Good and Bad Cars For 2020

Good and Bad Cars For 2020

Today’s new cars just aren’t what they used to be, and we mean that positively. That’s because it’s become increasingly difficult to find a true and terrifically bad car, truck, or crossover sitting on a dealer’s showroom floor. Gone are the days of monumental mechanical calamities, finger-sized fit-and-finish gaps, uneven trim, and overall shoddy workmanship. While no vehicle is perfect, the average model today performs at a higher level, is safer, offers more amenities, is built better, and is much more durable than at any time in motoring history.

And yet the proverbial cream still rises to the top. Some models lead while other lag with regard to their designs, measurable performance attributes, and the degree to which their buyers are ultimately satisfied. Some are plagued by questionable reliability and/or poor resale values, while others are saddled with dated designs and/or technology. Certainly, with the average vehicle selling for $33,871 (according to Kelley Blue Book), astute car buyers should ensure they’re getting the most for their hard-earned money.




Acura RLX

MSRP Range
$54,900 – $61,900

Acura offers only two trim levels on the 2020 RLX. The first is the RLX P-AWS, a well-equipped front-wheel-drive sedan with all-wheel steering. The second is the RLX Sport Hybrid SH-AWD, which upgrades to all-wheel drive and a hybrid powertrain, as well as a bevy of standard luxury and safety features to justify a big bump in price.

The entry RLX P-AWS offers an array of standard luxury features, coupled with a trick up its sleeve. The sedan is powered by a 3.5-liter V6 engine (310 hp, 272 lb-ft) mated to a 10-speed automatic transmission. Though it’s front-wheel-drive, it also has rear-wheel steer, meaning the rear wheels will subtly turn in the opposite direction of the front wheels to help the back of the car swing around turns. Leather-trimmed, heated front seats that can be adjusted 12 ways are standard. So are navigation and a suite of driving safety aids.

One step above that is the RLX Sport Hybrid SH-AWD, which adds a hybrid powertrain and front and rear electric motors, giving the car all-wheel drive. Though both trims are powered by the same engine, the lithium-ion battery in the Sport Hybrid model ups total output (377 hp, 341 lb-ft). Power is sent through a seven-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission for better performance. A premium audio system and parking sensors are among the standard features on a long list of upgrades.

Critics’ Rating: 6.6
Performance: 7.6
Interior: 6.5
Safety: 9.9

While the midsize RLX luxury sedan is likable enough, it lags behind the segment leaders in terms of performance, accommodations, and brand cachet. What’s more, its lofty sticker price prevents it from being a bargain-priced alternative. With an overall score of 59 (out of a possible 100) and a reliability rating of minus-68 (out of a possible plus-100), Consumer Reports liked the RLX’s spacious interior and standard safety systems, but felt its ride was choppy and it’s handling ungainly, and overall found it to be a poor value. It scored below average in the JD Power Initial Quality study and is expected to hold onto just 47% of its original value after three years and 30% after five years.

Here are a few Reasons why the Acura RLX has fallen into this Category:

  • Dual-screen infotainment system is outdated and non intuitive
  • Interior design looks dated
  • Subpar ride and handling for the class
  • The hybrid fails to offer standout efficiency
  • Some dull cabin materials
  • Small trunk
  • Unfortunately, that sedan is the RLX. The flagship Acura sedan is well-made, offers a strong engine and comes with loads of standard features to undercut the competition. But its ride quality is not befitting of a luxury car



Cadillac ATS

Likable enough in many regards, the compact ATS luxury/sports sedan is neither as sporty as the BMW 3 Series it targets, nor is it as luxurious as the Mercedes-Benz C-Class. With an overall score of 57 and a reliability rating of minus-120, Consumer Reports appreciated the ATS’ driving dynamics and exterior/interior styling, but was less enamored of its gruff and under-powered turbocharged engine, very cramped seat and trunk, difficult entry and exiting, and its confounding controls. It scored below average in all three of the JD Power studies (Initial Quality, Dependability, and Design/Performance), and is expected to hold onto just 43% of its original value after three years and 31% after five years.




Chrysler 200

We had high hopes for the good-looking 200 midsize sedans when it debuted, but it’s ultimately outranked in a crowded and competitive market segment. With an overall score of 51-53 and a reliability rating of minus-46, Consumer Reports liked the 200’s styling, available features, and its optional V6 engine, but found its interior room and design to be lacking, the standard four-cylinder engine to be under powered and unrefined, and its automatic transmission to be fussy. It scored below average in all three of the JD Power studies (Initial Quality, Dependability, and Design/Performance), and is expected to hold onto just 41% of its original value after three years and 29% after five years.

