Reliability research -- seeking more Mazda3s

[concept]

It is very easy to criticize something you don't fully understand. I can guarantee you that if you visited CU and spoke with their statisticians, you'd change your mind, at least partially.

From what I recall,
CR does specify guidelines as to what should be considered as "serious". Most likely, anything that strands you on the side of the road is serious.

CR looks at 3 years of the same model because
a) older models may be completely different and
b) Once you go beyond 3 years of ownership, the absence or presence of proper maintenance can affect the reliability, big time. In order to accurately gauge true reliability of a vehicle that is older than 3, you'd have to double or triple the size and time requirements to complete a thorough survey. Most folks wouldn't take the time to fill it out in its entirety.

Thus, unless you know for certain how well a vehicle was maintained, how can you blast a manufacturer if the owner neglected his or her vehicle, but failed to tell you?

Many manufacturers of electronics-based equipment will "burn in" their products for a minimum of 72 hours. Statistically, if no problems surface, the product and its electronics have better odds of being reliable over its lifetime. Similarly, the first 3 years of vehicle ownership will reveal (for the most part, but yes, there will be exceptions) whether that vehicle is likely to be reliable (if well-maintained) over a much longer period.

Your survey does have its good points, but like every survey, some details will be left out. As long as folks know and understand the survey's limitations, they won't be fooled into thinking that the results are 100% bulletproof.

 

[P5w3kids]

We've updated our reliability stats for the Mazda3 to include owner experiences through September 30, 2014.

Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year:

2014 Mazda3: 9, low
2013 Mazda3: 6, low
2012 Mazda3: 11, low
2012 MazdaSpeed3: 38, moderate, small sample size
2011 Mazda3: 25, low
2010 Mazda3: 23, low
2010 MazdaSpeed3: 20, low, small sample size
2009 Mazda3: 21, low
2009 MazdaSpeed3: 31, low, small sample size
2008 Mazda3: 40, low
2008 MazdaSpeed3: 47, low, very small sample size
2007 Mazda3: 43, low
2007 MazdaSpeed3: 104, high, small sample size
2006 Mazda3: 61, moderate
2005 Mazda3: 68, moderate
2004 Mazda3: 96, moderate

We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop:

2013 Mazda3: 93, < 1
2012 Mazda3: 92, < 1
2011 Mazda3: 77, < 1
2010 Mazda3: 79, < 1
2009 Mazda3: 81, 4
2008 Mazda3: 69, 2
2007 Mazda3: 67, < 1
2006 Mazda3: 62, < 1
2005 Mazda3: 44, < 1

Additional participants always helpful (especially if you see "small sample size" next to the year, or no stat at all).

To view the repairs behind these numbers, check the stats for other cars, and sign up to help improve this information (next update in February):

Mazda Mazda3 reliability ratings and comparisons

 

[P5w3kids]

It is very easy to criticize something you don't fully understand. I can guarantee you that if you visited CU and spoke with their statisticians, you'd change your mind, at least partially.

From what I recall,
CR does specify guidelines as to what should be considered as "serious". Most likely, anything that strands you on the side of the road is serious.

CR looks at 3 years of the same model because
a) older models may be completely different and
b) Once you go beyond 3 years of ownership, the absence or presence of proper maintenance can affect the reliability, big time. In order to accurately gauge true reliability of a vehicle that is older than 3, you'd have to double or triple the size and time requirements to complete a thorough survey. Most folks wouldn't take the time to fill it out in its entirety.

Thus, unless you know for certain how well a vehicle was maintained, how can you blast a manufacturer if the owner neglected his or her vehicle, but failed to tell you?

Many manufacturers of electronics-based equipment will "burn in" their products for a minimum of 72 hours. Statistically, if no problems surface, the product and its electronics have better odds of being reliable over its lifetime. Similarly, the first 3 years of vehicle ownership will reveal (for the most part, but yes, there will be exceptions) whether that vehicle is likely to be reliable (if well-maintained) over a much longer period.

Your survey does have its good points, but like every survey, some details will be left out. As long as folks know and understand the survey's limitations, they won't be fooled into thinking that the results are 100% bulletproof.

I know quite a few people at CR. You should do some research instead of just assuming that they do things properly--which is what many people do.

