Consumer Report's Bulb Test

They also just took the bulb makers' word regarding DOT compliance ("All the tested bulbs claim DOT compliance") without checking -- shame on them. Had they checked, they'd likely have found that the APC Plasma Ultra White bulbs are very definitely *not* compliant in several important ways.

They've made a lot of noise regarding their newly implemented headlamp "tests" over the last year or so. Typical CR selfgratulatory crapola. I won't bother rehashing the exact reasons why their headlamp "tests" are largely bogus; I've posted the analysis before in this forum and others. It's not just a question of "Dan Stern doesn't agree with Consumer Reports"; it's much more serious than that: Many of their assumptions and recommendations regarding headlamps are just plain nonsense fabricated out of the same whole cloth that allows CR to consider themselves expert in everything from red wine to oil filters to washing machines to insurance policies.

DS

Consumer Reports is very prone to letting their agendas override their objectivity.

Suzuki suffered major difficulties with its image after Consumer Reports magazine's famous, or infamous, claim in 1988 that the Samurai was prone to rollover. The Suzuki Samurai small SUV enjoyed enormous popularity and sales in the mid-1980's until the CR article was published.

Consumer Reports had stated that the Samurai "easily rolls over in turns" and that it was "likely to roll over during a maneuver that could be demanded of any car at any time". U.S. government studies actually showed that the Samurai's rate of rollover was similar to that of other SUV's. Sales plunged and Suzuki eventually stopped production of the Samurai in

1995.

Suzuki filed lawsuit in 1996 for product disparagement after Consumer Reports magazine rehashed the old test results in yet another article. Suzuki had pursued their $60 billion lawsuit ever since 1996 in the position that the Consumer Reports "not acceptable" rating had caused sales to plunge, tarnished the company's image and set back the company's brand in the US for a decade. Suzuki went so far as to specifically claim that Consumer's Union had rigged the tests against the popular SUV to create media attention in the midst of their fund-raising drive.

A trial judge threw out the suit, but the 9th District Court of Appeals later reinstated it on the grounds that Suzuki had presented enough evidence that CU published knowing falsehoods in their article, and the Supreme Court in 2003 refused to prevent the case from going forward. Suzuki's managing counsel had stated that "The evidence will clearly show that, rather than driving all the vehicles the same, CU singled out the Suzuki Samurai and, through stunt-like steering, intentionally made it tip up -- all to support CU's pre-determined story line, only after the Samurai received the best possible rating on the test CU had used for the past 15 years." The court noted that at the time CU initially criticized the Samurai, CU had just purchased a new building and therefore "needed to boost its revenues to complete its capital campaign." The court concluded that this "evidence of financial motive dovetails with the evidence of test-rigging."

In a similar lawsuit by Isuzu against CU regarding their Isuzu Trooper receiving a similar "not acceptable" rating, Isuzu provided evidence that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its British counterpart rejected Consumer Reports' rollover tests as unscientific on the grounds that they were subject to driver influence. Isuzu was charging that the consumer group falsified certain test data and concealed other information. It charged also that a magazine staffer began writing the article before the tests were concluded.

Just before the 1996 Trooper tests, the NHTSA rejected the consumer organization's petition to establish rollover standards. Isuzu's lawyers say the article's timing was more than coincidence; it was an effort to generate media attention for CU and their latest cause.

Consumer Reports counsel tried to turn the case into a First Amendment issue, essentially intimating that even if the tests were biased, they should be protected from a product disparagement claim because the organization is part of the press, and asserting that they should have received a summary judgment on that basis. CU finally compromised their statement in a settlement late last year to clarify that the rollover tendency was only seen in their somewhat extreme emergency rollover test and was not applicable to routine driving conditions.

Consumer's Union added that "CU's use of the adverb 'easily' may have been misconstrued and misunderstood" and that "CU never intended to state or imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions."

I put Nighthawks in my vehicle and they are indeed brighter than the standard issue lamps.

Also, at Wallyworld, a 2-pack of Nighthawks is around $10 cheaper than a

2-pack of Silverstars. And Nighthawks have clear glass while Silverstars have that sickly blue cast.

Daniel, you once mentioned that bulbs with an "axial" filament (running the length of the bulb) are superior to those with the filament running across the width. Why is this?

