What am I reading?! (CR 2011)

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: opus1
And I'm saving the $6. I stopped reading CR years ago when I memorized the mantra: Japanese=good, American=bad.

So how are they rating the Chrysler 200 so well, very well in fact, if they're biased against domestic vehicles? How are ANY of the domestic vehicles they rate highly (and there are a lot) rated so well if they're biased?

So many accusations, so little to back it up.

Just because we don't understand the system doesn't mean that they're making the data up.


Chrysler is not a domestic maker anymore, so the new formula is: Japanese, Korean, Italian = good, domestic = bad.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Nick, regarding the missing information in print, the online version commonly has more information available; it'd be impossible to print every single piece of data for every single vehicle out there. For example, it doesn't look like the print edition had the "Squeaks & Rattles" metric on it.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: opus1
And I'm saving the $6. I stopped reading CR years ago when I memorized the mantra: Japanese=good, American=bad.

So how are they rating the Chrysler 200 so well, very well in fact, if they're biased against domestic vehicles? How are ANY of the domestic vehicles they rate highly (and there are a lot) rated so well if they're biased?

So many accusations, so little to back it up.

Just because we don't understand the system doesn't mean that they're making the data up.


Chrysler is not a domestic maker anymore, so the new formula is: Japanese, Korean, Italian = good, domestic = bad.


So the facts that CR recommends (with their little check mark) nearly half of the Chevrolets they've tested and over half of the Fords they've tested...those don't mean much to you? Or the fact that Honda doesn't fare any better than Chevrolet or Ford in their recommendations. Or the fact that Dodge and Jeep share abysmal ratings by CR, but by your account, they should be glowing because afterall, Italian = good. I guess whatever goes against a preconceived notion gets tossed out as irrelevant or not important?

But how else does ANY Consumer Reports thread go on this forum...?

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: opus1
And I'm saving the $6. I stopped reading CR years ago when I memorized the mantra: Japanese=good, American=bad.

So how are they rating the Chrysler 200 so well, very well in fact, if they're biased against domestic vehicles? How are ANY of the domestic vehicles they rate highly (and there are a lot) rated so well if they're biased?

So many accusations, so little to back it up.

Just because we don't understand the system doesn't mean that they're making the data up.


Chrysler is not a domestic maker anymore, so the new formula is: Japanese, Korean, Italian = good, domestic = bad.


CR's automotive ratings are suspicious and curious. There is a Domestic bias particularly against GM and a strong bias for Asian brands. I imagine if and when GM is produced and owned by china and no UAW they magically will become more reliable. Even some people who buy GM cars or have one in the family and possibly report into CR are half biased against them. Thirty plus years of media brainwashing agenda is very hard to reject from one's psyche. It becomes a firmly held belief or bias basically. As long as one believes something, it one way or another becomes true even if it's really objectively false. GM branded Toyotas at times got lower reliabitly rating on CR. CR got wise and makes adjustments that are concealed. Pretty unreliable, suspect and questionable information.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
To satisfy my own curiosity, I looked at the online version of the data. CR does rate the Cruze to be 62% below average. Major trouble spots for the Cruze appear to be Squeaks & Rattles (they give it a full black circle), Climate System, Body Hardware, and Power Equipment (all with open white circles). Ownership Satisfaction is also only middling with this car, with an open white circle.

Now, compare that with the other car mentioned, the Chrysler 200. There are no black marks at all in the reliability chart. It has only one open white circle, for Body Hardware. Every other metric except for one has a full red circle. Just looking at the data, the 200 is faring better than the Cruze. CR predicts that the 200 will be 46% better than average in terms of reliability.

Sure, I suppose that it's possible that CR is making all of this up. Whether they are or not, I don't know. But there does appear to be a system behind the ratings.


Well it's interesting that the online data does not match the one published in their magazine.


That's does seem suspect. They have more time to update and tweak the online data I'd wager and make it all appear more plausible

.

 

[gathermewool]

At least with the vehicles I've owned, their ratings and problem areas seem pretty spot on. IMO, it's a resource, and one that isn't entirely useless (far from it, IMO.) Making a decision based solely one one resource is foolish.

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
GM branded Toyotas at times got lower reliabitly rating on CR. CR got wise and makes adjustments that are concealed.

If the adjustments are concealed, how do we know they exist? If the adjustments are in GM's favor, wouldn't that mean the bias is PRO-GM?

 

[bdcardinal]

Here is my take on CR, I read an article from them about the then new 93 Camaro Z28. Their major complaint was that the "exhaust is too loud for the average buyer" at that point I lost all faith in them.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
GM branded Toyotas at times got lower reliabitly rating on CR. CR got wise and makes adjustments that are concealed.

