Re: Minivan Comaprison

Land Rover is one of the biggest piles of junk to ever hit the face of the planet.

As for the other two, I can't say because like I said I gave up on CR a long time ago.

Why don't you enlighten us?

Reply to
psycho_pastrami
Loading thread data ...

That is completely non sequitur. I'm surprised you aren't smart enough to realize the difference. Not asking questions that aren't relevant isn't even remotely similar to polling a non-representative set of a given population and then claiming relevance to the entire population. You better go back for a Stat 101 refresher.

And what is the intended use? If the intended use is to simply report on how CR subscribers feel about their cars, then I agree. If the intended use is to provide an accurate comparison among models and brands of cars in general, then I disagree completely. I'm pretty sure CR intends the latter.

I'm not familiar with JD Powers' survey methods so I can't respond here. I am very familiar with CRs as I've subscribed for 20 years give or take. If JD Power requires you to subscribe to their publication in order to provide input to their surveys, then I agree that they are as biased as CR. If they randomly select a sample from among ALL of the buyers of a certain model car, then they are nothing like CR.

I'm sure that is the case. If they have a random sample that is sufficiently large, this generally isn't a huge issue. If the sample is too small or the selected sample biased and not random, then it is a problem.

Matt

Reply to
Matthew S. Whiting

Time out too. I'll have to side with Lloyd on this one too, much as I do not care for CR either.

I own a 80's Japanese car, Datsun 210, and if CR considered ergonomics back then, then rest assured that the Japanese car designers absolutely did not use CR opinions on ergonomics when designing the ergonomics in this vehicle!

I think that the idea that the Japanese took CR seriously when designing cars and American car manufacturers didn't is poppycock. And to suggest seriously that CR opinions are enough to sway the American car buying public is frankly rediculous.

The reasons that the American car manufacturers almost lost the car market to the Japanese in the late 70's boiled down to 14MPG vs 30MPG. Sorry, but the American public during '73 to '80 was under _intense_ propaganda efforts by the Ford and Carter administrations to make the public think that gasoline prices were out of control, and the public largely bought off on this. This was done for several reasons, first to point the finger at OPEC for the '73 oil embargo and to provide coverage for the disasterous attempts at fuel rationing that the Republicans tried, second to justify increased emissions requirements which pretty much removed the V-8 from the lineup of auto engines, Third to justify the hugely unpopular 55Mph speed limit that the Democrats shoved in, plus a whole list of minor political reasons. Papers constantly were harping on the pennies and such that some gas station or other was raising it's prices.

As a result of this, the buying public became convinced that MPG was the One True Measure of a vehicle, and so focused on that one issue only when buying new vehicles. As a result, some of the most beautiful, luxurious, and powerful vehicles ever to come out of Detroit which were pure joy to drive, were scrapped and replaced with a generation of tin rattletraps, barely above a motorcycle in comfort.

Japanese automakers, who at the time didn't know anything about building a car that was pleasurable to just sit in, capitalized on the obsession with 4 cylinders. The car magnates in Detroit put more stock in the intelligence of the American car buying public than hindsight showed they deserved, and kept expecting people to see through the crapola.

Th e Car Book author is going to have to do a better job than this to ferret out why CR is biased against domestics. We all know that they are, it's obvious, but why they are is probably more to do with some person in a position of authority at CR having a chip on his shoulder, or because they are trying to generate controversy.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

However it's a lot more than CR apparently had, since they only looked at ONE of the cars!

And, your statement that on average 2 cars will be similar if built on the same platform is no more factual than his is.

This does not excuse the fact that CR made a judgement call against a vehicle based on a guess, to whit:

"when two cars are built on the same platform, on the average they will be similar"

They should have remained silent about the vehicles that they didn't actually see and touch.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

Can you prove that this happens _the_same_ with owners of imports vs owners of domestics?

