Consumer Reports-Top 10 Cars

OK, I don't really read CR either, but guess which popular two-seat import made their list?

~Click Here~

So, how much did Toyota bribe CR to have so many of its cars on that list? Figures those tightwads pick a snoozefest Lexus as "best overall."

it's a magazine for non-car people who never want to become car people but need to drive a car and are embarrassed to ask their neanderthal car people friends what car to buy.

^ What he said. ^ I mean come on, now. A $77,000 Lexus was best all around? It damn well better be. How about for the rest of us?

Not to mention yes indeedy they are biased as hell.

Yes, a $70,000 car is good... well it BETTER be, its 70 GRAND!

Sounds like they need the "bang for the buck" speech...

Jensenman wrote: ^ What he said. ^ I mean come on, now. A $77,000 Lexus was best all around? It damn well better be. How about for the rest of us? Not to mention yes indeedy they are biased as hell.

These discussions about CR bias always crack me up. What bias? They accept no advertising and are subscription supported. They have scientists on staff (as opposed to "enthusiasts") and provide clear concise reviews without excess appreciation for sportiness, which is a lower priority than reliability to 95% of the population. Their used car reliability survey is real world data collected from owners, and is a pleasant juxtaposition to the JD Power "award for everyone" mentality.

So lets hear some backup for those claims folks.....

Their used car reliability survey is real world data collected from owners

Because typical car owners are capable of providing useful data without bias. Like the woman that told me she'd never buy another north american car because her Vibe was a POS. Most people are so ridiculously clueless when it comes to cars, you can't believe anything they say. CR is little more than entertainment, IMO.

Dashpot wrote:

Jensenman wrote: ^ What he said. ^ I mean come on, now. A $77,000 Lexus was best all around? It damn well better be. How about for the rest of us? Not to mention yes indeedy they are biased as hell.

These discussions about CR bias always crack me up. What bias? They accept no advertising and are subscription supported. They have scientists on staff (as opposed to "enthusiasts") and provide clear concise reviews without excess appreciation for sportiness, which is a lower priority than reliability to 95% of the population. Their used car reliability survey is real world data collected from owners, and is a pleasant juxtaposition to the JD Power "award for everyone" mentality. So lets hear some backup for those claims folks.....

I can't remember them exactly buttttt

Isuzu Rodeo and the Honda Passport (made by Isuzu). The Honda's interior was described as rugged. The Isuzu's was described as loud and spartan or something like that.

Pontiac Vibe was called loud and underpowered (or something like that). The Matrix was called "peppy".

as far as the actual ratings go (the little bubbles), I have no idea, but the write-ups used to be misleading. I won't speak for them now, I haven't looked at one of those rags in about 4 years.

^^ Exactly. CR called the Isuzu Trooper 'unsafe at any speed' When Isuzu sued over the article, CR huffed and puffed and basically said 'we are never wrong'. Suzuki also sued them over the Samurai for very similar reasons.

Here's the funny part: both Isuzu and Suzuki won (or at least came to a standoff) their lawsuits. Did CR ever print a retraction? No. That's why Isuzu got crappy ratings compared to the exact same Honda badged vehicle.

http://car-reviews.automobile.com/news/american-suzuki-and-consumer-reports-magazine-settle-lawsuit/179/ From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports

"In 1996, Consumers Union (CU) published a report indicating that the 1995-96 Isuzu Trooper sport utility vehicle had demonstrated a "tendency to roll over in certain situations" in its tests, and that it had determined that this was "not acceptable". In a press conference, it called on Isuzu to discontinue sales and recall Troopers already sold, and continued to issue warnings about the Trooper, advising the public not to buy the vehicle, and suggesting that federal officials should launch an investigation into possible product defects. Isuzu filed a lawsuit against CU as a result of the article; the court ruled that CR had made "numerous false statements" and had put the Isuzu through tests that competitors were not subjected to, but though eight of ten jurors wanted to assign punitive damages, they did not find enough evidence of malicious intent and did not assign Isuzu cash damages."

I've heard similar stories about their reviews of things like appliances etc. Tidbit: most appliances are made by just a couple of 'prime manufacturers' and get different labels slapped on them as they go down the assembly line. Don't take my word for it; for instance go check out the Rheem A/C plant here in SC. So it's very possible that when they test multiple refrigerators that they are really testing the exact same model yet each will get different ratings, like the Vibe/Matrix thing.

If they aren't going to do the minimum amount of research to ensure that they are reporting accurately, then I have no use for them.

Dashpot wrote:

Jensenman wrote: ^ What he said. ^ I mean come on, now. A $77,000 Lexus was best all around? It damn well better be. How about for the rest of us? Not to mention yes indeedy they are biased as hell.

