jk_sea

I want to see an off-road review of a Toyota Camry as done by Consumer Reports, or Forbes. Nevermind, they'd still find a way to give it pardon.

They may claim impartiality and that they test all vehicles the same, but it's really about which tests they use that promote certain brands and/or classes of vehicles. Smart people see right through it and toss it aside just like the sponsored garbage that most reviews are.

I'm not sure how a prescription to "avoid" something should come from nonconformity to mediocrity or even average statistics. But, if you need to be told how to spend your money, by all means, keep reading...

Mark Doiron

Here's a concept for Forbes (and Consumer's Union): Assume your readers have sufficient smarts to buy a vehicle suited for their intended use. That way you don't rate a Porsche for trailer hauling inadequacy--or a Jeep for comfort headed to a night on the town. And separate reliability into serious and nonsense. Taking it to the dealer for a cupholder that doesn't stay put shouldn't be treated the same as a failure that could leave your family stranded 100 miles into a wilderness trip. Not for a Jeep owner, anyway.

big_sur

I think it's probably fair. I mean a Jeep is a terrible vehicle for most people. It's very purpose built and not all that good at doing the things that the vast majority of consumers use their cars for. Sure, maybe the article should have a few more caveats, but if you're not off-roading, which 99% of the population doesn't, a Jeep is not the best choice of vehicle.

Mark Doiron

But virtually 100% of the population occasionally needs to move a major appliance. Yet they don't excoriate Honda Civics because they can't fit a washing machine. Review a product for what it is designed for, and make that clear in the review. Don't review it for what the writers want it to do, or because that's how a certain high percentage of the population uses a loosely similar product. That is nonsense.

Cedo Nulli

Old design...rough ride...slow...purpose built...lacks modern sophistication and technologies...not enough room to carry more stuff...

All things the Jeep Wrangler and the A-10 Warthog have in common. Both still kick ass

JK505

FACT! ^THIS GUY GETS IT

GJeep

It seems to me that many, if not most Jeeps, are purchased by people who do not really offroad.
Many people have Jeeps because of the statement that driving a Jeep makes, or because they just like the iconic shape, or because they live in a climate or topography where a capable 4x4 makes the difference between being mobile or not, or for any other reason which is not offroading.
Whether you like it or not, the Wrangler is a highly capable mall-crawler...
The reality is that offroading is not the only criterion by which the Wrangler is evaluated by many of its buyers.

Most of the "bad" things one could say about Wranglers, apply to a Ferrari 458...
The Ferrari is really a terrible vehicle for most people. It has room for just one shoulder bag, inconvenient to get in or out of it, bad m.p.g., if parked next to a tall sidewalk you can't even open the door, and the list goes on.
The majority of Ferrari owners had never "offroaded" on a race track...
As a DD, a 2-seat Ferrari is much less practical than a Wrangler.
Why is the Ferrari 458 not on the 'cars to avoid' list? ...

jadmt

I agree with the article 100% jeep JK wranglers suck and jeep wrangler unlimited JK's suck the most of all. I owned a 2013 sport unlimited and now own a 2014 Rubicon.....they suck my bank account right down. I have 20,000 miles on my 14 in 1 year and knock on wood no trips to the dealer yet. I had just over 20,000 on my 13 and no trips to the dealer with that one either. No watch mine probably will break down today.

robsjeep9

Boo hoo hoo sounds like you should stop buying jeeps then cause they suck so much and take your money!!! Time to call up mommy and "suck" the tittie to make you feel better lol
Ever hear of the expression "fool me once shame on you... Fool me twice shame on me"

jk_sea

Also this.

I'm so tired of seeing "poor reliability" ratings for things like the infotainment/voice recognition system having a few bugs.

Having an engine or transmission that's gone down the road for 200k miles without issue in the same or different vehicle apparently means nothing because it seems all the reporting industry looks at these days is the first 6-12 months of ownership where "20k miles" is deemed a "long term study".

Vehicles are slapped with categorical nonsense like "worst picks of 2014" or "Top 10 vehicles to avoid" or "poor reliability" because a few owners reported that the vehicle's infotainment doesn't always run the Pandora app in conjunction with their cell phone when they want it to. Who the f*ck cares, that's not going to leave you cold and stranded in a snowstorm or on the side of a busy interstate.