Consumer Reports 2014 omits Genesis

[Coug]

I have the April 2014 Consumer Reports car review addition. I was very surprised to find that the Genesis is not included in their reviews. They have reviewed it favorably in previous years. The Equus is included under "Large Luxury Sedans". The Coupe is included in "Sporty Cars". But the Genesis Sedan is absent. There is a "Coming soon" sidebar that describes "Hyundai Genesis, spring 2014" as follows: "The redesigned Genesis will include carryover powertrains, although the V6 will finally be available with all wheel drive. Our experience with a press car indicates that it's roomy and refined, with considerably improved ride and handling." I wonder if they didn't take the time to provide a review of the 2014 knowing that a redesigned model is just a couple of months away.

 

[EXBMWGUY]

I'd bet on that.

 

[waveman]

I'd bet on that.

I noticed this, too, and chalked it up to the imminent arrival of the '15. But I was surprised to see how poorly the 1st generation has done in Consumer Reports' reliability ratings. I've had few problems so far, but then I'm only a sample of 1.

 

[PMCErnie]

I noticed this, too, and chalked it up to the imminent arrival of the '15. But I was surprised to see how poorly the 1st generation has done in Consumer Reports' reliability ratings. I've had few problems so far, but then I'm only a sample of 1.

Specifics please. The Genesis has been manufactured for 6 model years.

 

[Jimmmmbo!]

I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber. While I don't think it's appropriate to show their specific charts, I can tell you a summary of what they are dinging for reliability (NOTE: Not performance, reliability only):

- Audio system: All years except '13 (no news here, and '13 is probably a lack of data)
- Power equipment: '09-'10 (probably partly the audio system playing in here, but may also be things like the driver seat tracks, as an example)
- Body hardware: '09-'11 (I'm not sure what this is about)
- Fuel system: '09-'10 (probably the fuel smell invading the cabin issue that people have reported here before)

In the end, CR reports the car as having an "average" reliability across the years. This, of course, is representing CR's opinion of reliability. Not everyone looks at that the same way.

As for the Geneisis not being represented in their April issue, I think the OP is making a pretty good assumption that they're just waiting for the new model year. In other words, "Nothing to see here, folks. Move on."

 

[Mark_888]

In the end, CR reports the car as having an "average" reliability across the years. This, of course, is representing CR's opinion of reliability. Not everyone looks at that the same way.

CR sends out surveys to all subscribers to report on the reliability of most major products they own (cars, appliances, etc) and then publishes the statistical information. I am not saying their methodology always uses a scientifically random sample (it only includes CR subscribers and not all subscribers respond), but neither is it based on the mere opinion or interpretation of any CR editors, reviewers, etc.

As for the Geneisis not being represented in their April issue, I think the OP is making a pretty good assumption that they're just waiting for the new model year. In other words, "Nothing to see here, folks. Move on."

If that issue had been published in the fall, I suspect that they would have included the 2014 Genesis even if it was the same as 2013, but the 2015 is expected to be available by end of April or early May.

 

[PMCErnie]

Note this rave review of the Genesis by Consumer Reports.

http://www.genesisowners.com/hyundai-genesis-forum/showthread.php?t=10694&highlight=consumer+reports

 

[Jimmmmbo!]

CR sends out surveys to all subscribers to report on the reliability of most major products they own (cars, appliances, etc) and then publishes the statistical information. I am not saying their methodology always uses a scientifically random sample (it only includes CR subscribers and not all subscribers respond), but neither is it based on the mere opinion or interpretation of any CR editors, reviewers, etc.

Sorry, poorly worded on my part. What you have stated clearly is what I meant.