If the adjustments are concealed, how do we know they exist? If the adjustments are in GM's favor, wouldn't that mean the bias is PRO-GM?


I think they even admit they adjust their data, but give no details. My point was their data was incorrect or faulty and demonstrated how much of their info is little more than brand bias. And they would make adjustments to hide the fact and appear more accurate, not to benefit GM. And who knows what bias they have in their adjustments? They seem to have downplayed and underreported Japanese vehicles problem areas.

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
GM branded Toyotas at times got lower reliabitly rating on CR. CR got wise and makes adjustments that are concealed.

If the adjustments are concealed, how do we know they exist? If the adjustments are in GM's favor, wouldn't that mean the bias is PRO-GM?


My point was their data was incorrect or faulty and demonstrated how much of their info is little more than brand bias. And they would make adjustments to hide the fact and appear more accurate, not to benefit GM. And who knows what bias they have in their adjustments? They seem to have downplayed and underreported Japanese vehicles problem areas.
OK so we don't know how or why they adjust but assuming everything you're speculating is true you seem to be acknowledging a bias that did benefit GM even if that wasn't the intention

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
GM branded Toyotas at times got lower reliabitly rating on CR. CR got wise and makes adjustments that are concealed.

If the adjustments are concealed, how do we know they exist? If the adjustments are in GM's favor, wouldn't that mean the bias is PRO-GM?


My point was their data was incorrect or faulty and demonstrated how much of their info is little more than brand bias. And they would make adjustments to hide the fact and appear more accurate, not to benefit GM. And who knows what bias they have in their adjustments? They seem to have downplayed and underreported Japanese vehicles problem areas.
OK so we don't know how or why they adjust but assuming everything you're speculating is true you seem to be acknowledging a bias that did benefit GM even if that wasn't the intention


You are still glossing over the main point that a GM branded Toyota could be rated with significant worse reliability. THAT's the bias which in 90% of cases would hurt GM and not whether or not CR covered up that bias in an obvious example as a necessity to appear more credible.

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx[/quote


You are still glossing over the main point that a GM branded Toyota could be rated with significant worse reliability. THAT's the bias which in 90% of cases would hurt GM and not whether or not CR covered up that bias in an obvious example as a necessity to appear more credible.



If CR adjusted its survey results to make GM branded Toyotas appear as reliable as Toyota, that's a bias in favor of GM. Furthermore, if you have any REAL evidence that this happened, as opposed 'unreliable, suspect and questionable' allegations, tell it to the State of New York. I'm pretty sure they be interested in knowing about a non profit organization that's altering survery data, which could constitiute fraud.,

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: mechanicx


You are still glossing over the main point that a GM branded Toyota could be rated with significant worse reliability. THAT's the bias which in 90% of cases would hurt GM and not whether or not CR covered up that bias in an obvious example as a necessity to appear more credible.

[/quote


If CR adjusted its survey results to make GM branded Toyotas appear as reliable as Toyota, that's a bias in favor of GM. Furthermore, if you have any REAL evidence that this happened, as opposed 'unreliable, suspect and questionable' allegations, tell it to the State of New York. I'm pretty sure they be interested in knowing about a non profit organization that's altering survery data, which could constitiute fraud.,


It would NOT be a bias in favor of GM in the first place. It would be correcting an anti-GM, pro-Toyota bias for that model only. Correcting a bias or an inaccuracy out of necessity is not the bias. You are playing with semantics.

CR can do what ever they want with their data to make predictions. No one is going to hold them for fraud. The bias comes from the consumer surveys in the first place. The point is changing nothing but the brand significantly changed the reliability rating. I don't see the point in your arguments.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
As long as one believes something, it one way or another becomes true even if it's really objectively false.


Ironically, this is exactly what happens with Consumer Reports and internet message boards. The more it's repeated that CR is "biased", even without concrete evidence, the more it's believed. Unless anyone in here works for CR and knows how their data collection system really works, I'm afraid anything that's said about it is conjecture anyway.

As I stated before, I don't find the accusations of bias to have that much basis in CR's recommendations. They have 27 Chevrolets in their database, and recommended 9 of them (33%). They have 6 Lincolns, and recommended 2 of them (33%). They have 11 Audis, and recommend 3 of them (27%). They have 11 BMWs, and recommend 4 of them (36%). They have 10 Mitsubishis, and recommend only 2 (20%).

I will admit that the other GM brands don't fare as well as Chevrolet in the data, though they do recommend the Cadillac CTS and DTS, they do recommend the GMC Terrain and Yukon, and they do recommend the Buick Lucerne.

