Consumer Reports

Just read the on line article. I had to go back and make sure this wasn't the top 10 Japanese autos instead of their top ten picks in general. Honda sure scored well. They also have short videos showing them driving the WRX. I have to agree about the WRX. I've been a VW GTI fan for years, but they were just getting to pricey and not offering a decent AWD/HP/price combo that can compete with the WRX. So after finally retiring my '85 GTI I got a 2003 WRX WGN. It is a hell of a lot of fun to drive.

That's three years in a row that the Forester has been picked "Consumers Reports "Top Pick" for small SUV. and rated it as one of the best cars for new drivers also. I have always considered CR to be a solid source of data for things like cars and refridgerators etc. However they do tend to place excessively high weight to safety related features as opposed to durability and such. I bought my very first new car and Subaru, an 86 GL Wagon, based on Consumers Reports of the day.

Well, I'm on my second used Subie, and damn near everybody in this ski resort owns some kind of Subaru (makes it hard to find your own car in the parking lot). I know the Forester gets excellent reviews for safety, but I never like the looks of the thing. My neighbors have two WRX's and love em. Once again, it don't look like Ferrari or a Porsche, but with a few mods here and there it will keep up with the best of 'em on the track.

I tend to agree but my '98 Forester was totaled by someone running into me and I replaced it with an '03 of same color and neighbors did not even notice difference. Of course, I can tell several differences but cosmetically they do not show. When I was a kid back in the 50's, car appearences changed dramatically every year so everyone knew you were driving last years model.

I've also learned since then that sheet metal dies are extremely expensive and 2 dies are often required to stamp one part, so a manufacturer can save considerable money by not making big body changes every year.

Frank

Drove two WRX's this weekend. BIG TIME FUN to drive. I would own one by now, but I am pretty tall, and looking for more comfortable alternatives. But CR is right, that sucker is a lot of fun.

Ford's favorite trick for years was to modify the tail lights which were plastic. Odd that folks let that go as if its passe. I think it adds more value to the newer cars when folks can tell what year it is right off. its cosmetic after all, but cosmetics is important too.

I wouldn't trust Consumer Reports as an authority on anything. Their "testing techniques" often leave a lot to be desired. Some of their tests are considered a joke in the industries of the products they "review".

Who would you trust? Certainly not the industry magazines and shows, they're in the back pocket of the automotive industry if not actually an advertising branch in thin disguise. I have chosen vehicles based on Consumers Reports and Phil Edmonston "Lemon aide guides" for new cars and historically done extremely well with value for money that way as opposed to others who have bought based on price, emotion or "what they heard" or thought they knew.

Back when I was interested in bicycles, they had a test on multispeed road bikes.

Their top recommendation was for some obscure brand (Lotus) that I'd never seen for sale. They had some strange classifications for their tests, including "coasting efficiency". It consisted of putting one guy up on a hill and seeing how long it took him to come down without hitting the brakes. About as useless as a test can get and subject to multiple variables that had nothing to do with the product itself. My impression of the test was that they did multiple things that sounded scientific but were ridiculous to anyone who was serious about the subject.

In their infamous oil tests, they intentionally removed some sort of oil control ring to try to "accelerate" wear.

Consumers Union seems to be a lot about promoting itself and selling magazines. I might agree that the big auto magazines seem to be about advertising revenue. However - there are some better publications - my personal fav is AutoWeek. If they have anything bad to say about a car, they say it.

I do feel that, since sometime in the late 70 or so, CU seems to be less about quality and will often take a sorta 'green' or 'liberal' stance on something. I dunno if this means they are 'bad'. I feel, if you take their testing in with other sources of info, you are still ahead of the curve. Just use your common sense. Sometimes a device will rate poorly that has a feature you desire. Or has aproblem you could fix or live with. And, they have frequently won lawsuits against folks who use hteir test results for advertising and brought cases of fraud to the attention of the proper authorities. (I recall some instant coffee that was shorting the conatiners by 1/2oz. maybe not much to you or me, but it was clearly saving the comapny thousand every run!)

Anyway, they have the money to test a LOT of stuff I can't. That is useful, even if some tests are odd. It isn't a Bible, it's a guide.

Carl

You both have a point. CU can't be an expert about everything. They seem to have more experience with cars than with e.g. toasters or futons, though, and the no-advertising policy makes it easier for them to call 'em like they see 'em.

They've been accused of skewing their results for sensationalism to sell magazines. Recall the Suzuki Samurai. It probably was no worse than any number of high center of gravity vehicles regarding rollovers. But Suzuki was a bit player compared to Ford or GM, and Consumers Union was accused of picking on them to gain publicity for their magazine.

Did anybody else catch The Colbert Report (Monday, March 6). He did a bit called Spoiler Alert about Consumers Reports latest annual car issue that was hilarious. here's the URL.

Note the Forester >

begin 666 spacer.gif M1TE&.#EA! #?`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`-\```(

By the way, if your looking for the video in question you have to have your pop-up blocker turned off or click on the Motherload video banner near the top of the page.

You're right - I had forgotten about that. The metal arms they attached to the vehicle changed its handling dramatically, resulting in a worthless test.

I remember seeing the video of those metal arms (that kept it from completely rolling over). It might have also been the lightest vehicle they tried out, for which those arms affected far more. Without those extensions it's probably similar in rollover risk to other vehicles.

Honestly though - every time I see what the actual testing protocols are for assorted CR tests, I get this sinking feeling that they're mostly about trying to appear scientific. They've gotten people all worried about any number of safe items such as polycarbonate bottles:

"Specifically with respect to their article, we have significant reservations about the lack of detail about the manner in which the study was conducted. It appears that the study does not fairly reflect normal product use or follow standard testing protocols to determine migration levels. We have requested, but have yet to receive, copies of all data, protocols and computations supporting the article."

Suzuki didn't seem to think CR was a joke...they spent about eight years in the Federal court system, trying to get CR to rescind their comments on the Samurai (or was it the Sidekick?) as being unsafe...CR's judgement AND test methods were upheld repeatedly, all the way thru the process.