[VerticallyObese]

 

[RetFF]

Was that just laying inside the door or did you find it somewhere else in you SC?. You cant beat free spare parts.

 

[VerticallyObese]

Under that seat

 

[RetFF]

Odd. I'll have to look under mine.

 

[ToadVine]

At least it wasn't a half-eaten sandwich.

 

[Phil75]

Nothing under the seat of my SEL.

 

[Mike_TX]

Just a couple beer bottles and a taco.

 

[modshack]

Just a couple beer bottles and a taco.

Hey, if it's good enough for Chevy, it's good enough for Hyundai!

 

[Innate]

Just a couple beer bottles and a taco.

Sounds like lunch!

 

[JASmith]

Oof, so maybe Consumer Reports concerns are somewhat valid. Others have reported assembly goofs with parts loose or not quite snapped completely on too.

So CR finally scored the Santa Cruz, and while they seemed to love everything and gave it a high road score, the overall score wasn't great and it didn't hit their "recommended" status due to low predicted reliability. Its odd because the hybrid Tucson they gave high marks and recommended, but its built in Korea. For the US built Santa Cruz and being a first year they weren't convinced. So total score is 59/100, but its just a educated guess based on track history of other vehicles built at that plant and not the SC since its a first year model. Hmmm...

If its any consolation, the Toyota Tacoma they rated even lower at 51/100 in comically the opposite score. They predict the Tacoma will be super reliable, but they hated it in pretty much every other way, opposite of the SC review.

The Ridgeline is still their baby though and they rated it 82/100 as it scored well in much the same way as the SC, but they weren't concerned with its predicted reliability, bumping the score way higher.

 

[JMII]

Poor assembly (especially interior bits) has nothing to do with reliability unless the thing that wasn't snapped in properly causes a failure of some kind. While build quality items like fit and finish can be very disappointing and a major sore spot for owners if the vehicle starts, runs and drives then its technically still reliable as transportation. Example: years ago Ford got ripped in Consumer Reports because their early MS Sync system was quite buggy. There was nothing wrong with vehicle yet their scores dropped due to customer dissatisfaction as tech frustrations lead customers back to dealers reporting stuff wasn't working as expected. Sadly Consumer Reports doesn't list when problems make the vehicle un-driveable or un-useable versus less critical things people find annoying or disappointing.

 

[JASmith]

Poor assembly (especially interior bits) has nothing to do with reliability unless the thing that wasn't snapped in properly causes a failure of some kind.

Of course it does, when its not a simple cosmetic interior piece. Not snapping in an interior piece, OK, big whoop, but doing the same to say a PCV connector can be a big deal. Or for example on the general Hyundai forum I'm on someone noticed that the worker had cross-threaded a suspension bolt really bad, and rather than fess up to the mistake just let it ride and the suspension clunked massively until they figured out which bolt it was that was screwed up (no pun intended). Heck, Hyundai's biggest recall in recent history was for 1.2 million vehicles w/ Theta II engines where it was blamed on assembly issue where the workers were supposedly doing a half-ass job on removing all the metal shavings from machining before final assembly of the engines. The shavings got into oil passages partially blocking them leading to lots of premature wear or complete engine seizures. At least that was Hyundai's explanation for the problem, others said it was a design defect, but can't know for sure.

Not saying that SCs have poor assembly in general, just pointing out that its Consumer Report's concern and that poor assembly can cause reliability issues.

 

[JMII]

That is what I said, missing bits aren't a problem... until they are

I personally don't put that much faith into what Consumer Reports says. They claim my Dakota is a POS that should be avoided at all costs, yet its been one of the most trouble free vehicles I've owned. Especially when you factor in its work load (constant towing) and time on the road (20 years). On the flip side I bet there are people who purchased recommended vehicles that constantly broke down (like my wife's Volvo... ugh). The problem with all these predictions is sorting thru the noise and getting down to understanding a true flaw vs some random issue.

 

[unpredictable1]

That is what I said, missing bits aren't a problem... until they are

I personally don't put that much faith into what Consumer Reports says. They claim my Dakota is a POS that should be avoided at all costs, yet its been one of the most trouble free vehicles I've owned. Especially when you factor in its work load (constant towing) and time on the road (20 years). On the flip side I bet there are people who purchased recommended vehicles that constantly broke down (like my wife's Volvo... ugh). The problem with all these predictions is sorting thru the noise and getting down to understanding a true flaw vs some random issue.

In a previous life I found Consumer Reports biased material on automobiles, years ago they loved beating up on domestics. You only had to look up their assessments of the Geo Prism and it's twin, the Toyota Corolla or the Pontiac Vibe versus the Toyota Matrix. These cars were identical to each other.

Despite being the same car, the domestic versions scored lower. I haven't looked at anything they published in well over 25 years so I don't know if they have gotten any better so take my comments with a grain of salt lol. Maybe all this time that has passed and future reliability scores have evened out? 😄