Operating TrueDelta, it would be in my interest to assert that Consumer Reports’ results are incorrect. But I’ve never made this argument, nor do I believe that their results are generally incorrect. Instead, I’ve repeatedly found that people’s interpretations of Consumer Reports’ results are often incorrect. A current example could have serious consquences…

In a recent Detroit Free Press article, a leading automotive journalist writes that Chrysler’s “dismal showing” in Consumer Reports’ latest reliability ratings “raises serious questions about Cerberus’ management of the automaker it acquired in 2007.” An industry consultant concurs, wondering what Chrysler gained from all of the changes it claims to have made last year to improve quality.

Both have misread Consumer Reports’ results.

It is true that Chrysler does poorly in Consumer Reports’ latest results, and worse than it did in the previous set of results. But what both the journalist and the consultant don’t realize is that the results are based on a survey conducted nearly a year ago, and are no different than the reliability results Consumer Reports first released last Fall.

Consequently, any improvements due to Cerberus’ management would not show up in these results, but would instead show up in the next set of results, in October. Note that there isn’t a single 2009 Chrysler product in the current results, and the 2008s were introduced before Cerberus could have had any impact.

The likely reason for this misperception: Consumer Reports publicizes these results as “new,” even though the reliability data on which they are based were mostly collected in April 2008.

Normally this long lag between the time Consumer Reports collects its data and the release of the Annual Auto Issue doesn’t have huge consequences. It simply results in people buying cars without knowing how these cars have been performing for the last year or so. But in Chrysler’s case, this misperception could provide fatal. These people won’t be the only ones to reach these conclusions after reading Consumer Reports’ latest press release, not by a long shot. Washington might do the same.

Unjustly so? This would depend on whether or not Cerberus has improved Chrysler’s product reliability. With prompt updates four times a year, TrueDelta’s research process could answer this question–except that few members have been buying 2009 Chryslers. Many dealers probably still have 2008s on their lots.

Even so, we do have results for the 2009 Dodge Journey, which happens to be the only new product introduced since Cerberus started making changes.

So, how is the Dodge Journey faring? Not well, with a reported repair rate of 136 repair trips per 100 cars per year, about 2.5 times the average.

This provides some evidence that Cerberus’ changes aren’t working. But this evidence is far from conclusive. The Journey was introduced just a few months after Cerberus took over. And it’s just one model. In other words, even with the most up-to-date car reliability data it’s probably too soon to render a verdict on Cerberus’ attempts to improve Chrysler’s product reliability.

We’ve been asked why it matters that TrueDelta’s car reliability information is, on average, over nine months ahead of the information provided by other sources. The plight of the domestic auto industry provides the most significant answer yet. These companies are fighting for their lives. They continue to have trouble selling cars because of lingering perceptions, sometimes well-founded, more often not, that domestic cars are unreliable. If these companies are making improvements in the reliability of their products, getting awareness of this improvement to the public up to fourteen months months earlier could make the difference between surviving, and not surviving.

While these companies don’t deserve to survive indefinitely simply because it would be costly in the short run to have them fail, they do deserve to have their products evaluated based on the most current information possible. TrueDelta’s Car Reliability Survey is uniquely designed to provide this information.