The forthcoming 2020 Chrysler 200 will offer the same two drive train options as before. Literally, the customers can make a choice between the fuel economy figures and performance. If you are an economical person, standard 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine is perhaps the perfect choice. This engine is producing 185 HP and 175 lb-ft of torque.

Fuel economy is rated at 23 mpg in the city and 36 mpg on the highway. On the other hand, optional 3.6-liter V6 Pentastar engine delivers 295 horsepower and 262 lb-ft of torque. Fuel economy is significantly lower, 18 mpg in the city and 28 mpg on the highway. Both units are available with a 9-speed automatic transmission.

The price of the brand-new 2020 Chrysler 200 will stay intact. Starting price of $24,500 sounds good for such a luxurious sedan. However, range-topping trim level will cost $40,000.


  Chevrolet Suburban

The full-size Suburban SUV is as purposeful a vehicle as there is, built for large families and/or those who require the ability to tow a large boat or trailer. In truth, for this type of vehicle, it’s hard to beat. But beware that it’s big and ungainly, and is sheer vehicular overkill in absence of such special needs. With an overall score of 54 and a reliability rating of minus-154, Consumer Reports liked many of the Suburban’s attributes, but found it under powered, hard to maneuver and park, difficult to load with cargo, and overpriced. It scored below average in all three of the JD Power studies (Initial Quality, Dependability, and Design/Performance), and is expected to hold onto just 47% of its original value after three years and 32% after five years. It’s substantively similar to the GMC Yukon XL, and the somewhat smaller Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon models, which tend to score somewhat higher.

Is the Chevrolet Suburban a Good SUV?

Yes, the Suburban is a good large SUV. It delivers the sumptuous interior that you would expect from a vehicle costing north of $50,000, and it boasts modern safety and infotainment technology. Two potent V8 engine options get this behemoth moving quickly, and it has fairly composed handling for its size. You might notice a bumpy ride over broken pavement though.

Because the Suburban is built on General Motors’ extended SUV platform, it has some of the best cargo figures in the class. Still, third-row space isn’t as great as that found in other large SUVs. Some rivals in the class earn higher predicted reliability ratings than the Suburban.

2020 Chevrolet Suburban Dimensions

  • Length: 18 feet, 8.4 inches
  • Height: 6 feet, 2.4 inches
  • Curb weight: 5,586 to 6,021 pounds

How Much Does the Chevrolet Suburban Cost?

The 2020 Chevrolet Suburban starts at $50,800, which is one of the highest base prices among large SUVs. The two higher trims start at $55,800 and $65,500. Rear-wheel drive is standard in all of these models, and adding four-wheel drive raises the price by $3,000.

The Suburban comes standard with a 5.3-liter V8 engine. A 6.2-liter V8 is optional in the range-topping Premier trim, and a model equipped with that engine starts at $70,925.

Suburban Performance

Suburban Engine: Two V8s

The Chevy Suburban comes standard with a 5.3-liter V8 engine that makes 355 horsepower and 383 pound-feet of torque. It’s paired with a six-speed automatic transmission, and that combination capably moves this large SUV with ease.

A 6.2-liter V8 engine that produces 420 horsepower and 460 pound-feet of torque is optional and comes with a more modern 10-speed automatic transmission. Models with this powertrain have quicker acceleration, but they come at a premium of nearly $20,000 over the price of a base Suburban.

Suburban Gas Mileage: About Average

There isn’t a lot of disparity in overall fuel economy among large SUVs, and the Suburban places right in the middle. With its base engine and standard rear-wheel drive, this Chevy returns an EPA-estimated 15 mpg in the city and 22 mpg on the highway. Four-wheel-drive models get 14 mpg in the city and 21 mpg on the highway.

Estimates for the 6.2-liter V8 engine aren’t much different: Rear-wheel-drive models get 14/23 mpg city/highway, and those with four-wheel drive get 14/20 mpg city/highway.

J.D. Power gives the 2020 Chevrolet Suburban a predicted reliability rating of three out of five, which is about average. All large SUVs boast a rating of three or above.


