Consumer Reports slams Magnum

gets it

important to

that

Dunlops as a

for the

bald (kept

and I think I

controlled

to

hat on.

I find that their information is quite good, even superb in certain areas. I do agree that agenda can bias such as when in a response to a letter they tried to argue that big cars are safer which violated many laws, including those of physics and statistics. That I felt badly about since the crash stats showed that when a little car meets a big car, the big car wins. But this was about 10 years ago. That editor was just plain biased and nonsensical and NHTSA's data also disproved his let's rewrite the laws of physics (F=ma).

In regards to items like blood pressure devices, they were excellent. Their results years ago are still valid and have been verified, finally by other surveys.

I also find their reliability is on the money. I often had old issues for old cars and sure enough, where something was terrible was where I had problems. So it was good, on the money, and forewarned me or at least I knew the car had problems with the whatever. In fact, it was almost invaluable for old, used cars as a rough guide. Where else to get data of 20 years ago that easily and free almost?

If there were alternative sources, then fine, I could pool the data, but often there is not anything out there.

There was a touch of we can't be wrong but I hope that changes. When they dinged a particular Norelco water filter as dangerous, they left out that a couple of years ago they had recommended it or at least featured it. That's not good but naughty.

The things with the cars might be their hope that more small and fuel efficient cars are a good thing. But I find that many women who buy Japanese cars are delighted they do not have to have as many repairs as their other cars, not necessarily American either.

Their reviews of binoculars are pretty good. Their reviews of digital cameras and wine were pretty good. And their reviews of computers and peripherals are usually quite helpful and usually in line with other reviews of the same subjects.

I wish they had more money so they could be independent of themselves and not self-promoting, but it's rough out there. It's so hard to find people willing not to want more money, even in places like Consumer Reports. In fact, there was some sort of to-do about the recent high salaries some managers were pulling down.

It's much better than nothing and I just might subscribe again. I stopped with the water filter and the car thing. That irritated me and disappointed me greatly.

Reply to
Treeline
Loading thread data ...

I like CR and subscribe to it, but sometimes I do feel there's a li'l bias. On the magnum comparison, for example, they said in the body of the text that the braking was "unimpressive", yet one or two other vehicles in the same comparison that got the same or worse stopping distance had either no remark or said that braking was very good in their descriptions.

Reply to
Marc

..................figures!

and continued:

Bullshit - just like you!

Reply to
RPhillips47

A little bias???? Typical of this so-called consumer witchhunt, I mean watchdog, magazine.

Reply to
RPhillips47

CR, IMO, views cars as appliances - no emotion. Believe me, for some of us there's a lot of emotion involved in choosing a car.

Reply to
Peter A. Stavrakoglou

I disagree. A lot of their ratings are obviously based on emotion and opinion, not on performance and specifications. They often comment about US makers using "cheap looking" interior plastic as compared to the Japanese. I drive a number of different cars (rentals due to business travel), and the Japanese and Korean cars are every bit as cheesy in the interior as the American cars. I can't for the life of me understand this comment about interiors. It is completely emotion and opinion based.

And their reader surveys are entirely opinion based. I place a lot more faith on people like Popular Mechanics who do longer term tests on selected cars in real world driving. The only problem here is that they can only test a handful of cars and even their "long" term test barely gets through the break-in period. I've only owned one Japanese car, a

1984 Honda Accord that I bought new ... based largely on CR's ratings. That year, as I recall, the Honda was rated second to the Camry. I visited the local Toyota dealership and the sales drone was so arrogant that I left within 15 minutes and have never returned. The Honda dealership was much more customer friendly and I ended up buying.

Other than a failed Schrader valve which caused the AC to fail (fixed under warranty), a rear window leak (worked on during warranty, but never completely fixed despite gobs of sealant), and a failed cruise control (fixed under a recall), the car wasn't bad for the first

55-60,000 miles. If you only kept a car that long, you'd rave about the Accord. Well, I keep cars a minimum of 100K. This car began to systematically self-destruct around the 60,000 mile mark. It needed new rotors and drums because the originals had rusted so badly they couldn't be turned. It needed new struts all around. I needed a new exhaust system including catcon (VERY expensive, over $1000 as I recall and this is for a car that cost just over $10,000 brand new). And there were several other small issues I can't remember any longer. After putting probably more than two grand into the car between 55K and 65K, I figured this car should be good for at least another 60K. Wrong. The engine started making a light tapping sound around 70K. I took it to the dealer and they said it was normal. It got progressively worse so I took it back again thinking maybe it needed the valves adjusted (this car didn't have hydraulic lifters) as it was nearing the next round (every 15K as I recall). The mechanic still didn't think the noise was unusual but pulled the valve cover at my insistence. The cam and lifters were shot. At least 1/16" was worn from EVERY cam lobe and every lifter pad. Another $600 or so.

This is the sort of thing that CR doesn't catch because they only cover

5 model years on their survey (at least that last time I submitted one that was the case). My Accord was 6 years old when the engine self-destructed. Even though I still subscribe to CR as I find useful information there, I haven't returned a survey in probably 10 years.

Matt

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

[snip]

CR seems to be overwhelmed when evaluating higher technology products. A number of years ago I checked out some evals they did on some computers. Their level of computer knowledge was laughable, and of course their ratings were useless.

They do a good job on washers, dryers and toaster ovens though. :)

Reply to
Gdt876

How do you know?

Are you a washer, dryer and toaster oven expert? :-)

Matt

Reply to
Matt Whiting

Yes, I believe I am ! Unless 15 years experience in the biz isn't enough of a qualification, in which case no, I am not. :)

Reply to
Gdt876

i love the magnum and i'm buying a red r/t next week i don't care what c r says about it mopars are great cars . ( HEMI )

Reply to
charles irby

The look grows on you. I'm in the market for a larger family car to replace my A4, so I'll have to give the Magnum a serious look, though I'd been leaning towards an Audi S4 Avant. I hadn't driven anything with the new hemi until last week when I tried out someone else's 300C.

Cheers,

Reply to
Ritz

i just wish we got the 300c wagon instead of europe. i like the front end better than the magnum.

Reply to
news

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.