One fact: CR's respondents have total freedom to decide what counts as serious. Many report rattles, some don't report transmission failures (because they had a loaner, were treated well, etc.). CR's stance if that if the owner considers a problem serious (or not), who are they to question this? But by doing this they open the door wide for any biases the owners might have--including any gained by reading the magazine.

 

[P5w3kids]

We've updated our reliability stats for the Mazda3 to include owner experiences through the end of 2015, about eight months ahead of other sources. In terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year--lower is better:

2015 Mazda3: 8, low
2014 Mazda3: 24, low
2013 Mazda3: 9, low
2013 MazdaSpeed3: 33, moderate, very small sample size
2012 Mazda3: 12, low
2012 MazdaSpeed3: 7, low, small sample size
2011 Mazda3: 7, low
2010 Mazda3: 15, low
2010 MazdaSpeed3: 20, low, very small sample size
2009 Mazda3: 38, low
2009 MazdaSpeed3: 45, low, small sample size
2008 Mazda3: 63, moderate
2007 Mazda3: 72, moderate
2007 MazdaSpeed3: 71, moderate, small sample size
2006 Mazda3: 80, moderate
2005 Mazda3: 89, moderate
2004 Mazda3: 91, moderate, small sample size

We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop:

2015 Mazda3: 94, < 1
2014 Mazda3: 84, < 1
2013 Mazda3: 90, < 1
2012 Mazda3: 86, < 1
2011 Mazda3: 92, < 1
2010 Mazda3: 86, 2
2009 Mazda3: 81, 4
2008 Mazda3: 54, 3
2007 Mazda3: 49, 8
2006 Mazda3: 57, 8

We'll have further updates in May and in August. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be.

For the repairs behind these stats, reliability information on other models, and to sign up to help improve this information:

Mazda Mazda3 reliability ratings and comparisons

 

[DarkRyder]

i am in there as well with my 2011 mazda 3

 

[P5w3kids]

Thanks!

Another update soon, and additional participants are always helpful. We especially need more people for the earlier model years.

www.truedelta.com/join

 

[concept]

I know quite a few people at CR. You should do some research instead of just assuming that they do things properly--which is what many people do.

One fact: CR's respondents have total freedom to decide what counts as serious. Many report rattles, some don't report transmission failures (because they had a loaner, were treated well, etc.). CR's stance if that if the owner considers a problem serious (or not), who are they to question this? But by doing this they open the door wide for any biases the owners might have--including any gained by reading the magazine.

So you feel that your survey is more extensive and includes more data "points" than dos Consumer Reports? Of course no survey and rating system is perfect, but if you compare CR with anything else out there, you'll find that CR is closer to reality than any of the others.
When it comes to bias, well that is part of any company that is run by humans and not robots. What CR considers to be "ideal" when it comes to their road test ratings is not my ideal. I place higher emphasis on handling than ride comfort. but reliability is huge factor to me when I research vehicles. That's why I always check with CR. So many folks ignore reliability. Why else would there be so many Mini Coopers and Jeeps on the road?

 

[IgoZoom]

So you feel that your survey is more extensive and includes more data "points" than dos Consumer Reports? Of course no survey and rating system is perfect, but if you compare CR with anything else out there, you'll find that CR is closer to reality than any of the others.
When it comes to bias, well that is part of any company that is run by humans and not robots. What CR considers to be "ideal" when it comes to their road test ratings is not my ideal. I place higher emphasis on handling than ride comfort. but reliability is huge factor to me when I research vehicles. That's why I always check with CR. So many folks ignore reliability. Why else would there be so many Mini Coopers and Jeeps on the road?

I've been participating in the True Delta (TD) quarterly surveys since at least 2009. But I also still have a subscription to the CR website.

The information on TD is much more timely than CR. The CR info is only collected once per year while TD's info is updated quarterly. TD also includes the "raw data" (individual problems reported by owners), which can help to identify issues/trends sooner. CR does have the benefit of a much larger survey base (subscribers), which is a benefit. I use both sites to make any auto buying decisions (or recommendations). I review TD's repair history on a model then double check to see how it's rated at CR.

Like you, I can't believe how many people don't check reliability (or reviews) of a car before they buy it. If they did, FCA (Fiat Chrysler, which includes Dodge and Jeep) would be out of business! Land Rover is another one that I don't understand. They're consistently rated at or near the bottom of all car companies for reliability, but people still buy them again and again. I have a cousin who is on her third Range Rover and all of them have spent substantial time (weeks) in the shop.