Dodge Journey

The midsize Journey crossover SUV is slated to undergo a complete redesign next year, and it couldn’t come soon enough to cure its inherent ills. With an overall score of 45 and a reliability rating of minus-79, Consumer Reports liked the Journey’s ride quality, quietness, and cabin storage, but otherwise called out its poor handling, unresponsive transmission, fuel economy, rear visibility, tiny third-row seat, and its poor small-overlap frontal crash test rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). It scored below average in the JD Power Dependability study and is expected to hold onto just 38% of its original value after three years and 24% after five years. Dodge Journey relies on hefty cash rebates to spur sales. It lacks many key features and seems crude and unrefined compared to the top models in its segment. Consumer Reports rates it as below average with poor reliability

For 2020, the Journey lineup is simplified to just two models, the SE Value trim and Crossroad. Also gone is the 3.6-liter V-6 engine as well as the option for all-wheel drive, which leaves just an anemic 4-cylinder under the hood and front-wheel drive. Rear parking sensors are now standard. A popular equipment package adds Bluetooth with voice command, tri-zone climate control, a power driver’s seat, cloth upholstery, and more to the SE Value trim and navigation, premium sound, and heated front seats and steering wheel to the Crossroad trim.

With the V-6 killed off, the Journey’s only engine is an overworked 2.4-liter inline-4 with 172 horsepower and front-wheel drive. An ancient 4-speed automatic sloshes through the gears, and while ride quality is fine, gas mileage (21 mpg combined) and handling leave a lot to be desired.

Besides its low price, the Journey’s only redeeming quality is its versatile interior, which offers surprising space and room for up to seven occupants in a compact package, though the third row is best used only for children.

Crash test scores negate its appeal as a cheap new family vehicle, however, with poor frontal scores from both the federal government and IIHS. Automatic emergency braking is nowhere to be found, and a rear view camera was only added when the government required it.

With the V-6 and all-wheel drive no longer available, the 2020 Dodge Journey is even less compelling than it was last year. We give it 2 out of 10 here.

We’re not sure why Dodge did away with the V-6, all-wheel-drive Journey, as it was the more popular model for all except rental fleets. Buyers are left with an anemic 2.4-liter inline-4 with 173 horsepower and 166 pound-feet of torque, hardly enough to motivate the Journey’s 4,000-pound husk. What’s worse is the 4-speed automatic – even lowly micro cars like the Mitsubishi Mirage feature at least 5 gears – that somehow manages to be both sluggish and unmatched to the engine. Front-wheel drive is the only configuration now that all-wheel drive is gone, again limiting the Journey’s value proposition.

Ride quality is fine, but steering and body control feel as outdated as the platform. Nearly any other crossover offers a better driving experience.

The 2020 Dodge Journey is one of the least safe new vehicles you can buy.

The 2020 Dodge Journey just isn’t up to modern safety standards, full stop. For that, we give it a lowest-possible score of 1 out of 10.

The NHTSA gives the Journey four stars out of five overall, which sounds okay at first, but comes with the caveat that nearly every one of the Journey’s competitors gets five stars. The IIHS is similarly concerned with its frontal crash test scores, giving a “Poor” rating for the small front overlap test on the driver’s side and another “Poor” for the halogen headlights.

Arguably worse is the fact that Dodge has never bothered to fit the Journey with any active safety features like automatic emergency braking, and only added rear parking sensors to the standard-equipment list this year. It earns a sole point for decent outward vision.

The 2020 Dodge Journey earns subpar EPA ratings.

The 2020 Dodge Journey still isn’t efficient despite getting rid of its more powerful and thirstier power train. We give it 4 out of 10 here.

The front-drive 4-cylinder Journey earns EPA ratings of 19 mpg city, 25 highway, 21 combined. Those would be low figures for a large crossover SUV with a big, powerful V-6 engine.

Ford Fiesta

Ford Fiesta ST

Like many subcompacts, Ford’s smallest car tends to compete with larger late-model used cars on price, and doesn’t necessarily succeed in that regard. With an overall score of 44 and a dismal reliability rating of minus-267, Consumer Reports thought the Fiesta sedan/hatchback felt substantial, with good fuel economy and ride and handling qualities, but found the car to overpriced, with very tight rear seat room, and featured poorly designed controls; it also found the available three-cylinder engine to be lacking. (The sporty ST version fares better, but is costly.) It scored below average in the JD Power Dependability study, and is expected to hold onto just 44% of its original value after three years and 29% after five years.

The new Fiesta ST will be priced from $31,990 plus on-road costs when it arrives in dealerships in late January or early February 2020, giving it a drive-away price of close to $35,000.

As before, the new Fiesta ST is only available with a six-speed manual transmission; there is currently no automatic available globally.

