Spring is almost here, so Consumer Reports’ annual auto issue is out. A few thoughts now that I’ve had a chance to glance through the 2008 version.

First, some old news. Many people assume that because the issue is new and Consumer Reports makes such a big deal out of it that the reliability information in the issue is based on recent data and is also new. I’ve read many forum posts where the author said, “Well, the new auto issue is out, so now I can buy a car.”

I find this mildly amusing, since the reliability information in this issue is always nearly a year old, based on a survey conducted the previous spring. The results have even been available since last fall.

So why the big deal with an issue in the spring? Well, as one of my grad school advisers used to advise, “Why publish once what you can publish twice?” Or more. They initially publish the results in the fall, but only in an issue available on newsstands. This issue is then repackaged a few times. Finally, in the spring, print subscribers are finally provided with this now old information.

In general TrueDelta’s results track with those of Consumer Reports. But in some cases they differ. Sometimes this might be because we ask different questions. But another reason is that TrueDelta’s results are currently based on the year ending December 31, 2007, while theirs are based on the year ending last April or so. A lot can change with a car in eight months. With older cars, at some point they hit a point where repairs start piling up. With TrueDelta’s method, this information will be available much sooner.

One thing I’ve never accused Consumer Reports of is a bias against domestic cars. But this is the charge they hear most often. As I’ve been learning myself, people who don’t like a result love to claim its the product of bias.

Lately, Consumer Reports has been going out of its way to try to change this perception. They recently made a big deal about the high road test scores earned by the new Chevrolet Malibu and Cadillac CTS. On the cover of the issue they place a photo of a Chevrolet Silverado next to the “Top 10 Picks of the Year” blurb. (It’s the only non-Asian product among the picks.) When discussing “reliability trends,” they highlight the Ford Fusion at the top of the page, and have a section on Ford’s recent improvement. In the “vehicle ratings” section, where they provide recommendations, they have photos of six vehicles–and three of them are domestic models.

What they aren’t doing: countering any of the critiques I have made. It’s easier to counter the false accusations, after all.

One of those recommendations is iffy. Last fall they stopped recommending Toyotas before they have reliability data on the model. And yet in the new issue the 2008 Scion xB is recommended, with a predicted reliability of “above average.” That prediction is based on the totally different first-generation car. What’s the deal? Well, it seems the new xB was reviewed before the new policy went into effect, and they didn’t reverse earlier recommendations when the policy changed. The new xB got grandfathered.

This isn’t the way I would have done it, as it risks recommending a car that shouldn’t be recommended. And TrueDelta’s limited data on the new xB suggest that its repair rate is worse than average owing to a number of minor exterior trim issues.

They do have an interesting section on extended warranties that demonstrates that these warranties are rarely worth it. TrueDelta has long advised that most people will not recoup their investment in such a warranty. Consumer Reports does better, providing some actual numbers. Overall, 22 percent of those surveyed came out ahead; the other 78 percent did not. On average, the average person lost $300 on the deal.

One especially interesting number they divulged: among owners of cars that were four to six years old, only four percent had repairs totaling over $1,700 during the previous year. (They don’t explain why this number was chosen.) In other words, expensive repairs are rare.

Consumer Reports’ members are asked to only report serious problems on the survey, but since the percentage reporting such problems is way over four for cars over four years old, clearly some number well below $1,700 tends to qualify as “serious.”

Finally, there’s a blurb about reporting specific common problems in the future. They give the example of the 2004 VW Touareg, where the mosts common problem–with the tire pressure monitoring system–was reported by 19 percent of owners. My take in this particular instance: does a TPMS issue truly qualify as a “serious problem?” Generally it’s just a nuisance–the light stays on. This is the sort of problem that some owners will report but others will not given how Consumer Reports asks the question–“report only problems you considered serious.”

I must also wonder whether their data are clean enough to report problem rates for specific issues. The number of anomalies in their overall results makes this a bit dubious.

Still, it’s good to see them finally doing something new and providing additional information. We’ll have to do that much better here at TrueDelta.