These discussions about CR bias always crack me up. What bias? They accept no advertising and are subscription supported. They have scientists on staff (as opposed to "enthusiasts") and provide clear concise reviews without excess appreciation for sportiness, which is a lower priority than reliability to 95% of the population. Their used car reliability survey is real world data collected from owners, and is a pleasant juxtaposition to the JD Power "award for everyone" mentality. So lets hear some backup for those claims folks.....

I used to be a computer technician. I knew that Sony and Compaq used the EXACT SAME 14" LCD, which was manufactured by Sharp, and video chipset in their laptops. In a laptop comparison article, CR gave the Sony an "Excellent" rating for its display, and gave the Compaq an "Average" rating? Hmm....

CU also screwed up testing of child safety seats, then tried to claim that 1) they are not really equipped to do any testing other than low speed bumper impact (so why are they doing child seat testing in the first place?) then 2) sort of tried to say that the NHTSA is supposed to have stricter test criteria in place by 2009 and they (CU) would be testing closed to the '09 standards.

From the same Wiki I linked above:

"The February 2007 issue of Consumer Reports stated that only two of the child safety seats it tested for that issue passed the magazine's side impact tests. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which subsequently retested the seats, found that all those seats passed the corresponding NHTSA tests at the speeds described in the magazine report. The CR article reported that the tests simulated the effects of collisions at 38.5 mph. However, the tests that were completed in fact simulated collisions at 70 mph.[15] CR stated in a letter from its president Jim Guest to its subscribers that it would retest the seats. The magazine issue with erroneous findings has not been recalled, but the letter states that after the seats are retested, the results of that test will be published. The article was removed from the CR website, and on January 18 2007 the organization posted a note on its home page about the misleading tests. Subscribers were also sent a postcard apologizing for the error.

On January 28, 2007, Joan Claybrook, who served on the board of CU from 1982 to 2006 (and was the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 1977 to 1981), discussed the sequence of events leading to the publishing of the erroneous information. The magazine contracted with Calspan to do the actual testing; due to miscommunication, the tests were conducted (using test sleds) at an actual speed of 38 miles per hour. In fact, since automobiles in a crash continue to move after the crash—rather than absorbing all the energy of impact as a test sled does—a test sled impact of 38 miles per hour is considered equivalent to an automobile crash of 70 miles per hour; to replicate an automobile crash of 38 miles per hour, as was intended, the test sled crash should have been carried out at 20 miles per hour.

Claybrook admitted that the magazine should have been motivated to double-check the surprising results; however, she also pointed out that CR was attempting to execute what should have been NHTSA's work. "Consumer Reports does not conduct crash tests save for low-speed bumper-impact tests," she stated. "It has limited expertise in designing such [crash] tests." She further noted that in 2000 Congress had mandated NHTSA to define a set of tests and issue a set of safety standards for child restraints within two years, but that NHTSA still had not yet done so, "though it took less than ten days to evaluate Consumer Reports’ testing and find the error."

BTW, when Claybrook was NHTSA head she allegedly tried to mandate pressure switches on motorcycle seats so the engine would shut off if the rider stood up. Along with seat belts.

I don't like CR.. but I think they have some good choices in this list..

miata = duh

avalanche = as much as I hate it.. It's a really good truck/family rig compromise..

rav4 = I own one.. It rules.

I think overall the elantra pick is a GREAT ONE. I'm glad they didn't go with a civic/corrolla.

C/R is to cars like Dairy Queen is to gourmet foods.....

Dashpot wrote: These discussions about CR bias always crack me up. What bias? So lets hear some backup for those claims folks.....

How about this? (It's a repoast, but it's my repoast)

I became completely unable to believe a word of Consumer Reports when I read the New Car issue that included both the Honda Passport and the Isuzu Rodeo. The Honda was reviewed as "Very Reliable" and the interior was described as "Rugged". The Isuzu was labeled "Lower Middle" in the reliability category and the interior was described "Cheap and plasticy".

Discerning readers will remember that the vehicles were both made by Isuzu and were utterly identical except for the badging. The berkeleywad idiots didn't even notice and just went with the editorial party line.

Just because you don't take advertising dollars does NOT mean you offer unbiased reporting.

At least they got one right..... They did pick a Hyundai.

Jensenman wrote: BTW, when Claybrook was NHTSA head she allegedly tried to mandate pressure switches on motorcycle seats so the engine would shut off if the rider stood up. Along with seat belts.

