Value Of Consumer Reports To Automakers
- Thread starter The Critic
- Start date
- Status
CU can just..well..anyway..They better quit bashing Ford....
http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/16/autos/cr_reliability/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote
"In the past, because Toyota (Charts) products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners.
But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers."
"Consumer Reports' reliability rankings differ significantly from those released recently by J.D. Power and Associates. In the J.D. Power most recent "Vehicle Dependability Survey," five of the top ten brands were domestic and Buick tied Lexus for first place."
No bias there...
"In the past, because Toyota (Charts) products have so consistently proved reliable, the magazine would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's brand new cars, without waiting for survey data from owners.
But from now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data to come in before it recommends a Toyota product - as it does with most other manufacturers."
"Consumer Reports' reliability rankings differ significantly from those released recently by J.D. Power and Associates. In the J.D. Power most recent "Vehicle Dependability Survey," five of the top ten brands were domestic and Buick tied Lexus for first place."
No bias there...
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: DT466E_bus
CU can just..well..anyway..They better quit bashing Ford....
Very deep and unbiased analysis of the article, I can see.
CU can just..well..anyway..They better quit bashing Ford....
Very deep and unbiased analysis of the article, I can see.
Smart consumers should be using multiple sources of data instead of just one. When I bought my Audi, it certainly helped but was not the end-all be-all of my purchase choice. Edmunds, ConsumerGuide, and other sites helped me too.
I don't think it serves automakers well to kneel down to criticizm by one particular publication/ media report. Doing so only lends more credability to the assaulting publication, and in essence, throws the hard work of their engineering/R&D teams under the bus.
As a former subscriber to CR, I found the "scoring" system to not represent the qualities I base my purchases on. A vehicle that scores the red bullseye in safety because it has fifty-eight airbags doesn't mean anything to me when the other vehicles rate average to below-average because they might only have eight.
Roll-over risks hyped by CR seem silly to me as well. It's not going to make or break my buying decision if a 5,000 lb SUV rolls at high speeds as that's what I'd think they'd do, and if I wanted to avoid that scenario I'd buy a low-slung car.
My cancellation button was pushed when they reported on HVAC equipment that I worked on daily. Their report outcome was laughable. Couldn't have been possible anywhere but in a lab. Or was it influenced by money?
That's my opinion of CR. These tests are so scripted and lab-based they leave out any real world factors. I'm not sold on the claim they take no "outside" money, either. IMO, they cater to safety nuts, boring penny-pinchers, and foreign car makes. And automakers should ignore their biased claims and focus on their own customer demands and feedback.
As a former subscriber to CR, I found the "scoring" system to not represent the qualities I base my purchases on. A vehicle that scores the red bullseye in safety because it has fifty-eight airbags doesn't mean anything to me when the other vehicles rate average to below-average because they might only have eight.
Roll-over risks hyped by CR seem silly to me as well. It's not going to make or break my buying decision if a 5,000 lb SUV rolls at high speeds as that's what I'd think they'd do, and if I wanted to avoid that scenario I'd buy a low-slung car.
My cancellation button was pushed when they reported on HVAC equipment that I worked on daily. Their report outcome was laughable. Couldn't have been possible anywhere but in a lab. Or was it influenced by money?
That's my opinion of CR. These tests are so scripted and lab-based they leave out any real world factors. I'm not sold on the claim they take no "outside" money, either. IMO, they cater to safety nuts, boring penny-pinchers, and foreign car makes. And automakers should ignore their biased claims and focus on their own customer demands and feedback.
Consumer Reports has done some good work but it has been balanced by witch hunts at various times. They really went after the Suzuki Samurai for roll stability and gave the Ford Bronco II a pass when it was not only worse, but a much more popular vehicle. There was even video with a conversation between two CR test drivers explaining their trick to get the Suzuki to roll onto the training wheels very quickly, a trick they pulled without the training wheels that resulted in an actual roll over. Later they did mention that the Bronco II was not recommended but left it at that with just the recommendation and some benign comments. As a previous post pointed out, you should not rely on CR alone for a choice of an automobile.
