Consumer Reports Predicted Reliability for '22 Ram 1500 Classic

[kurek]

But really it's likely that they just don't have enough responses on it to be accurate.

That doesn't seem to stop them from wild-a** guessing that the Cybertruck Joke-eyo Grift model has better predicted reliability despite the fact that 0 of those have been manufactured or will be manufactured.

 

[b-real]

I just love that they actually think that there will be a 2022 Cybertruck. I would bet money against that happening.

 

[Gero]

I call bs. 5years and 70,000km and all I've ever had was a tierod end replaced under warranty and a battery.

 

[Victory Pete]

I have 1400 miles on my 2021 1500 Classic, just got it 6 weeks ago. I am so glad I didn't get a 2022.

 

[farout75]

Consumer Reports is untrustworthy in my opinion. The classic RAM is just as dependable as the newer RAM. CR is so wrong on a good number of issues.

 

[1999 White C5 Coupe]

Ah the ol "here is a list of who paid us the most", and Ram paid them the least eh?

Any proof?

Consumer Reports does not accept advertising, and the vehicles they test are purchased (not provided by the manufacturer).

Their reliability ratings are based upon surveys of vehicle owners, not their personal beliefs.

 

[Docwagon1776]

Any proof?

Consumer Reports does not accept advertising, and the vehicles they test are purchased (not provided by the manufacturer).

Their reliability ratings are based upon surveys of vehicle owners, not their personal beliefs.

• 2022 Rivian R1T: 2/5
• 2022 Tesla Cybertruck: 2/5

Explain to me how those ratings are from surveys of vehicle owners.

 

[CamperMike]

• 2022 Rivian R1T: 2/5
• 2022 Tesla Cybertruck: 2/5

Explain to me how those ratings are from surveys of vehicle owners.

Your question led me to find their details. Their explanation was that the rivian was a new model in a new category from a new manufacturer so they anticipate lower than average reliability... so they admit it's a guess

Also I did the same for the ram classic and they stated it was based on 2019 MY only vs 2019-2021 for most others. Again small sample size!

 

[Dean2]

I will not be renewing my CR subscription going forward. Their reliability and top product ratings can no longer be relied on. They consistently rate Samsung top of the heap in washers, dryers and fridges. Samsung makes an excellent TV but their other appliances is how they earned the name Samdung. Their aftermarket service is also atrocious, as is their parts availability. There is only one service centre in my city, 2 million+ people, that will even repair or service Sanmsung. The rest refuse to come out as soon as you tell them what brand it is.

I don't think CR is being bought off, but they have a long standing hate of Dodge, Ram and Jeep along with most other NA made vehicles. When they give Lexus mediocre reliabilty ratings, Samsung and LG top ratings, and a number of other anomolies that don't match real world experience then they are no longer useful.

 

[indept]

OK, now you forced me into long winded mode.

Consumer Reports promises to give you the best bang for your buck and Reliability ratings, anytime someone asks about what the best widget the reply usually is Check Consumer Reports. I'm pointing out that you should take their ratings with a grain of salt.
What else did they get wrong you ask,:sneaky: back in the late 90's the mrs needed a vacuum, now we've had hoovers, electrolux's no problems with either but CR rated the Sharp upright the best bang for the buck and great predicted reliability. 2 months after the warranty ran out (14 months old) the brush bar started screeching and finally seized so I wound up buying the parts & fixing it. the following 2 years other parts broke AND since it wasn't one of the leading vacuum manufacturers we had to drive 20 miles away to find bags for it, not a major problem but an annoyance. turned out to be the worst vacuum we've ever owned. forward to the mid 2000's, looking to by a rechargeable weed whacker. CR rated the black & decker tops. They rated its cutting ability but NEVER mentioned the most important factors with those critters, at least as far as I'm concerned, which was how long the battery charge lasted and how long to recharge. So I go to Lowes & buy it, bring it home, opened it up looked at the manual & find the battery takes 8 hours to charge so if I don't get all of the trimming done with 1 charge I have to wait until evening to finish. Well back to lowes that went. I bought one that CR didn't even list, the WORX which Lowes had a special, get a free battery so 2 batteries (1 hour charge time). still have it, I use that as my edger (has a little wheel to roll on). Forward a couple more years, I was looking for a good cordless drill / Impact driver kit for work around the house. I bought whatever model kit (containing a Drill, an Impact Driver 2 batteries & a fast charger) of Ridgid that home depot had at the time. A few months later I saw ratings by CR, once again NO mention of run time or recharge times in any of the cordless reviews. They had reviews of the kit and of the individual drill & impact driver separately. The individual pieces were both rated tops but the kit containing the same model #'s was rated average????? couldn't figure out what the difference was and they had nothing to say about it. I assumed 2 different people did the single piece versus the kit, which if they're running their business correctly there should be standard test procedures and rating criteria for each device. didn't give me a warm feeling.

