I have owned many vehicles of many different marques (including several Ford/Lincoln/Mercury ranging from 1970 on up to 2006, 3 Japanese, 1 German and 2 British marques [both British Leyland managed - not Ford]) over the years, but the most reliable vehicles I have ever owned have been Ford/Lincoln/Mercury, by a very large margin. The easiest to work on was a late '80's Toyota Corolla FX16 GT-S.
I have specifically avoided reporting negative experiences that I've had with other marques, as I'd rather not make owners of those marques feel bad about their major purchase decisions.
Also, Mazda is a Ford company. Several vehicles are shared between Ford and Mazda with only minor styling differences and re-badging. Any reported difference in quality between these Ford and Mazda vehicles clearly demonstrates that there are factors other than quality at play in Consumer Reports. Perhaps the Mazda dealers have better trained technicians? Perhaps the Mazda dealers have better trained service managers who are more pursuasive? Perhaps people who pay the premium for Japanese cars (yes, models from Mazda cost significantly more than their identical Ford-badged counterparts, both new and in terms of resale value) really want to believe that their cars are superior? Perhaps the poor reputation of '80s American cars has led publishers to be more critical of American vehicles in general? Perhaps American car buyers are more critical, expect more, and bring their cars back to the dealers for minor issues more than other marques? Think "cheap, yet picky b@stards", just like me.
Another thing to consider. Feb 2006, I went to the Toyota dealer to look at a Toyota Highlander after I had already seen the Ford Freestyle SEL (top of the line, with DVD entertainment system, AWD, etc., etc.). My goal was to lease a vehicle. Ford had offered $355/mo. with $0 down, including ALL maintenance, and a full bumper-to-bumper warranty, including regular wear and tear items. Toyota wanted $469/mo. with $2000 down for the comparable, but somewhat more cramped and less well equipped 2WD Highlander, without the fancy DVD entertainment package. When I began to negotiate with the salesman, he said, "oh yeah, Ford is just giving them away". He also said, "Toyota doesn't need to negotiate, as these are flying off the showroom floor". So, I went with the Ford, since Ford was "giving them away".
So, my question is, why should I care about Toyota's reliability hype and pay a premium for a LEASED Toyota, when the warranty is exactly the same as Ford's, but the Ford lease includes regular maintenance, including regular wear items, such as tires and brakes? Regardless of "reputation", both cars will be equally reliable for the duration of the lease (the first three years of the vehicle's life, and the length of the warranty). Also, with Toyota's high resale value, why would anyone with any sense pay $6104.00 more (plus regular maintenance and wear items like brakes and tires) over 36 months for a leased Toyota than for a much better equipped, much more comfortable Ford with a lower resale value? So, leasing the Ford instead of the Toyota was a no-brainer. It was FAR WISER to lease the Ford. In fact, I sometimes wish I had waited for the Lincoln MKX, as it is just SO MUCH nicer than anything in the class, that I feel I have missed out, even though I did save some money with the Freestyle.
