one to test-drive an SXL, even if you aren't interested in one, just out of curiosity. I think you'll find it as refined on the road as a Sienna or Odyssey.