Fascinating but you forgot to post the part where both automakers gave up in their attacks on CU and both cars sucked compared to increased competition and that is why they stopped selling.

What objectivity? They make a lot of noise about how objective they are because they don't accept advertising, but that is a disingenuous nonsequitur, for every issue of CR is cover-to-cover advertisement for CU's many produts and services, and they use the same marketeering psychology every other advertising company uses. It's just they don't accept advertising *from other people*.

They did the same thing to Audi with the "unintended acceleration" crapola.

DS

1) In rectangular lamps, there's much more available light and much less light wasted on the floor and ceiling if the filament is axial rather than transverse. 2) In a parabolic reflector, the unmodified beam from an axial filament is a round spot, while from a transverse filament it's a more-or-less rectangular "bow tie" shape. The round spot is easier to manipulate to direct light where it's needed while keeping light away from where it's not. That is: A round spot is easier to focus than a horizontal kinda-bar. It's also much easier to control glare and upward stray light when starting from a round spot.

There are some applications in which transverse filaments are a better choice (tall strip-shaped reflectors, some kinds of fog lamps, certain kinds of high beam/"driving" lamps).

DS

Made for some excellent bargains on the used car market.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Art,

On another matter. Does the 300M give you any back support? I'm thinking of selling mine since my back is killing me.

Ken

Mine is ok. But ours only has 51000 miles on it so the seat might be in better shape than yours if you have higher mileage.

My wife just bought a hybrid Accord so we will be getting rid of the 300M. It was a great ride but she wanted something smaller for parking at work. And yes, I know the hybrid feature is a complete waste of money. And it doesn't have auto lights, auto dimming rearview mirror or memory seats. And the passenger gets a manual seat. And no spare tire (patching kit and compressor instead). But it sips gas and is fast and a heck of a lot nicer then the Prius.

Maybe Audi should have moved the gas pedal over a few inches.

Or required their customers to have an IQ above 70 before selling them a car.

Matt

Thank you for the answer. My vehicle uses #9007 bulbs which have axial filaments.

Heh, I can top that:

LABEL THEM like a Model T's 3 pedals. S on the brake pedal for Stop, G on the gas pedal for Go.

Along with a warning sticker on the dash telling the potential driver that they are responsible for hitting the correct pedal. There's only two now.

Right, so you couldn't heel and toe, ruining the driver-friendly ergonomics that is one of the big reasons that people who enjoy driving tend to buy German cars? Then they'd be just like a F*rd or Ch*vy.

nate

Art wrote:

The Samurai was first made in 1982 and within the next few years was selling in Europe, Asia, Australia, and elsewhere. Suzuki introduced it into the US in 1985 as a 1986 model. Starting with a mere 1200 trucks imported per month, sales increased exponentially to 8000 vehicles per month and Suzuki quickly found themselves with 47,000 Samurais sold by the end of their first year. Not only was it the top-selling convertible in the United States, but it also captured the best first-year sales record of any Japanese car company. In 1987, the year before the CR article, sales were 81,349. And you say the Samurai stopped selling because "it sucked"? I guess all those people were buying the vehicle totally unaware that it "sucked"?

After the 1988 Consumer Reports article, annual sales dropped to only 5,041 within a year. Did all those people suddenly become aware that it "sucked"? How?

Consumer reports was financially over-extended in 1988 and they simply created a big story at Suzuki's expense, exploiting customers' worst fears and creating a marvelous marketing tool for them, and based on the evidence the courts were agreeing.

Suzuki pursued the case from 1996 to 2004, but it's hard to win any case against a nonprofit organization. At least Suzuki got a compromised statement from CR essentially taking back their claim that the vehicled easily rolled over in turns.

Please quote that statement of retraction. I've never seen it.

Hey... now you're hitting *really* close to home.. and I like to drive !!!

Yep, a very quiet statement, full of weasel words, and long after the damage was done.

True story: I was driving south on I87 (The Northway) while listening to NPR. They had a story on about how the Suzuki Samari was prone to roll over. Just ahead of me on the grass was a rolled over Samari. With this kind of fate you would think I could win the lottery; but noooo.

Richard.