In any case, your statement is irrelevant. Did I say that the import is the car with

5 minor things wrong, or the car with 3 major things wrong? What I find very interesting is that you assume in my example that the import is the car with 3 major things wrong. That's a Freudian slip there, which shows that you know deep down that the import usually IS the car with 3 major things wrong, and the domestic is the car with 5 minor things wrong. Despite your protestations to the contrary, you do know that what we all have been saying all along is really true.

Now, Gentle Readers, stay tuned to Lloyd's response to this, which will be along the lines of name calling and further nonsense intended to divert the attention from the topic.

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

And also, if 9/10ths of the CR surveys never get returned, for them to be accurate they need to report that 90% of people surveyed don't give a damn about the opinions of magazines attempting to survey cars. And of course, your never going to see them print this!! :-)

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

No, I am saying that people get initially attracted to CR because of the sensationalism.

I think you have a fundamental mental block as to how popular magazines actually operate. Any popularly-read magazine must get a steady stream of new readers, to replace the ones that they lose through death, loss of interest, etc. The popularly-read ones do this by getting themselves on news racks and such, where people sell them.

If CR's covers are dull, boring and bland, the news agents and cigar shops and what not that stock them will not sell many copies. Thus, they will stop stocking them. Thus, CR will lose new readers. And if CR readership goes away, then not only do they lose subscriptions, but nobody is going to donate money or give grants to an organization that no one pays any attention to.

Now, of course, once you get the reader attracted, you have to hold them, and CR does a good job of this with it's reviews of toasters, stereo gear and other small cheap items, which are mostly pretty good. But you do have to attract them with something splashy initially.

This is like saying "If Rush Limbaugh loses his reputation for honesty and being unbiased, there go his listeners"

CR subscribers subscribe because they like what is in CR. And people like what is in CR by and large because it matches what their preconceptions of life are. This is why you won't find High Times Magazine touting the health problems of inhaling marijuana smoke, it doesen't match what it's subscribers want to read, and it is why you won't find The Conservative Rag touting the health benefits of smoking marijuana, because it doesen't match what it's subscribers want to read either.

With product reviews, there are some things that are obviously bad. Most people want to believe that cheap products are always just as good as expensive products, so making a product that is more expensive than the norm is usually bad. Most people prefer products that feel more solid, so making a product out of plastic when all your competitors are making them out of metal is also usually bad too. (how many times do you see plastic saucepans, even though there are plenty of plastics that would not melt at thousands of degrees, and are more scratch resistant than stainless steel) Most people don't want to buy products that aren't safe to use, such as have electric cords that are too small, etc. Most people don't want to buy products that simply don't work at all. So it's pretty safe for CR to assume it's subscribers are going to want to read product reviews that slap down plastic saucepans, and that slap down the 1 product in the market that costs 3 times more than all the other competitive products, and slap down unsafe products, and slap down products that just don't work at all. So it's pretty safe to write reviews that follow those guidelines.

But, there's far, far more things that are not obviously bad or good, but are solely dependent on your point of view, ie: that are ambigious. For example a cup holder that holds a 64 ounce drink may be too big for one person, just right for another. This is where a rating magazine, like CR, really has absolutely no value to give. Automobiles are like this, most of them are very close to each other in general terms of cost and reliability, but the CR subscribers, like yourself Lloyd, don't want to believe that. So you focus on these minor differences between automobiles, blowing them way out of proportion, and you use CR as justification to tell yourself that these minor differences Really Are Significant. And to keep you as a subscriber, CR isn't going to tell you your full of shit, they are going to print exactly what you want to read, which is that there Really Is A Giant Difference between car models!

So, no I don't think that if CR loses their reputation for honesty and being unbiased, there go their subscribers. Loss of honesty and unbiasedness hasn't hurt most other forms of entertainment, why would it hurt CR?

Ted

Reply to
Ted Mittelstaedt

They criticize the ergonomics. Proving they don't just "bash" the ergonomics of American cars.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Prove CR has ever done so.

