American publication Consumer Reports has been calling it the way they see it since 1936, based on both their own testing and on statistics drawn from industry - which, in terms of what works and what doesn't, can be pretty scary.
But probably its most controversial pages are those covering the United States' automotive market, not least because in the US comparative advertising is not only legal but encouraged, but also because the concept is so subjective - there are as many opinions about the perceived quality of any given model as there are car enthusiasts.
The magazine's annual 'Top Picks' recommendations are consulted by buyers, quoted by industry analysts and featured in tub-thumping publicity material by automotive marketing mavens.
CARS TO AVOID
Less well-known is the publication's annual list of cars to avoid - whether on the basis of unreliability, thirst or poor performance - which seems to bring out the troll in most of the readers who comment on the magazine's website.
These, according to Consumer Reports, are the cars you should not be buying in 2014, by categories, together with quotes from its write-ups.
You don't have to agree with them, but they make fascinating reading.
HATCHBACKS
Smart ForTwo:“Very slow acceleration off the line. Fuel consumption not bad at six litres per 100km overall, but has a harsh ride, clumsy handling, and an automated manual transmission with extremely jerky and jarring gear changes.”
Chevrolet Spark:“The best it can muster is loud, slow acceleration combined with an unimpressive 7.6 litres per 100km and deafening engine roar any time you ask for more power, which is frequently. The cabin is cramped and extremely loud, handling lacklustre and the ride is stiff and jittery.”
COMPACT SEDANS
Mitsubishi Lancer:“Two-litre engine is sluggish from a stop, tends to moan at high revs, and returns uncompetitive fuel consumption. Cornering grip is limited. Cabin is furnished in drab plastics with below-average fit and finish.”
Dodge Dart:“Dodge compact sedan falls short. 1.4-litre has enough power but sounds thrashy; optional automated manual transmission is unrefined and stumbles at low speeds. Base two-litre non-turbo four feels underpowered. Reliability of two-litre is above average but not enough to recommend; the turbo is below average.”
LUXURY SEDANS
Lexus IS:“Competes in a sporty group, but fails miserably. IS 250's small V6 is refined but performance is pokey, and 11.2 litres per 100km is unreasonably thirsty. The IS 350 is punchier but also underwhelming to drive. Handling is secure but not engaging enough for a true sports sedan. Ride comfort is neither tied down nor plush. And if you expected Lexus-like quiet, you're also out of luck. Even by the class's minimal standards, the IS interior is extremely cramped. Getting in and out is an ungraceful chore. Fit and finish is simply OK. Controls have adapted the mouse-like controller found in other Lexus models, which proves fussy and distracting.”
BMW 7 Series:“Ponderous, technology-laden vehicle with ungainly handling. Many controls are complex and frustrating to use. Reliability has been average but the 7 Series scored too low in our tests to recommend.”
SMALL SUV's
Jeep Compass:“Comes up short in a crowded market. Handling is secure but not agile. Sluggish 2.4-litre four returned 10.7 litres per 100km overall. Upright front seats are narrow and not particularly comfortable, the cabin is cramped and basic. High beltline makes the cabin feel claustrophobic and styling restricts visibility to the rear. “
Jeep Patriot:“Handling lacks agility. Sluggish 2.4-litre four-cylinder returned 11.3 litres per 100km overall, and the CVT exacerbates engine noise. Narrow cabin, wide centre console, and small windows give the car a closed-in feeling, and the cargo area is small.”
Jeep Cherokee 2.4:“Small Cherokee could be a contender if it weren't so underdeveloped and unrefined. It just doesn't get the fundamentals right for everyday use. 2.4-litre four-cylinder engine is rough, slow, and overworked, and burns 10.7 litres per 100km. Shifts from the standard nine-speed automatic feel clunky and uncoordinated. Handling lacks agility and the ride is jittery.”
Jeep Wrangler:“3.6-litre V6 and five-speed automatic returned 13.9 litres per 100km. 2014 Wrangler is better than ever before but nearly every other SUV is nicer for everyday use. The ride rocks and jiggles constantly, and handling is very clumsy. Wind noise becomes very loud at highway speeds. Getting in and out is awkward and the interior is uncomfortable. Side-crash results without the optional side air bags are unimpressive. Reliability of the four-door version is below average, the two-door version is average. “
Mitsubishi Outlander:“Handles clumsily and feels like a larger vehicle. The ride is fairly stiff. The sluggish acceleration is accompanied by raucous engine noise. The loud cabin is dressed in trim that looks cheap and feels insubstantial.”
LARGE SUV's
Toyota FJ Cruiser:“This SUV is very flawed. Visibility is horrendous, and the rear-hinged rear doors provide poor cabin access and are difficult to close. The FJ has clumsy handling and can be disconcerting at its limits, while the ride is compliant but jiggly. V6 powertrain burns 14 litres per 100km, reliability is average. “
LUXURY SUV's
Range Rover Evoque:“More about style than functionality. The ride is choppy, handling becomes disconcerting at the limits and noise levels are elevated. Interior room and visibility are sacrificed for the striking silhouette; controls are a bit quirky.”
Volvo XC90:“Outdated and outclassed. 3.2-litre six feels underpowered and fuel consumption of 14 litres per 100km is not impressive. The ride is stiff and unsettled, and handling lacks agility. The reverse camera's display is so slow to rise out of the dashboard that by the time it shows an image you may be finished reversing. The radio controls are convoluted and folding the third-row seat is more of a chore than it should be.”
The Jeep Wrangler recorded the lowest score of the 2014 models tested so far, with just 20 points out of a possible 100.