We’ve got the system in place to provide the most up-to-date, most “real world” vehicle reliability information. Now we just need more participants. The 35,700 vehicles signed up so far are a great start. But 100,000 would be better. How to get there? Well, media coverage would help. But it has proved surprisingly difficult to obtain this coverage.

A major source of this difficulty: much of the media believes that the best possible mousetrap has already been invented as far as vehicle reliability research is concerned. So there’s no point–and no story–in what TrueDelta has achieved. As much as I’d like to “run my own race,” this belief must be directly challenged if we’re to grow like we need to grow.

Perhaps some in the media are aware that Consumer Reports could do a better job. But this has been overridden by the integrity of that organization. That Consumer Reports doesn’t accept advertising apparently places them above critique. I also hear that Consumer Reports simply has so many survey responses–they emphasize this point themselves–and they’ve been around for so long. But being big and old hasn’t placed General Motors and Ford above critique. So why should these be the end all with regard to Consumer Reports?

Consumer Reports’ refusal of advertising and other such entanglements is admirable. As is their independence and integrity. For similar reasons, TrueDelta solicits no ads from anyone with a stake in our results. (We have no control over the ads supplied by Google, and no direct contact with those advertisers.)

But should this refusal to accept advertising be everything? Shouldn’t the timliness and transparency of the information also matter? I’ve never called Consumer Reports’ integrity into question. Instead, I’ve focused on two major shortcomings that led me to develop a better research process, because I personally wanted better information.

The result: TrueDelta posts actual repair rates, not just dots, to make the size of the differences between clear. And it posts this information as much as 14 months sooner than Consumer Reports.

For example, we had initial reliability information on the Jaguar XF in August, and will have a full result in November (with a preview already available for members). Consumer Reports won’t have a result for the car until October 2009.

Consumer Reports recent release of its latest results was covered by hundreds of media outlets. None of the stories I’ve seen have stepped outside the bounds set by Consumer Reports’ press release. None have noted the age of the data on which the results are based or that only relative ratings are provided.

Many journalists enjoy nothing more than having a story first, to have a “scoop.” For some, if they’re a day late, they might as well not publish the story at all.

So I’ve often wondered why TrueDelta doesn’t receive recognition for being not just a day or two ahead of any other source of vehicle reliability information, but months ahead, even a year ahead. The message: if Consumer Reports doesn’t have a result yet, then car buyers should simply wait until they do, or simply do without reliability information when buying a car.

Does the media even help Consumer Reports in the long run by not taking a close look at its research and reporting process, and by ignoring alternatives? History makes it quite clear what happens to an organization when it is left uncritiqued and unchallenged. The outcome is rarely good for organization, much less those it serves.

At some point, we’ll get large enough that at least some media coverage will follow. Until then, TrueDelta’s growth depends on word-of-mouth. Anyone who wants the better, quicker vehicle reliability information TrueDelta’s process provides: we’re counting on you to help make it happen.