If there's a bias against GM, I don't see it. Why recommend any at all? A number of other manufacturers fall below GM in terms of percentage of tested vehicles they recommend. If there's a bias against domestic vehicles, I don't see it. Plenty of import brands are recommended at a lower rate than domestic vehicles.

However, MECHANIX does bring up a great point. If GM owners aren't as satisfied with their vehicles as other owners are, for whatever reason (vehicles themselves, media, whatever), then GM cars aren't going to show well in reliability reports. This isn't the fault of the reporting agency. The same surveys are sent out to all subscribers. As faulty as the data may be, the agency is only reporting the data they get. You or I may or may not agree with it, or we may or may not think it's representative of the real vehicles, but I think jumping to the conclusion that CR falsifies the information to match their preconceived agenda is a bit premature.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The bias comes from the consumer surveys in the first place.


I'm glad you made this point again. This is so key to the discussion, and one with which I will always agree. There is ALWAYS sampling bias in voluntary reporting surveys like the ones CR conducts. But the accusation that some make that Consumer Reports itself is biased, or anti-GM, or whatever, is very very different from suggesting that the data itself comes in with a bias. Because all data does.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: mechanicx
The bias comes from the consumer surveys in the first place.


I'm glad you made this point again. This is so key to the discussion, and one with which I will always agree. There is ALWAYS sampling bias in voluntary reporting surveys like the ones CR conducts. But the accusation that some make that Consumer Reports itself is biased, or anti-GM, or whatever, is very very different from suggesting that the data itself comes in with a bias. Because all data does.


I should clarify and say that I don't necessarily think CR is intentionally biasing or altering the data to make GM and Domestics look worse and Asian models look better. (I do think some other publications have an intentional bias though). I think the consumers are maybe biasing the editors opinions and perceptions. You get the sense that the editors of CR are focused on mostly "reliability" within the first few years and probably mostly own Asian makes.

I think their reliability ratings as presented are very vague and misleading though. Just how significant is "average" vs "much better than average" and how significant a reported reliability issue is or not isn't very clear.

 

[PeteTheFarmer]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Originally Posted By: PeteTheFarmer
Originally Posted By: mechanicx


You are still glossing over the main point that a GM branded Toyota could be rated with significant worse reliability. THAT's the bias which in 90% of cases would hurt GM and not whether or not CR covered up that bias in an obvious example as a necessity to appear more credible.



If CR adjusted its survey results to make GM branded Toyotas appear as reliable as Toyota, that's a bias in favor of GM. Furthermore, if you have any REAL evidence that this happened, as opposed 'unreliable, suspect and questionable' allegations, tell it to the State of New York. I'm pretty sure they be interested in knowing about a non profit organization that's altering survery data, which could constitiute fraud., [/quote


It would NOT be a bias in favor of GM in the first place. It would be correcting an anti-GM, pro-Toyota bias for that model only. Correcting a bias or an inaccuracy out of necessity is not the bias. You are playing with semantics.

CR can do what ever they want with their data to make predictions. No one is going to hold them for fraud. The bias comes from the consumer surveys in the first place. The point is changing nothing but the brand significantly changed the reliability rating. I don't see the point in your arguments.



Yes, they can make predictions based on data. Most of the reliability survey isn't about predicting the future, it's about reporting the past. If they are altering the results of subscribers surveys, that is fraud. If you have any doubt, follow up on my suggestion.

 

[mechanicx]

True enough but some find the Cruze's predictions strange. I'm sure they get a lot of questionable survey data and have to make judgement calls. That's not necessarily altering data, and as was mentioned the fault is in the consumer survey itself.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Consumer reports is not inherently biased.

But they are garbage. They do not even verify ownership!

Their extrapolations are ridiculous. I'm glad someone noticed.

 

[sciphi]

Some of the CR ratings were spot-on for some models, while others were fantastically off. The 1999-2000 Hyundai Elantras my family owned/owns (my old 1999 and presently a 2000) have proven to be fairly bulletproof mechanically despite CR's dinging them. The Subaru owned by my family is always needing something, despite being rated as a good used car bet when we got it. The Ventures and clones were rated spot-on IMO.

It's all about the owner, their bias, and how they fill out the survey.

Oh, squeaks and rattles have driven me up the wall with my Cruze. That, and the area dealers being totally incompetent at fixing ANY interior squeak issues I've had. I had to fix the two worst offenders myself, and one was fairly involved to diagnose/fix. To be honest, the roads around me are moonscape, so that would do in any interior. The dealers did fix the MECHANICAL issues on the car (defective trunk release switch and a loose e-brake cable mount) just fine.