Although the new Ford Fiesta ST has more power and torque than before, the vehicle’s weight has increased due to the slightly bigger body and extra equipment (up 65kg to 1262kg on equivalent European models).

Unfortunately, the brakes have not increased in size to match the new model’s extra mass, although the calipers are painted red. The vented front discs and solid rear discs are the same size as before. There is currently no Ford Performance-approved brake upgrade package available.

Ford Focus Ford Focus ST

The compact car market is traditionally one of the industry’s most cutthroat segments, and it takes a lot more than the Focus can muster to stand out in a crowded field. With an overall score of 54 and a reliability rating of minus-118, Consumer Reports gave the Focus sedan/hatchback good marks for its ride, handling and fuel economy, but criticized it for its awkward controls, a too-cramped rear seat, and its poor reliability.

September 1, 2019: The new 2020 Ford Focus ST hot hatch will start from $44,690 plus on-road costs when it arrives in January – and a six-speed manual or a seven-speed automatic transmission will be a no-cost option.

The price of the new model has risen significantly – by between $5700 and $6400 – to $44,690 plus on-roads (almost $50,000 drive-away) but Ford has loaded it with the works.

A heated leather steering wheel, partial leather seats, a sensor key with push-button start, power-folding side mirrors with puddle lamps, ambient LED interior lighting and dual zone air-conditioning are also standard.

The full suite of safety tech includes autonomous emergency braking, blind-zone warning and rear cross-traffic alert, lane keeping assistance, and a rear camera and rear sensors. Front parking sensors are not available. Automatic models gain radar cruise control with traffic jam assistance.

As with its smaller sibling, the Ford Fiesta ST, which is due in local showrooms at the same time, the only options for the Focus ST are a panoramic sunroof ($2500) and metallic paint ($650).

Dodge Dart

Dodge Dart

Another compact car that misses the mark, the Dart sedan receives an overall score of 53 and a reliability rating of minus-81 from Consumer Reports. CR liked the Dart’s solid and substantial feel and rear seat room, but found its engine choices to be lackluster, with unimpressive fuel economy and uncomfortable seats. It scored below average in the JD Power Initial Quality and Dependability studies and is expected to hold onto just 42% of its original value after three years and 28% after five years.

While the Dart is uniquely styled, it is otherwise a rather disappointing offering. A 160-hp 2.0-liter four, six-speed manual, and front-wheel drive are standard; a 160-hp 1.4-liter turbo four and 184-hp 2.4-liter four are optional. Six-speed automatics are offered on the 2.0- and 2.4-liter engines. An available 8.4-inch touchscreen is easy to use, and several appearance packages provide considerable personalization.






Infiniti Q50

Infiniti Q50

Another also-ran within the European-dominated compact luxury sedan segment, Consumer Reports gives the Q50 an overall score of 57 and a reliability rating of minus-64. CR liked the compact Q50 luxury sedan’s acceleration, outward visibility and roomy interior, but criticized its unrefined power-train, fuel economy, ride and handling, controls, and front seat comfort. It scored below average in the JD Power Design/Performance study, and is expected to hold onto just 46% of its original value after three years and 32% after five years.

Jeep Cherokee

Jeep Cherokee

More stylish than the norm among compact crossover SUVs, the Cherokee–unlike most competitors– is able to venture off road when properly (and expensively) equipped. Consumer Reports gives the Cherokee an overall score of 40-47 and a “poor” reliability rating. CR found it to be solid and quiet, and gave high marks to its infotainment system, V6 towing capacity and off-road abilities; however, it criticized the standard four-cylinder engine, nine-speed automatic transmission, entry/exiting, cargo space, front-seat comfort, and forward visibility. It scored below average in the JD Power Initial Quality study and is expected to hold onto just 45% of its original value after three years and 33% after five years.


Jeep Compass

Jeep Compass

Here’s another crossover SUV that’s gone for far too long without a full redesign, and it was never exactly class-leading in the first place. With an overall score of 43 and a “poor” reliability rating, Consumer Reports found little to like about the compact Compass, other than its controls and fuel economy; it received low marks for engine noise, acceleration, seat comfort, rear visibility, cornering, and braking. It scored below average in the JD Power design/performance study and is expected to hold onto just 36% of its original value after three years and 26% after five years.