Not asking 10-year questions is also not relevant to what CR is after. If they asked that, you CR-bashers would be demanding they ask about 20-year reliability anyway.

To give potential buyers of cars information about their reliability in the first 5 years.

And why wouldn't they succeed? Can you prove the owners of a particular make are more or less tolerant of problems than the owners of another make?

Wouldn't 500,000 people be a better sample than 100 or so?

Isn't 500,000 >> 100?

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Not if you're talking about reliability.

So why would, say, a Concorde be different from an Intrepid? Or if that's too similar for you, why would an M-body LeBaron have been different from the F-body Aspen it was based on?

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

You're the one challenging the CR data. Yet you provide no evidence it's biased.

I suggest you read my statement. I said no such thing, only that you're claiming the owners report differently.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

CR reports the number of responses in their annual Auto issue.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Then you're extraordinarily clueless.

No, you attract them with reviews of products people may be thinking of buying, and with CR's reputation for honesty and fairness.

And what would those be? That some products are good, and some are not. That some are safe, and some are not. That some are reliable, and some are not. Gee, what a warped perception of life!

Then you're pretty dumb, as you've obviously never read CR.

Now I know you're clueless.

Nor that Fox is fair and balanced, or that the earth is 6000 years old, ...

Yeah, there's a minor difference between a Cavalier and a Corolla, or a Concorde and an E-Class. As I said, clueless.

Because that's why people subscribe to CR. Obviously something you wouldn't understand in a million years.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Stupidity alert!

The Sienna is built in America; it's CR top-rated minivan.

CR's top mid-priced sedan is the American-made Accord.

I suggest you compare CR's ratings with those of JD Power, or even Car & Driver.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Yeah, yeah, and aliens are living among us. Tell us more myths.

Reply to
Lloyd Parker

Nobody is saying it the way you are. CR is consistently anti-American caqr, therefore I am anti-CR.

Reply to
scott

I wouldn't know, never bothered to watch it. However CR is not "fair and balanced."

Reply to
scott

But that's not what I said.

What I said is that their rating systems are biased toward foreign cars in general.

For example they will make a big deal over where an American car puts an ashtray or vanity light but ignore the fact that the foreign car has an oil filter that needs a wrench bent like a pretzel to remove.

Reply to
psycho_pastrami

It's the what they considered important that makes the difference.

For example, CR will make a big deal out of where a vanity light switch is placed, yet ignore the fact that the oil filter is buried in the engine compartment. Stuff like that was done routinely back in the 80's by CR.

I'm not suggesting that at all. What I am saying is that the Japanese took CR's reports as learning tools and improved upon their products where the American car manufacturers did what THEY felt needed improvement.

IOW the Japs studied for the exam and the Americans didn't.

CR's opinions are very powerful, you would be surprised. Take a look at sales of cars that they have hated and see what happens to them.

I won't disagree with that statement as I lived it, but you also have to take into account the quality of the smaller American cars being built in the 80's which was terrible.

Honda's in the mid 80's were selling well above sticker and had waiting lists for them.

Agreed. See above.

The Japs also paid very close attention to publications like CR so that they could learn what would ensure them a good mark on the reports.

You are missing the point.

CR ITSELF is not biased against the American cars. The testing methods are being exploited by the Jap cars, IOW they are listening to what CR critizies about a current year model and then they fix it so next years model does better in the reports.

One has to look at what CR considers important and how it is weighted in the testing to see that the average Jap car fits a CR report to the letter.

Reply to
psycho_pastrami

To clarify, the only thing the same was the frame/engine/transmission. Just about everything else, including springs, suspension and the interior was completely different.

It depends on what is meant by "platform".

The Dodge Aspen and the Plymouth Volare would be similar, almost identicle in fact and had they made that statement I would have agreed.

However, in this case most of what they complained about in the Volare review did not even remotely apply to my LeBaron so their claims were way off base.

Reply to
psycho_pastrami

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.