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
I don't think it serves automakers well to kneel down to criticizm by one particular publication/ media report. Doing so only lends more credability to the assaulting publication, and in essence, throws the hard work of their engineering/R&D teams under the bus.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/how-bob-lutz-made-four-auto-journalists-his-secret-weapons-at/5
I don't think it serves automakers well to kneel down to criticizm by one particular publication/ media report. Doing so only lends more credability to the assaulting publication, and in essence, throws the hard work of their engineering/R&D teams under the bus.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/how-bob-lutz-made-four-auto-journalists-his-secret-weapons-at/5
Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
I don't think it serves automakers well to kneel down to criticizm by one particular publication/ media report. Doing so only lends more credability to the assaulting publication, and in essence, throws the hard work of their engineering/R&D teams under the bus.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/how-bob-lutz-made-four-auto-journalists-his-secret-weapons-at/5
Taking advice from four car guys is one thing. Pandering for approval from a bunch of people in lab coats that yesterday were testing toasters while today testing cars is another.
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
I don't think it serves automakers well to kneel down to criticizm by one particular publication/ media report. Doing so only lends more credability to the assaulting publication, and in essence, throws the hard work of their engineering/R&D teams under the bus.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/25/how-bob-lutz-made-four-auto-journalists-his-secret-weapons-at/5
Taking advice from four car guys is one thing. Pandering for approval from a bunch of people in lab coats that yesterday were testing toasters while today testing cars is another.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Consumer Reports has done some good work but it has been balanced by witch hunts at various times. They really went after the Suzuki Samurai for roll stability and gave the Ford Bronco II a pass when it was not only worse, but a much more popular vehicle. There was even video with a conversation between two CR test drivers explaining their trick to get the Suzuki to roll onto the training wheels very quickly, a trick they pulled without the training wheels that resulted in an actual roll over. Later they did mention that the Bronco II was not recommended but left it at that with just the recommendation and some benign comments. As a previous post pointed out, you should not rely on CR alone for a choice of an automobile.
Doesn't that argue against their supposed pro-Japanese, anti-Ford bias?
Consumer Reports has done some good work but it has been balanced by witch hunts at various times. They really went after the Suzuki Samurai for roll stability and gave the Ford Bronco II a pass when it was not only worse, but a much more popular vehicle. There was even video with a conversation between two CR test drivers explaining their trick to get the Suzuki to roll onto the training wheels very quickly, a trick they pulled without the training wheels that resulted in an actual roll over. Later they did mention that the Bronco II was not recommended but left it at that with just the recommendation and some benign comments. As a previous post pointed out, you should not rely on CR alone for a choice of an automobile.
Doesn't that argue against their supposed pro-Japanese, anti-Ford bias?
None of their surveys have any credibility because they don't even verify ownership!
Not a good source of unbiased info, IMO.
Not a good source of unbiased info, IMO.
Originally Posted By: meangreen01
Pandering for approval from a bunch of people in lab coats that yesterday were testing toasters while today testing cars is another.
I'm not going to comment on CR's value, but this statement above is a gross (and inaccurate) simplification of their organization. They have a dedicated automotive testing unit, staffed by automotive and tire engineers. To make the claim that the people testing, writing articles, and editing content on automobiles are interchangeable with those doing the same tasks of white goods just exposes ignorance of their structure and how they operate.
Pandering for approval from a bunch of people in lab coats that yesterday were testing toasters while today testing cars is another.
I'm not going to comment on CR's value, but this statement above is a gross (and inaccurate) simplification of their organization. They have a dedicated automotive testing unit, staffed by automotive and tire engineers. To make the claim that the people testing, writing articles, and editing content on automobiles are interchangeable with those doing the same tasks of white goods just exposes ignorance of their structure and how they operate.
I flipped through a CR buying guide when I was stranded somewhere and bored.
They continue to hype themselves at the expense of any other source of information. In other words they do not advise joining an online forum for your make of car to keep up to date faster than the printed word. They rarely even mention the internet. They still suggest getting their pay-for-service price report on dealer invoice, when edmunds and others have that for free.
Since they are non profit and supposedly in the consumer's best interest, they are putting the "continuity of CR advice" over the best needs of their flock.