Jeep Patriot

Jeep Patriot

Mechanically identical to the Jeep Compass, but with a more traditional Jeep-like look, the dated Patriot hardly warrants a salute. With an overall score of 40 and a reliability rating of minus-45, Consumer Reports noted zero “pros,” but had a long list of “cons,” including engine noise, acceleration, driving position, seat comfort, a too-complicated optional radio, and a poor small-overlap frontal crash test score. It scored below average in the JD Power design/performance study and is expected to hold onto just 37% of its original value after three years and 27% after five years. Most everything said in the previous caption about the above Jeep Compass applies here, except that the Patriot assumes more-traditional Jeep exterior styling. Consumer Reports says it benefits from “a compliant ride and mostly simple controls, but little else stands out.”


Nissan Pathfinder

Nissan Pathfinder

Originally a burly truck-based SUV but now a more passive midsize crossover, the Pathfinder falters in what’s become the most competitive market segment. With an overall score of 53 and a reliability rating of minus-126,Consumer Reports liked the Pathfinder’s spacious interior, easy access, and handy second-row seat, but determined it otherwise had no exceptional abilities, with poor acceleration, clumsy handling, and a cheaply finished interior. It scored below average in the JD Power Dependability study and is expected to hold onto just 44% of its original value after three years and 28% after five years.


BMW 7 Series

BMW 7 Series

BMW’s flagship sedan seems to have lost its edge in recent years. It’s wrapped in languid styling and just doesn’t feel as sporty as it did in earlier renditions; an odd product lineup includes an expensive and not especially efficient gas-electric hybrid model. Consumer Reports takes the 7 Series to task for being “a ponderous, technology-laden vehicle with ungainly handling,” and is included in the publication’s lists of lowest-scoring cars, worst overall values and most expensive operating costs in its class. Not to pile on, but it also gets a rock-bottom resale value rating from ALG and a below average performance score from J.D. Power.


Cadillac XTS

Cadillac XTS

Tell the truth we find the big and benign full-size front-drive XTS sedan to be something of a guilty pleasure. Unfortunately, a boulevard cruiser like this falls short in today’s ultra-sophisticated luxury-car market. Consumer Reports cites the XTS as being among the industry’s worst values, and we think the Chevrolet Impala offers equivalent accommodations for less money. The biggest Caddy also gets low marks for initial quality and performance from J.D. Power and a below-average resale value rating from ALG.


Jeep Wrangler

Jeep Wrangler/Wrangler Unlimited

Though some might argue the iconic Wrangler and its four-door Wrangler Unlimited version are among the best-performing off-road vehicles, they suffer from limited passenger comfort, harsh and erratic ride and handling abilities and excessive wind noise at higher speeds. True, they get great resale value, but the Wranglers placed among the lowest scoring models in Consumer Reports’ testing, with the Unlimited also falling on its worst-values list; the original Jeep’s descendent also gets low marks in initial quality, performance and reliability from J.D. Power.


Lincoln MKS

Lincoln MKS

Continuing with little more than just cosmetic revisions since its debut for the 2009 model year, this full-size Ford Taurus-based model, in the words of Consumer Reports, “doesn’t cut it as a luxury sedan.” Powered by a choice of a turbocharged or non-turbo V6 engine, it gets a below-average performance rating from J.D. Power and a below-average residual value ranking from ALG. CR’s editors further cite it for being one of the worst values among new cars. Adding insult to injury, the MKS is fitted with the MyLincoln Touch multimedia operating system that confounds and distracts drivers at every turn.


Lincoln MKT

Lincoln MKT

The luxury version of the boxier-looking Ford Flex seven passenger crossover SUV shares its engines and many features with the aforementioned MKS, and has been around for nearly as long as that model without undergoing a major update. It receives below-average scores for initial quality and reliability from J.D. Power and below-average marks for depreciation from ALG.


Mitsubishi iMiEV

Mitsubishi iMiEV

The small and oddly shaped four-door i-MiEV is an all-electric car that’s rated at the equivalent of a meek 66 horsepower with an EPA-estimated operating range of just 62 miles on a charge (or less, depending on vehicle speed, ambient temperature and use of accessories). Mitsubishi hasn’t released 2015 model information as of this writing, but the automaker lowered the price by $6,000 last year, which makes it one of the most affordable EVs on the market. Unfortunately, it not only receives a rock bottom rating for residual value from ALG, Consumer Reports gives it one of the publication’s lowest overall performance scores.


Mitsubishi Mirage

Mitsubishi Mirage

Widely panned, Mitsubishi’s return to the subcompact car market provides affordable transportation and little more. It falls short in so many regards, none the least of which is sluggish acceleration from its 74-horsepower three-cylinder engine. Not only does J.D. Power give it below average marks for performance, it’s among Consumer Reports’ lowest scoring models.


