Depends. Wasn't it Consumer Reports, about a decade ago, that criticized a small
>Jeep kind of car - Suzuki? - as tending to roll over. The testing agency then
>showed videos showing the car being tested. The agency had added steel bars
>extending out 10 feet or so from the middle of the left and right sides, with a
>wheel at the end, to prevent the car from rolling over and injuring the driver.
>Fine, but these bars changed the whole angular momentum (if that's the right
>term) of the car, making the test car much less stable than the stock vehicle. >
>I've read other CR tests that similarly showed that the organization didn't have
>much depth of knowledge of what they were testing. That's not too much of a
>criticism, since they test everything in sight, but an editorial staff that
>spends all their time testing cars would do better in some ways. Reliability is
>not one of them, though: the agency just counts problems per year.
Depends. Well said.
I read an auto battery test in CU once that took a bunch of new batteries off shelf and tested them for output and then rated them. Worthless!
Almost all new batteries work perfectly well. I want to know what battery is going to work perfectly well in 10 years.
So CU is good, but each study or survey must be looked at with perspective.
nate