Screw Consumer Reports

as mentioned above, with 10,000 dollar rebates, sounds like if they routinely sold them for less (while still making money), they'd fare much better.

Another example in CRs current ratings for the Crown Vic and the Grand Marquis, that have consistently been the most dependable value priced vehicles on the road, which are in fact the same vehicle with different trim. Rating them differently indicates their methodology is flawed and therefore useless.

mike hunt

and the opinion's of it's subscribers, this is where they get the history of the autos they report on (not the review section)

Ford, make a better car that competes. Toyota is expanding, Honda is holding the market share, or growing. Why? Because the "buy American" rhetoric didn't take. While I love to support our country (I have a Mercury and a Ford out of two vehicles) the "buy American" crowd have not done our nation justice. Which of the "American" made vehicles is truly made in America anymore? I think it's called assembly. My Mercury Grand Marquis is made in Canada, but somehow, "that is ok, they are a socialist nation, but hey, who cares, at least it's not Asian!"???? I would call every auto maker within our borders to lower the greed, along with the prices, and design a truly good car with American parts, not Chinese parts (General Motors locks say Made In China).

Apparently not. Actually consumer do NOT go out and buy those recommend by CR, since their top ten vehicles does not mirror the top ten selling vehicles in the US. GM and Ford sell millions more of their vehicles annually in the US than does any import. Chrysler sells hundred of thousands more then the best selling import as well. Seems to me only those easily duped by CRs opinions are buying those suggest by CR as being 'better' vehicles LOL

mike hunt

the consumer reads the

CR has been good to us, I have no problems with their recommended best-buys, they tend to hit the nail on the head. We purchased our Club Wagon with their recommendation in mind. We had a Taurus at the time, you know, the model from hell. Well, purchased a Club anyway and have loved it (we had 4 kids then, we have 6 now with 1 on the way). It has been a good van and the problems that we have had were identified by CR so we knew what we were getting into. Maybe there is a lot of emotion behind anti-CR rhetoric. I know I can't afford to have the "BEST" car, that doesn't mean I should get mad at CR. That's stupid. I at least can know the possible problems I will experience on a percentage basis. If 95% or cars are deemed bad, I'm sure that the 5% of those who purchased good cars will strongly disagree.

You think it is better to buy a Toyota made in Japan of Chinese parts? ;)

mike hunt

Actually the percentage of GOOD cars, as reported by CR, is 98 % no mater who builds them. Only 2%, at worst, are problematic over five years, if one interprets their reports properly. ;)

mike hunt

I don't endorse Mike Marlow's "more in disrespect" assessment of CR; but the proof's in the eating, not in the ingredients.

Impartiality is not a guarantee of competence: a judge can be honest but inept. And who says CR is entirely impartial? Financial interests aren't the only potential sources of bias. Political or other attitudes could influence product evaluations just as much as the financial entanglements that CU ostentatiously avoids.

CR's testing is honest, but the criteria they use aren't delivered from heaven on stone tablets. Somebody at CR picks them, and that's where most of the subjectivity comes in. I often find CR's rating criteria somewhat odd, especially in the product categories I know something about. Who's right? Both and neither. We just have different opinions -- and biases.

As for the polls of CR's user base, that's a self-selected subset (respondents) of a CU-selected subset (recipients) of a self-selected set (subscribers) of people -- who probably tend to share CR's point of view, political and otherwise. See? Potential bias everywhere.

CR is a useful source of information and a good first step for anybody who wants an overview of what's out there. It's closer to Wikipedia than to "unimpeachable". Nobody should rely exclusively on their recommendations. I don't think many car buyers do.

Not really. CR is not nearly as objective as you'd like to think.

"without peer and unimpeachable" right......

Some years ago (many) CR did a test of soldering irons and accessories. They tested some of the equipment I was using professionally and they were totally WRONG.

Example, they tested various electronic soldering iron tips, copper, gold plated etc. At the time we were using Gold plated tips because of the superior heat transferring and anti-oxidizing properties, nowadays iron plated tips are quite common. CR's objective without peer and unimpeachable rating--- Gold plated tips were a waste of money because the plating came off when they are filed.

I guess they didn't know how to read or follow directions, the package the tips came in was boldly marked "Do Not File". Plated tips are not filed to shape like the old solid copper tips meant for metal soldering. You see eventually the copper and solder reacted with each other and caused corrosion of the copper tips requiring dressing to remove the uneven corroded surface. Plated tips are purchased in the desired shape and can last many years.

Ever since, I have taken a CR review with a grain of salt, sometimes they don't have a clue what they are doing. Just my opinion.

Over the years, CR has recommended a lot of crap products. I learned not to trust them in the past.

I have had no epiphany that they are now any better.

YUP... meant Freestar. The last generation Windstar is a great vehicle too. Even the last 96/97 Aerostars had all the bugs worked out as ugly as they were... I miss mine(the interior space esp. w/ seats out) now though, except I can get almost double the fuel economy now w/ the Taurus.

Rob

There is a difference between "their" and "there."

Even more recently than that, when the new Pontiac Grand Prix debuted a couple of years back I had considered buying one and decided to check out what CR had to say about the new model (2002, or 2003 I think it was). They dissed the car quite a bit in their "review", and then later in the same review admitted something to the effect that they had yet to drive the new remodelled version.

Right then and there I vowed never to buy that magazine again. It's plain that there is an agenda to bash the american cars and promote the import. How can you "review" a vehicle that you have never even driven? If you drive it and then you don't like it, that's your right. To bash it without having driven it, for an "objective" magazine is unforgivable.

Need more proof? Look to the recommended used car list. As far back as they go you'll find hardly any American cars on the list, and if memory serves, no GM vehicles. You're telling me that the largest car company in the world has not made a single model in the last 10 or so years that's worth buying? Not one? Whether you're a GM fan or not, with the number of vehicles they produce you must admit that they should put out a winner every once in a while, even if it's by accident.

And the avoid list ... Honda or Toyota haven't produced a single lemon in that same time period? Come on ...

Consumer Reports consistently rates foreign vehicles higher than Ford, GM, and Chrysler simply because of the fact that it is one of many mouthpieces of the globalists or "new world order" morons who simply promote their agendas. We Americans are quickly becoming members of the internationalists' bull crap state while our jobs are outscourced to China and India.

please, someone, where is my tinfoil...

"Darren Toews" wrote in news:jY_Of.72111$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe14.lga:

I don't have much of a problem with this, especially with GM's history of lightly restyling a product 1/2 through an 8-10 year life cycle and calling it 'new'. If a product is uncompetitive from a powertrain, ride, interior space, reliability, etc. standpoint and you restyle the body, then any one of us would have an opinion to state without driving it.

Hard to believe, but true.

Their is no difference at all.

Spoken like a truly ignorant person that refuses to be convinced by facts and objective testing. BTW I found your picture here: