What to do about CR?
Consumer Reports has, using questionable statistics, managed to exclude just about every American vehicle from its top car lists, and even its “top American car” list fails to have a single domestic minivan – or any Chrysler vehicle at all, including those that have gained high reliability ratings. One problem is the lack of alternatives; there really are no better American reports. That’s not to say one person isn’t trying; Michael Karesh is trying to build a system that addresses some of Consumer Reports’ reliability survey problems. You can be part of the solution by signing up to be a member of his panel, and giving him enough data about your car(s) to have a credible counter to Consumer Reports. The path for Michael is difficult, not just because CR is an established institution that journalists and judges alike seem to feel is beyond reproach, no matter what their actions. Try out his site.
Agreed. I signed up when he first came around; it’ll be good to have another voice out there.
It seems to me That most folks whom come to this site, are Owners! Perhaps an “ALLPAR AWARD” after so many nominations.
I am sure sombody would be interested in collected survey data.
As we all know polls are not always accurate.
Many years ago; the Dart and Valiant could do ‘no wrong’ in CR’s eyes———much like
Honda and Toyota these days.
Heck; even the Aspen/Volare had the ‘golden boy’ halo in their favor———till their
dismal reliability cropped up.
I just joined up, and posted some info about my car. It’s interesting to see how well things stack up when not in the confines of a biased report; one slanted by heavy bribes.
While the old CR did usually praise the Valiant/Dart, they also pointed out its deficiencies and I think did a pretty honest comparison. Not sure when they changed – but I really do miss days when they would do a good oil filter study … (FWIW, they found Fram and Mopar to be the best, which tells you how long ago that was.) Back then, I suspect that if testing showed up weird/unbelieveable results, they’d look at their testing before jumping to conclusions. Today they seem to have a very high level of arrogance and unrealistic self-confidence that gets in the way of their science – because you can’t have good science if you’re not in any way skeptical of your own results.
I haven’t used CR for several years now. I figured the import industry is lining the pockets of CR. I’ve owned my Mopar’s
for years now with doing nothing more than mantainance.
T
CR allways follow the money, even Motor Trend Car of the Year Award, how come for 2005 they picked the 300C as car of the Year and next year they virtually changed their minds over Honda´s Money and even in the regular surveys they gave the “former car of the year” a real bad time.
of course to be fair and square it makes me wonder both sides, was really the 300C deserving the Car Of the Year Award in 2005? and ofcourse were the Honda´s really that amazing the next year?
I beleave its just an advertizing stunt, and CR are just that as well, u will remember me, when Chrysler gets in the hand´s of an equity Firm, they have the Cash and CR´s will Magically change for better numbers for Mopar´s. and all of the sudden Chrysler product´s will be the only ones challenging the huge Japanese invadors, and holding the pride of American built and engeneered cars, not like now that are just German Managed Garbage, u will see.
Best Regards
Chrysler is just as guilty as the imports when it comes to vehicles of the year. I always found it funny that Petersen’s 4X4 magazine seemed to always choose either a Dodge truck or a Jeep for 4X4 of the Year. I’m sure there was some money changing hands.
Back in the early-mid 70s, when the Dart, Valiant and Satellite were all high on CR’s list, CR liked to make their car vision clear. They believed that an adequately-powered, comfortably roomy sedan with decent road manners (and no oversteer) and good fuel economy and safety features was the ideal vehicle that all should aspire to. Full-sized cars were grudgingly reviewed, and always with the caveat that most people who purchased them didn’t need them. Jeeps and SUVs were evaluated on the same scale as sedans and wagons, and failed miserably. Once in a blue moon, they might review some luxury vehicles, but they always seemed a bit embarrased about it. And their reliability data was logically broken down — percentage-based, with separate categories for different engines (different engine families, like 6-cyl and 8-cyl) and transmissions (manual vs automatic). And, you could usually pick a winner by finding a car that CR liked and found reliable that was also found likeable by some of the enthusiast magazines.
Fast forward to the last decade or two. The reliability ratings have become increasingly meaningless, as their numerical basis has been hidden and their categories have been merged. The evaluation of automobiles based on function, which was the hallmark of CR in the 60s and 70s, has given way to comparisons within arbitrarily-defined classes. Little attention is paid to the strengths or weaknesses of one class versus another. Little of the criteria used to compare cars is published, and it only rarely is published consistently for all vehicles, even witihin a single comparison.
This change does not just afflict their vehicle reports. They are cramming more and more different product reports into each issue, but those reports are shorter and less detailed. Want to know why a given washing machine was rated higher than another? Too bad, they generally don’t tell you anymore. You’re just supposed to trust them, probably based on their reputation earned over decades of objective product evaluation.
In the 1970s and 1980s, there was an “alternative” to CR named something like Consumers Guide. That magazine provided no objective comparisons and little reliable data. It seems to me that CR has moved awfully far in that direction.
I applaud Michael Karesh both for his Truedelta web site and also for his automobile reviews (see http://www.epinions.com/user-mkaresh) in which he states the basis for his evaluation clearly, thus ensuring that we readers understand how to apply the information that he provides to our individual criteria. In both cases, he is doing useful things that CR used to do but has now chosen not to.