Nissan Armada

Nissan Armada

Nissan’s large and lumbering SUV is based on the Titan full-size truck and while it’s roomy and capable of towing a decent-sized boat, it’s a handful to drive with a bouncy ride and heavy handling. The Armada gets low marks from J.D. Power for initial quality and reliability, and garners among the lowest overall scores from Consumer Reports. According to CR, “its overall fuel economy of 13 mpg is abysmal, reliability is poor and ownership costs are the worst in the category.”


Nissan Titan

Nissan Titan

Long in need of a refresh, Nissan’s full-size pickup truck tends to be an also-ran in an intensely brand-loyal segment; it’s handily outclassed by entries from Chevrolet/GMC, Ford and Ram, and to a lesser degree, Toyota. The Titan is rated both below average in residual value from ALG and in performance from J.D. Power; it’s also noted as being among Consumer Reports’ worst values.


Scion iQ

Scion iQ

The eccentric iQ is a micro-sized two-door hatchback with oddly aligned seating that’s said to accommodate three adults and one small child, though it’s best driven solo, if at all. It gets below average ratings across the board for residual value from ALG and initial quality, performance and reliability from J.D. Power. It’s also among Consumer Reports’ lowest rated cars (to quote CR: “the rear seat is awful, the cabin is loud and acceleration is molasses-like”).


Smart For Two

Smart ForTwo

Easy parking is arguably this two-passenger micro-car’s only virtue; it gets decent fuel economy, but any savings at the pump are negated by the car’s need for premium-grade fuel. While the ForTwo is reasonably affordable, it’s rated below average for depreciation; it’s also among Consumer Reports’ lowest-scoring new cars. CR slams the unfortunate ForTwo on the basis of its “tiny, two-passenger cabin, a herky-jerky transmission and an under-powered engine,” going so far as to call the Smart, “a dumb choice.”


Maserati Ghibli

Maserati Ghibli

This is largely a case where one can do a lot better for the money. Though the midsize Ghibli comes wrapped in seductive Italian styling and carries a high degree of brand exclusivity, it’s a mediocre performer. Consumer Reports ranks it 17th out of a field of 17 midsize luxury cars, citing its overly firm ride, sloppy handling, and lack of rear seat room. CR also gives it poor marks for projected reliability.


Jeep Wrangler JK


Jeep Wrangler JK

This is essentially the previous generation of Jeep’s iconic Wrangler, which remains on sale for 2018 alongside the newly redesigned “WranglerJL.” The JK remains second to none with regard to its off-road abilities, but it’s cramped, noisy, unrefined, and brutal over the bumps as a daily driver. The new version is by all accounts more sophisticated. The JK, meanwhile, gets a rock-bottom score of 26 out of 100 from Consumer Reports, further receiving poor reliability grades from both CR and JD Power.


Ford Taurus


Ford Taurus

One of a handful of full-size non-luxury cars on the market, the Taurus is the “oldest” of the bunch, having last been redesigned back in 2010. It performs well enough, though back seat room could be more generous, and it’s a much-better value as a gently used model. Both Consumer Reports and JD Power give it poor marks for reliability.



Fiat 500X

Fiat 500X

The subcompact Fiat 500X is another model that looks good, both on paper and in person, but falters where the proverbial rubber meets the road. With a Consumer Reports score of 35 out of 100, it does only nominally better than the above 500L, and like that model, is rated way below average for projected durability.



Fiat 500


Fiat 500

This stylish subcompact coupe/convertible is Consumer Reports’ highest-rated Fiat, but that means it still scores a below-average 45 out of 100. It’s entertaining to drive, but is smaller inside and rides rougher than many motorists would tolerate. It’s also rated poorly for reliability and suffers among the industry’s worst resale values.




Dodge Grand Caravan

Dodge Grand Caravan

The last of the original minivans, the Grand Caravan was supposed to have been discontinued with the introduction of the Chrysler Pacifica last year, but it remains as the brand’s best-selling model. It’s lingered for too long in its present form, however, and lacks the latest safety features; both Consumer Reports and JD Power give it low marks for reliability. A used version is probably a better deal.


Always research the vehicle you are about to purchase. Seems money does not mean quality necessarily. The Maserati, the Cadillac’s, BMW’s 7 series flagship vehicle, the Lincoln’s and the Infiniti Q50 all expensive vehicles and yet they do not meet the quality standards.

Thank you for reading,


Comments are welcome.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *