I picked up a December copy of Consumer Reports. "All three Minis in our survey made a very poor showing". It looks like the Countryman pulls the entire brand to the bottom with a 209% worse than average predicted reliability. Of course the report does not indicate which of the ten subcategories it lacked (for example, engines issues or technology issues). They placed CM in the luxury compact SUVs category with SUVs costing $20K more rather than in the small SUV category. Is that really the appropriate category? Supposedly, CR needs atleast 100 responses for a particular model from the last three years to include in the suvery. So it looks like customers only submitted enough responses for the CM non-S model.

Highlights.
Of 28 brands, Mini is dead last this year for predicted reliability. Mini ranks on average 100% worse than the average. Last year Mini was 6 brands higher at 22. Mini Cooper is on the NOT RECOMMENDED list for "Models with declining reliability".

For Predicted Reliability of the three models:

For Subcompact Cars: Mini Cooper is ranked 7 out of 11 a 25% worse than average predicted reliability:
1 Honda Fit
2 Hyundai Accent
3 Mazda2
4 Kia Rio
5 Nissan Versa Sedan
6 Chevy Sonic
7 Mini Cooper
8 Hyundai Veloster (non-turbo)
9 Ford Fiesta
10 Fiat 500
11 Hyundai Veloster (turbo)


For Sport Cars: Mini Cooper S is ranked 17 out of 19 with a 50% worse than average predicted reliability.
1 Porsche Boxtser
2 BMW M3
3 BMW 1
4 Audi S4
5 Maxda MX-5
6 Ford Mustang V8
7 Honda Civic Si
8 Ford Mustang V6
9 Subaru Impreza WRX/STi
10 Chevy Camaro V6
11 Scion FR-S
12 Porsche 911
13 Dodge Challenger
14 Chevy Camaro V8
15 Ford Focus ST
16 VW GTI
17 Mini Cooper S
18 Subaru BRZ
19 Hyundai Genesis Coupe

For Luxury Compact SUVs: Mini Countryman is ranked 12 out of 12 with a 209% worse than average predicted reliability.
1 BMW X1 4-cyl
2 Infiniti EX
3 Audi Q5 V6
4 Acura RDX
5 Buick Encore
6 Mercedes GLK
7 Volvo XC60
8 Audi Q5 4-cyl
9 BMW X3 4-cyl
10 Cadillac SRX
11 BMW X3 6-cyl turbo
12 Mini Countryman

 

I wonder what kind of problems they are having? Reliability to me is not breaking down. Mine have never left me stranded and I've had 4 different models... I have had the XM radio go out in the Countryman All 4 S though. So maybe a loss of commercial free radio would make it unreliable? Or maybe it's the check engine light for gas cap not put on correctly? LOL

In my opinion all these reports are useless. How does one compare to another... Have you read how they get their information? This is from their FAQ section.

"Where is the data from?
Consumer Reports obtains its reliability data from an Annual Questionnaire that is sent to subscribers to ConsumerReports.org and Consumer Reports magazine. In all, the survey was sent to over 8 million subscribers in 2013, and we received responses on 1.1 million vehicles."

It also goes on to say things like "While we require a minimum of about 100 cars to publish reliability information, most models have larger samples than that, some being as large as several thousand. We present our data primarily to allow subscribers to compare the detailed reliability histories and overall reliability for different models. While models whose scores are based on more cars are reported with greater accuracy than those based on smaller sample sizes, the way we calculate our scores has been devised to allow valid comparisons for all samples we publish, regardless of the particular sample sizes of individual models."

And..."While we do not publish information on individual sample sizes for specific models, we require a minimum of around 100 cars to publish reliability information for a model in a given model year. Our sample sizes tend to track quite closely with market sales. Individual sample sizes vary from year to year and range from a hundred to several thousand for the more popular models. A typical model has about 200 to 400 samples for each model year and engine variant."

So they say there numbers track closely with sales... Typical models have 200-400 samples or "responses". Yet the Mini's(which sell a lot less cars than lots of other makers) still managed 100 responses? If numbers track closely how are most of the big names that sell the most missing from the lists. For example you have 2 Porsche models and no Vette on the sports car list? Sounds like there responses do not track closely with sales to me and possibly there method of calculating scores(which they mentioned in above paragraph) could have possibly even skewed those numbers if it's based on the idea that their numbers track with sales.


So really only people that feel the need to send in the responses are the ones they rate(of course). 8 million subscribers received surveys and 1.1 were returned. I bet anything that all cars had a much higher reliability in the 6.9 million surveys NOT returned... Now if everybody had responded, or at least 3/4, or maybe even just got 10 from 10 different dealers at different times and reported on all 10, then maybe you might be able to say it could be accurate. They say they need 100 responses to do a report and that sounds like a pretty large number if you compare it to the vehicles sold that is really nothing. It's a lot more than 10 like I suggested above, but at least you would be reporting on 10 random ones instead of possibly getting skewed results from angry customers. I know I can't speak for everyone, but I bet there's a lot of other people like me out there and if my car hadn't had any problems I would not even think about wasting my time filling out a survey about it. But if it broke in what seemed an unreasonable way or time frame(which can mean different stuff to different people)and I was not happy about it, you better believe I would send that in if I received it.

Bottom line without picking a random number of vehicles and instead just relying on hoping people respond so you have bigger pool means that the majority of these numbers and ranking are based purely on guesses made based on other guesses using essentially "some guy said this happened" which in my opinion makes these lists useless.

 

Given my CM history I would say the survey got it right. Still love my CM though . . . .

 

And my 2011 CM has been trouble free for all 49,500 kms to date....

 

I think your post is a great example of wanting to "kill the messenger", and that you don't want to admit the painfully obvious...that there are substantial frequency of repair issues with the Mini brand in general, and more specifically the CM.

I've been a CR subscriber for about 30 years, and I do fill out the questionnaire every year. Have you ever personally even seen the questionnaire that you are trying to dismiss?

If you did, you would know that CR asks each respondent if they have had any "serious" problems by category. Of course "serious" is a subjective term, but one would think it would pretty much all balance out...no reason to think that Mini owners would generally have a different opinion of what constitutes "serious" versus any other group of owners.

Unfortunately there's no way their surveys are going to tell you what your chances of getting stranded are, but fortunately getting stranded is not the issue it was not all that long ago. Cars in general have become far more reliable in that respect, and it's relatively rare anymore for a car that's been properly maintained to leave it's owner stranded (and I say that after our '12 CM left us stranded and had to be towed to the dealer three times due to electrical issues, and we would have been stranded several more times had the dealer not advised us to start carrying fuses).

You mentioned that you wondered what problems are being reported. CR's results are available by category, and if you want to know with more specificity exactly what problems owners are experiencing, you have come to the right forum If you look at what categories CM's are experiencing issues with, you will see a very good correlation of what's reported by CR versus what's reported here.

I sincerely doubt they are lying about the sample sizes they described. They are not perfect, but they have an immense amount of credibility...just look at who is on their Board of Directors.

As you said, it might be that people who have had serious issues with their cars might tend to over report (and perhaps that's how Mini ended up meeting the required sample size). Are you aware that annual questionnaire involves reporting responses for far more products and services than just cars? I think that would mitigate your contention that owners who have had trouble with their cars tend to over-report. I would also say that Mini owners tend to be more vocal about their cars than average...just look at the number of posts here (dealing with non problems) versus similar websites for other vehicles. I would also think that there are other vehicle owners who don't mention the problems with their cars (Mini or otherwise) for fear of hurting their used or trade in value.

CR's questionnaires are certainly far from perfect, but I have never seen a better source of the type of data they provide. It's great that you took the time to try to understand in depth how they are done...few people do.

But when you see Mini owners reporting far greater issues year after year after year (not only on CR surveys, but also JD Power surveys) and what you read about owner experiences on this forum, there simply is no denying that there are major problems.

 

I was not saying Mini's don't have problems, I was just saying how useless I thought these lists are. And like you said maybe Mini is reported accurately, I have read a lot about clutch problems and few people here and a few others. I just have never had these problems. Lucky maybe.

Maybe there is no better source of data but would it really change your mind? I would not want a BMW X1 over my Countryman just because it's the "most reliable", or a Porsche Boxtser over my Roadster S. I don't like them and wouldn't want to spend a boat load of money on a car I didn't like just because it's most reliable that's why I didn't get them in the first place.

And while I imagine it does sway some people's decision, I know myself and most people I know buy cars because they like them. We do our research and usually know what to expect, and how to fix it before we fork over 36K for a car.

I was also not hinting that they are lying about the sample size, but just trying to show how it doesn't seem to be correct that sample size closely follows sales due to more popular cars missing from the list and while I'm sure they wouldn't lie, that could be a sign of the faults this type of list is prone to.

 

I suspect much of this comes from the 2011 and 2012 models that have had some issues, most notably the clutch. I have a 2013 with just over 3,000mi on it and while I've had no issues, I'd have checked the "rattles" box several times. I guess I'll see how she makes it in the next few years on reliability.

For me, reliability is serious stuff, like engine, transmission, etc. For Consumer Reports, it includes the little things that are annoying, but aren't usually expensive, and certainly won't leave you stranded.

Doesn't excuse any of it though. BMW needs to get Mini more on par with Japanese makes as far as quality.

 

You are correct, if the primary decision factor when purchasing a vehicle was frequency of repair, we would all be driving Lexus', and Jaguar, Land Rover and Mini would have been out of business years ago, and when we settled our Lemon Law Claim with BMW we would have had our money refunded rather than accepted a replacement car. My GF bought an MCS hardtop the first year they were out knowing that there would likely be problems with a first year car (and oh was she right!).

But for the most buyers reliability reputation is a factor. Otherwise Yugo and Studebaker would still be around And there are many, many buyers steering clear of Mini because of the problems.

 

I was a Toyota loyalist for many years. Having owned a 2007 MCS (terribly expensive to maintain) and now a 2013 Countryman S (been solid so far-12k miles) since, I can honestly and factually say that, YES, my Minis haven't been the stuff of reliability dreams. BUT, Id much rather be driving my Mini than any refrigerator with wheels the Asian car companies are throwing out there. I can't stand their design logic nor the lack of personality. Every day is a joy scooting around in my Coop.

 

CR is a good guideline, but individual experience will vary from one vehicle to the other.

The R53 was also not recommended, yet mine has been totally bullet proof for 7.5 years and 91k miles.
My All4 R60 had a lot of issues for a new car (repeated coolant and oil leaks) and the SA was not helping with the clutch problem. Given my use for the car, it was not worth the hassle and I gave up after 18 months. FWIW, I think the vehicle that replaced it is also on not recommended list, but the first six months have been total bliss.

I still think the CM had more new car issues than is expected and accepted by today's standards. CR calling them out on it is not a bad thing and I hope that there is a good a mount of **** kicking in Oxford as a result.

 

Just a thought...I wonder if the responses to Consumer vary due to high passion of Mini ownership as compared to passion of Buick or Volvo owners. I cannot recall seeing a Volvo modified?

I have owned BMW X3s, BMW M Coupe, BMW X5, and 3 series. And from my experience this Mini forum is much more active compared to BMW forums. The M forums had the most chatter and the X5 basically has a post every other week about floor mats. My point is if CR sent out surveys, Mini owners would respond quicky and Acura and Buick owner would ignore the survey unless they has a serious issue. In addition with the excellent BMW/Mini warranty, owners would have their vehicle fixed for minor inconveniences more often.

Since the CM is produced on the outsourced Magna Steyr plant in Graz, Austria other models higher on the list (Infiniti, Mercedes, and previously the X3 from 2003–2010) I cannot believe it is a quality issue.

 

You're right to some extent that different types of owners will respond to problems in different ways which may affect how they fill out a survey. But assuming the "enthusiasts" who own a Mini are going to be pickier than others may not be correct either... in fact, it can go the other way around. Mini owners, because they love their cars so much, generally cut their cars a lot of slack. And I briefly owned a Lexus and used to frequent a Lexus forum - I've never seen any group of owners be more insistent that their cars perform flawlessly and complain about any problem, no matter how infinitesimally small. A glove box rattle on a Lexus is a HUGE deal.

I do think any car that is significantly modded and/or driven very aggressively (e.g., track days) will have more problems due to owner abuse and poorly done modifications. This may skew the results. Corvettes, for example, pretty much universally have had poor reliability records, but I have to believe that has a lot to do with how the cars are used. The Corvettes I've been exposed to are pretty robust mechanically.

- Mark

 

My transfer case is shot on my 2012 CM All4 with 8k miles.

Took it in last night (Nov 13, 2013), and it's out of commission until mid-December due to replacement parts being on a boat from Germany.

Maybe I increased the statistical variance with my issue.

 

I'll chime in only because I recently received a JD Power letter asking for a review (as well as a crisp $1 bill to sweeten the deal). I've had my CM 3 months (8700 miles) and love every second...zero issues.

In general though, I believe people are more likely to respond to surveys negatively than if they are satisfied with the product.

 

If you lease for 3 years and the car is covered under the warranty for that entire period throw this out the window. As long as your car does not catch on fire or leave you stranded on the side of the highway, you are covered and you have maintenance included along with loaners while your car is being fixed.

I have a friend that wants a MINI and I said great if you lease. Do not bother if you are going to buy and keep the car for 7 years. You are just asking for it then.

Now having said all that... I bought my car. Its been paid off for a while. It did leave my stranded on the highway as the clutch was TOTALLY gone.

I love my car but I would not buy another MINI.

 

This is true, but keep in mind that the results are relative rankings between different cars, not a ranking vs. some absolute. If Mini drivers are more likely to fill out the survey if they have problems, Honda and Toyota drivers are too. It all evens out.

- Mark

 

Odd I see other brands wouldn't expect to see in the list too. Mazda, Subaru, Honda ? Long time I ago I stopped subscribing to this periodical due to allegations of their integrity/skewing their figures. Specifically contacting manufacturers for comment and solicitation of favors for better ratings.

 

The allegations you are referring to were for a different "consumer" publication that is or was a "for profit" business. I've been a member of Consumers Union for more than 30 years, and I can say I'm very confident that their data is unbiased. In the case of frequency of repair reports they are merely tabulating what is reported to them. Just look at who is on their Board of Directors...they would never allow the results to be manipulated. The people who work for CU take great pride in the fact that their recommendations "can't be bought".

That being said, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, the system is not perfect. And when you use their ratings, you need to dig into the report (whether it be for a car, or a television, or whatever) for why the item was rated as it was. What they deem to be important in a product can be subjective, and that may not apply to you. For example if a car has a lower rating because the back seat is horribly uncomfortable, and you would never use the back seat...well you get the idea.

 

As I stated, it was a some time ago I stopped reading/subscribing and it was due to irregularities in their reporting and "fact" finding data they published.

That said, here's a few examples as to what I referred.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/auto...ion=2007011821
Poor testing and evaluation, and why the outright lie as to how the tests were performed ?


http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/money/consum...rs-after-fires
Poor testing and evaluation.

Then there's the retraction of their roll over reports for the Suzuki Samari, and then again for the Isuzu Trooper II where in each case, CR was sued and lost.

Then there's how CR says their "non-profit" and that they accept no advertising monies to as to prevent any appearance of impropriety or favoritism for their magazine, yet their web site is strewn with ads through Price Grabber and CU does receive kick backs from referrals.

They also claim not to take free merchandise from companies yet freely accept Press Donations of products by the truck load. That sorts sounds like free stuff to me....

And when a favorable review is given, the product owner is sued if they stipulate those positive findings in their own ads.....why ? And for them to say they are a non-profit is positively laughable .

I know folks with 1st and 2nd gen MINI's who have had nothing but the best experiences ever and still going strong, and then there's the few who's experiences were nothing short of nightmarish.

