this is another waste of "ink" by Consumer Reports.
They're trying to capture far too many variables to make this meaningful.
cost of financing alone is very subjective. Did they compare cost of financing through the dealerships at the time they made this list? We all know financing changes all the time.
And the Wrangler thing... what, they're on the worse list because the cost difference between a Honda Fit? How can anyone really take this "study" seriously??? Nobody is going to compare and cross shop the two. So the "worse list" gets penalized because they're not as "cost efficient" as small cars or sedans. Well that's a no brainer. But some people have needs which take them out of the car category.
There are tons of Wranglers around here and I'd say 90% of them never see offroad use.
it's a specific vehicle that projects a special imagine and many around here want or like.
I'm surprised to see the Impreza on the list yet the more fuel efficient Crosstrek doesn't make it?
![Huh ???](https://www.autos.ca/forum/Smileys/CarTalk/huh.gif)
Is anyone here surprised that cars cost less to run than big SUVs or trucks?
There are a few exceptions but they've basically made a list of small to mid sized cars on the good list and big SUVs and trucks on the worse list. wow... what a surprise.