 

[18harvest]

It would be interesting to see what they rated each model year from 17 to 22 classic.if they have different scores something is up as they are basically identical with the exception of the radio and eco diesel.

 

[Tim7139]

Your question led me to find their details. Their explanation was that the rivian was a new model in a new category from a new manufacturer so they anticipate lower than average reliability... so they admit it's a guess

Also I did the same for the ram classic and they stated it was based on 2019 MY only vs 2019-2021 for most others. Again small sample size!

They don't do a great job of highlighting when they're making educated guesses, or just guesses.

Their length of ownership also seems to bias results.

 

[CamperMike]

It would be interesting to see what they rated each model year from 17 to 22 classic.if they have different scores something is up as they are basically identical with the exception of the radio and eco diesel.

16-18 all average (3/5). 15 and 19 1/5. 20 and 21 not enough data to score it.

 

[2019RamInSC]

The funny part is the 5th gen has the exact same drive train, is newer, and has a 4/5. Hmm.

I gave up on CR when they docked points on the vette due to lack of cup holders. They should just turn off the lights and go home.

Edit: Maybe it's the Eco Diesel dragging it down? Can you still get the diesel in the classic?

That explains it. My 5th Gen has 12 Cup Holders.

 

[Loudram]

16-18 all average (3/5). 15 and 19 1/5. 20 and 21 not enough data to score it.

And all the same truck. Amazing.

 

[Docwagon1776]

Your question led me to find their details. Their explanation was that the rivian was a new model in a new category from a new manufacturer so they anticipate lower than average reliability... so they admit it's a guess

Also I did the same for the ram classic and they stated it was based on 2019 MY only vs 2019-2021 for most others. Again small sample size!

If you don't have enough data, the ethical thing to do is to just admit you don't have enough data. At very least, make it prominent that it's an estimate instead of intermingling it with your 'factual' data.

 

[Docwagon1776]

I gave up on CR when they docked points on the vette due to lack of cup holders. They should just turn off the lights and go home.

Even as a kid, I scoffed at their ratings of the Wrangler based on it's on road characteristics with no mention of it's off road capabilities. They were so far up Toyota's back side in those days as well. Now that the Internet is a thing, I'm not sure how CR has maintained any relevance in automobile reviews.

 

[Kart20]

I think it's funny, too, how the Silverado 2500 HD is top of the list and the Silverado 1500 is near the bottom. I have a real hard time believing there is that much difference in the reliability of two trucks with so much in common. Obviously the input data or the evaluation algorithms are faulty.

I think consumer satisfaction reports are mostly subjective and a poor basis for evaluation of product quality.

 

[RLJ10X]

It's their PREDICTION. Who cares?

I had a chevy once. Cured me of ever having another.

I know a guy who gets a new chevy about every year or so. He's never satisfied with the last one. I asked him once, If you're not satisfied with the blasted things, why do you keep buying them?!

 

[Summit1]

Yup...good ol' CR, with all their hype about being independent, buying the stuff they test, etc. Unfortunately, they are not sufficiently staffed to provide any real information that can be counted on as related to vehicles. CR is much like Faecesbook and its "What's the best _____?" posts and comments. They use a lot of data collected from owners who complain. Granted while many owners of various stuff brag about what they have bought and own, the ones who complain (rightfully or not) are the most heard and read. Sadly, most online review sites/pages are equally bad. Many of the reviews arenot even pertinent to the item being reviewed.

I stopped believing their crap forty or so years ago when they posted a review of (you guessed it) a Chrysler product, stating that if you jerk the steering wheel to one side or the other at highway speed and then let go of the wheel, the car will likely go out of control.