They also do not allow peer review of their testing methods. A subscriber who buys something "reliable" on their recommendation may not report a problem, assuming they themselves did something wrong. While one buying something "unreliable" would blame the manufacturer for everything under the sun, even stuff caused by neglect.
They continue to hype themselves at the expense of any other source of information. In other words they do not advise joining an online forum for your make of car to keep up to date faster than the printed word. They rarely even mention the internet. They still suggest getting their pay-for-service price report on dealer invoice, when edmunds and others have that for free.
Since they are non profit and supposedly in the consumer's best interest, they are putting the "continuity of CR advice" over the best needs of their flock.
They also do not allow peer review of their testing methods. A subscriber who buys something "reliable" on their recommendation may not report a problem, assuming they themselves did something wrong. While one buying something "unreliable" would blame the manufacturer for everything under the sun, even stuff caused by neglect.
It's not even CR is so bad or biased, but their readership is borderline nutty. They defer to so-called experts, just like any false authority, rather then trust their own personal subjective analysis.
That's why my relatives cannot discuss cars, their insecurity kicks in due to the fact they have zero (confidence in their own) ability to perceive things. Instead they rely "reviews" or friends who just love their new [censored] little car, without ever asking simple questions, like, "what was your LAST (even more miserable) car", or ask about their own mechanical qualifications.
My mom was reading to me from newspaper car "reviews". I told her she will never read a bad car review, they don't exist in that media. Critical thinking is simply not a part of most people's arsenal.
That's why my relatives cannot discuss cars, their insecurity kicks in due to the fact they have zero (confidence in their own) ability to perceive things. Instead they rely "reviews" or friends who just love their new [censored] little car, without ever asking simple questions, like, "what was your LAST (even more miserable) car", or ask about their own mechanical qualifications.
My mom was reading to me from newspaper car "reviews". I told her she will never read a bad car review, they don't exist in that media. Critical thinking is simply not a part of most people's arsenal.
I hope everyone who thinks CR is a joke for unbiased "information" on vehicles will think the same if/when their favorite brand is on top of a CR list.
Bill
PS: I think most reviewers have bias. Or "orders" from marketing. Car and Driver used to call them as they see them decades ago. Now the marketing dept have chains to pull.
Bill
PS: I think most reviewers have bias. Or "orders" from marketing. Car and Driver used to call them as they see them decades ago. Now the marketing dept have chains to pull.
A reviewer may well not have the same values as I do. Therefore, they may not like the same cars as I do.
Gee...what a surprise.
Gee...what a surprise.
So right.
I doubt that the Consumer Reporters are any better equipped to evaluate a car's performance or handling than are you or I.
You know what you value in a car, and so do I.
There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion, and then living with your choice.
There are numerous examples of cars found to be very troublesome in CR's surveys that have proven quite satisfactory in the hands of actual owners.
There are also examples of cars highly recommended by CR that have proven quite troublesome to their hapless buyers as well.
Even without CR, I think any car guy has a pretty good idea of where any given car falls on the reliability and cost of ownership scale.
There are also a plethora of make and even model specific websites where anyone can go for information about what breaks, when, and how hard and expensive it is to fix.
CR is probably useful to some.
To others, it is no more than background noise.
The moral of the story is that there are many sources of information on all things.
CR is but one of them.
I doubt that the Consumer Reporters are any better equipped to evaluate a car's performance or handling than are you or I.
You know what you value in a car, and so do I.
There is nothing wrong with forming an opinion, and then living with your choice.
There are numerous examples of cars found to be very troublesome in CR's surveys that have proven quite satisfactory in the hands of actual owners.
There are also examples of cars highly recommended by CR that have proven quite troublesome to their hapless buyers as well.
Even without CR, I think any car guy has a pretty good idea of where any given car falls on the reliability and cost of ownership scale.
There are also a plethora of make and even model specific websites where anyone can go for information about what breaks, when, and how hard and expensive it is to fix.
CR is probably useful to some.
To others, it is no more than background noise.
The moral of the story is that there are many sources of information on all things.
CR is but one of them.
- Status
Similar threads