IMO the broad brush strokes like CR uses for these lists should be left to those in kindergarten art class, and at some point commonsense needs to take over which is personally why I prefer to use my own best judgment based upon accumulation of data from other resources and never CR.

My 2 cents and no disclaimer.

 

Wow, there's little question that you really hate Consumer Reports!

But hey, give them a break, no one's perfect. I read the article on the car seats that you provided the link to where you stated they outright lied. Did you read the article? Well, I took the time to. Why would you say they lied? They merely realized and admitted that the testing method was flawed. YOU are the one who is lying!

You claim they receive kickbacks from Price Grabber, but you have no proof of that. And even if they did, so what? They are providing it as a service to their readers. It's certainly not a conflict of interest as they are not rating Price Grabber versus other internet pricing services. If they make a few pennies each time a subscriber uses Price Grabber, so what? Since they don't accept advertising, they need to raise revenue somehow. The cost of buying the products to test and the testing is not free. And why would you term it a "kickback". You would not happen to be trying to mislead all of us here, would you?

And what's the issue with press donations of products? How is that a conflict of interest? That's no more a conflict of interest than one of their members making a $100 donation. What they say is that they don't take free merchandise from companies whose products they are rating (which would obviously be a conflict of interest), and I'll bet you knew that.

And what's you objection their longstanding "no commercial use policy"? Here it is:

"Published information from Consumers Union, including our Ratings and Reports, is intended solely for the benefit of our subscribers and other consumers, in order to help them make informed choices and decisions about consumer products, services, and other consumer matters. Such information may not be used by others in advertising or to promote a company’s products or services. In addition, this policy precludes any commercial use of any of Consumers Union’s published information in any form, or of the names of Consumers Union®, Consumer Reports®, or any other of Consumers Union’s publications or services, without our express written permission"

You are also lying about them not being non-profit when there is simply no question that they are. What evidence do you have that they are "for-profit? You don't have any because you made that up too!

How do you explain all the CR subscribers that report all the serious problems with their Countrymen? Are they all liars too?

And how do you explain the ratings JD Powers has given to the CM for quality and dependability? Is it just coincidence, or are they lying too?

Go back and look at the forum posts here regarding the problems with the Countryman for the last 3 years. So the forum members have just made this stuff up? Try to find another car forum where so many widespread problems have been reported, you won't.

Looks to me like there's a lot of evidence that CR's survey results are right on the money.

 

how does it explain this?

]http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1088502_jaguar-mini-top-j-d-powers-2013-sales-satisfaction-study-chrysler-brings-up-the-rear?sf19513922=1[/URL]

 

The study you are pointing to has nothing to do with frequency of repair. It asked customers to rate different dealers on the sales experience.

To determine its scores, Power divides dealerships into two groups: dealerships where customers purchased their vehicles, and dealerships that customers visited but ultimately left empty-handed. Though Power didn't thoroughly explain its 2013 methodology, in previous years the firm asked shoppers to rank "purchase" dealerships on the basis of the salesperson, the facility, the negotiation process, and delivery of the vehicle. Dealerships that were rejected by consumers have typically been scored on the basis of the salesperson, the fairness of the vehicle's price, the facility, available inventory, and the negotiation experience.

 

Perhaps the problems are not "build quality" related, but design related or supplier related? No doubt there are different reasons for each of the widely reported problems.

We owned a '12 CM and now own a '13 CM, and the build quality just seems noticeably better on the '13...both exterior and interior. Better fit and finish, you can't help but notice things like the doors shut better, and the switchgear does not feel so cheap. Of course that's subjective and it's just a sample of one, but we did own the two cars back to back.

 

I am thrilled with my CM! Absolutely no issues!

 

Yeah, one issue you rarely see on this forum are members complaining about dealer sales practices. What's really disturbing is the number of owners (especially the first two model years) reporting problems with their cars that dealers cannot seem to permanently repair. If anyone doubts that, just look at all the posts on this forum that go back to when the CM's were first released. Most of us love our cars and like the dealers. but not so much that we want to see them so often for repairs