Well, this is what we call proactive safety. These changes would have gotten most of the people who ride a motorcycle killed, and convinced the rest of the country never to even try it. Thus, after a couple years, no more motorcycle injuries or deaths! Talk about a massive improvement in overall safety!

I still read their opinion on stuff anyway and here's why; If there's a scale of 0=moron and 10=expert, I find that reading their opinion brings me up to a 5 or 6 on a subject. If the topic is cars, which I would rate myself a 9 at, I laugh at their reviews. If the subject is cell-phone carriers I'm a 2, in which case reading their mag would be better than nothing.

Duke wrote: I became completely unable to believe a word of Consumer Reports when I read the New Car issue that included both the Honda Passport and the Isuzu Rodeo. The Honda was reviewed as "Very Reliable" and the interior was described as "Rugged". The Isuzu was labeled "Lower Middle" in the reliability category and the interior was described "Cheap and plasticy". Discerning readers will remember that the vehicles were both made by Isuzu and were utterly identical except for the badging. The berkeleywad idiots didn't even notice and just went with the editorial party line. Just because you don't take advertising dollars does NOT mean you offer unbiased reporting.

This was what I was looking for. Its even worse than I thought it was.

belteshazzar wrote: I still read their opinion on stuff anyway and here's why; If there's a scale of 0=moron and 10=expert, I find that reading their opinion brings me up to a 5 or 6 on a subject. If the topic is cars, which I would rate myself a 9 at, I laugh at their reviews. If the subject is cell-phone carriers I'm a 2, in which case reading their mag would be better than nothing.

They can write some informative articles about things I'm ignorant about.

I've always had problems with their car reviews. Typically, when a mag is reviewing cars I read a review they did about a car I know well. Then I compare their opinion with mine to get an idea of where their bias is.

GRM and I usually agree. Cuz I'm smert.

belteshazzar wrote: I still read their opinion on stuff anyway and here's why; If there's a scale of 0=moron and 10=expert, I find that reading their opinion brings me up to a 5 or 6 on a subject. If the topic is cars, which I would rate myself a 9 at, I laugh at their reviews. If the subject is cell-phone carriers I'm a 2, in which case reading their mag would be better than nothing.

I agree with that assessment, and appreciate all the other comments too.

I also believe any auto manufacturer who gets blasted by CR is almost required to drag them to court given the amount of revenue on the line in lost sales. Yes the "subcontract child seat thing" was an embarrassment and I bet they don't sub out their testing again. They are not perfect, but seem to have a consistant testing methodolgy that is "safety first" biased and well intentioned.

Having test drove one, the Isuzu Trooper (II) rollover thing is totally believable. I was appalled at the body roll and felt that wallowing pig would land on it's side on a 40 mph exit ramp.

I also seem to remember the court case devolved into questioning the relevance of their Emegency Avoidance Test (which is something like a 45 mph double lane change) being argued as too demanding for a street vehicle by Isuzu. Both sides had their points, but CR's testing methodology remains. I still find their tests to be pretty accurate, if sometimes contrary to popular opinion.

Except when they don't even bother to test Toyotas and instead give them rave reviews. As admitted to now by CR...

Their credibility is nil.

Maybe I'd be a believer in their test methodology if

1) they had decided the 92-94 models had the same problem. It's exactly the same vehicle except for minor trim differences. Yet it passed CR's driving tests, CR didn't start screaming for those to be recalled and

2) I've been driving a 1997 Trooper S for about 5 years now with absolutely ~zero~ incidents of even getting close to a rollover. And every so often I play frustrated rally driver on the exit roads behind the dealership.

I also spent 6 years working for the local Mazda/Isuzu dealer and not once did a customer roll a Trooper over. OTOH, there were two Mazda Navajo rollover incidents (that's a rebadged Ford Explorer which is based on the Bronco II which is known as the rollover king) plus the well known Firestone/Ford rollover recall.

Jensenman wrote: I also spent 6 years working for the local Mazda/Isuzu dealer and not once did a customer roll a Trooper over. OTOH, there were two Mazda Navajo rollover incidents (that's a rebadged Ford Explorer which is based on the Bronco II which is known as the rollover king) plus the well known Firestone/Ford rollover recall.

Point taken. I test drove the Trooper, considered it too tall & soft, then bought the Explorer 4 door that felt better planted than the Trooper to me. I will adopt a little more skepticism next time I check CR though.

Funny, I feel like the solid rear axle Explorers and Grand Cherokees (at least through 2004) feel a lot more top heavy and 'tippy' than my Trooper.

P71 wrote: Except when they don't even bother to test Toyotas and instead give them rave reviews. As admitted to now by CR... Their credibility is nil.

I haven't heard about this but honestly it wouldn't surprise me. WTF happened?