It seems kind of desperate to instead of addressing the quality problems Edmunds has experienced with their long term test vehicles, instead attack Edmunds' reliability as a whole based on the accuracy of a cost of ownership calculator they have on their site, as though that makes the problems their GM vehicles have experienced any less real.

But on to addressing what you spent so much effort spelling out yet still didn't see right in front of you. The Malibu's bumper to bumper warranty is 3 years 36k miles.

Edmunds assumes 15k miles per year meaning at about 2 years and 5 months into the ownership term, the Malibu would be out of warranty on all components except the major powertrain items.

 

Desperate? Please! I've got nothing to be desperate about. I'm just trying to enlighten people to the fact that Edmunds is far from a bastion of integrity with their numbers. From that you can go one of two ways: (1) Their TCO numbers may be faulty, but that doesn't mean their reviews aren't spot-on, or (2) If their TCO numbers are this flawed, how well do they gather information across the rest of their processes - and does that taint their reviews? Personally, I don't care what you want to believe.

If my bread-and-butter website revolved around car reviews and stats, I think I'd try and put out at least a half-assed effort in making sure the *easy* things were done right (and were consistent). On that note, let me show you another, outrageous example that just shouldn't happen:

2010 Matrix AWD/auto:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/toyo...40881/cto.html
2010 Pontiac Vibe AWD/auto:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/pont...44445/cto.html

The same vehicle, screwed together at the same plant.. yet not suprisingly, the Pontiac costs more for both maintenance and repairs.

 

The repair costs are derived from what the manufacturer quotes as their true (no profit) cost for extended warranties in that same time/mileage frame. Thus why there's some very small variance there.

Maintenance is based on each manufacturer's recommended services and intervals, which do vary between Toyota and GM.

These mostly flawed attempts of yours to point out a perceived lack of integrity by picking apart a simple calculator feature that ESTIMATES total costs of ownership on Edmunds... they do seem desperate when you're trying so hard to connect a dot between that and suggesting they are flat out lying about various parts on their CTS failing and needing service.

You're ignoring the massive number of problems they've had here and are instead getting defensive, attack Edmunds' integrity in the process.

For what it's worth I've been reaidng their site for many years now and have never detected a bias in their reviews, unlike a couple of the magazines out there.

 

Contrary to what you've stated, repairs costs are not "derived" - but are "estimated"; here's their exact description (emphasis, mine):

Repairs
This is the ESTIMATED expense for repairs not covered by the vehicle manufacturer's warranties over the five years from the date of purchase, assuming 15,000 miles are driven annually. WE ESTIMATE this expense...

While maintenance intervals do vary, that certainly wouldn't account for a variance in the "repair cost" category. As for repair costs themselves, GM's 5yr/100k powertrain warranty DOES apply to the Vibe, meaning Matrix owners should likely have a slightly higher repair cost (on average) than the Vibe owners. Edmunds numbers don't reflect this--but instead show the opposite: the Matrix being cheaper to repair.

Again, I'm pointing out an area where Edmunds can be questioned. It leads me to wonder what other areas where they are less-than-thorough. If it doesn't give you pause, so be it. Perhaps you should re-read my posts: I have made no attempt to dismiss their long-term findings (or associate them with lying) with GM (or any other) vehicles. As I've said from the beginning: I find some of their numbers questionable and it does make me wonder about the integrity of the rest of their processes.

If 'you've read their site for many years and haven't found any evidence of a bias', then good-for-you: I'm happy for you. That's not good enough for me; I'm certainly more skeptical.

 

One more thing; as for your original post:

"Case in point (I'm not even trying to dig here... just a few off the top of my head from my limited reading of their blog)"

I find it really hard to believe these "are right off the top of your head from limited reading of their blog" when you site blog posts dating back to the spring and summer of 2007. You just happened, "off the top of your head" to sift through 2 1/2 years of GM reviews? GM's apparent quality issues with these vehicles are inexcusable - but you can consider me skeptical on more than just Edmunds number-gathering..