Consumer Reports is not happy today

Consumer Reports magazine said today it will not recommend the Chevrolet Tahoe SUV and Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX crossovers because of low scores in the magazine's tests, and panned Ford Motor Co.'s MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch technology.

The magazine also said it will not recommend the Infiniti QX56, a V-8 version of the Jeep Grand Cherokee and the Porsche Cayenne. Those SUVs performed well in testing, but were too new for Consumer Reports to have adequate reliability data to recommend, it said.

The Tahoe, Edge and MKX scored too low in testing to be recommended, the magazine, published by Consumers Union, said in a press release.

“All three of these vehicles have a number of strengths, but each had some notable weaknesses that forced their testing scores to fall below our standard for a recommended SUV,” said David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports' Auto Test Center in East Haddam, Conn.



Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110104/OEM/110109980/1280#ixzz1A5GKEjvH


I guess it you have cavernous cargo capacity, run like you have a lion chasing you, or are simply one of the coolest SUVs on the planet, you aren't among the CR chosen. Consumer Reports, for YEARS they loved Toyota so much they recommended their cars without testing.

I wonder why.....


How many people who take these folks at their word would buy one of these anyway. Also notice, four of the six that got hit by the CR whipping stick were domestics, continuing to follow a pattern by them of being in love with our Foreign masters.

If so, then they're right to not recommend them, I'd think. I'll have to read the reports to see where they found fault.

in every review I've read. When did they not test Toyotas? I don't just accept claims without evidence.

In fact, CR has given Toyota's Lexus SUV a "Don't Buy" rating in 2010. See this:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-13/toyota-s-lexus-gx-suv-called-safety-risk-by-consumer-reports.html

So where's the evidence that they don't test Toyotas or rate them in the same way they do other cars? I'll check back for your response.

"Consumer Reports, for YEARS they loved Toyota so much they recommended their cars without testing." Did you read the entire OP before you responded to it?

No CR spokesperson was quoted or named. Who admitted it? I'm sorry, but why should I accept an unattributed quote in an AutoWeek article? Which CR spokesperson admitted this, and when? What's the context of the admission?

Edited to correct brain fart.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You're not making much sense here. :hi:

Brain fart.

From a contemporary blog entry

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2007/10/toyota-tumbles-in-consumer-reports-reliability-ratings/

"CR says the results are so rad/bad they're changing their "free ride" methodology. Before now, Consumer Reports would assume at least average reliability for Toyota's new cars, without waiting for owner survey data. From now on, the magazine will wait for a full year of reliability survey data before recommending a Toyota product."

Nothing about not testing cars for perfomance, but the usual requirement of reliability as shown by survey data suspended for new or redesigned models (for that first model year, after that survey data was available)

On edit: This is evidently the inital press release.

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/105981712.html

"Occasionally, Consumer Reports may recommend a new or redesigned model too new to have compiled a reliability record if the previous generation, or the manufacturer's reliability track record has been consistently outstanding, AND IF THE MODEL SCORES WELL IN CR'S TESTS"

common stuff these days. So, they didn't have the reliability scores, but they did test and drive the cars. They didn't actually admit to rating without testing. That's what I thought. Thanks for doing the research.

It just says Consumer Reports, which admitted it has automatically given certain Toyotas "recommended" ratings without ever driving them..., which means NOT ALL, only CERTAIN ones.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What's the factual basis for that claim?

John Greenstreet: "the CR survey may over/understate the reliability of certain cars because the people that own them are not homogeneous. ... many people will have a subconscious need to justify their purchase of a Japanese auto over of a domestic one, and they could do this by believing superior reliability is the reason they bought it. Because of cognitive dissonance, they would tend to overlook or downplay anything that would attack this mind-set. We do see many people who vehemently defend Japan's cars' reliability and smear that of others."

http://www.allpar.com/cr.html


Just Google "Consumer Reports Bias" and you'll find pages and pages of consumers who think they are more than biased toward Toyota: http://www.google.com/search?q=consumer+reports+didn%27t+test+toyotas&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=GXV&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&q=consumer%20reports%20bias&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=a644140a504db2e5&pf=p&pdl=300

the Bible among the Internet "CR is biased" crowd.

I once emailed Zatz and asked him if he ever determined what sample size the "taudry 12% response rate" to CR's survey represented. He never did respond.

By the way, that Toyota bias didn't do a lot for the Lexus GX460, which received a "Not Acceptable" rating last year, the first since another Japanese make, the Mitsubishi Montero, received one in 2001.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100415/carnews/100419932

Toyota stopped GX 460 sales earlier this week. Consumer Reports, which admitted it has automatically given certain Toyotas "recommended" ratings without ever driving them, warned against buying the GX 460, calling it a potential safety risk in certain corners. Toyota also suspended sales in the Middle East and Russia, the other markets where the GX 460 is sold. Toyota has sold 5,400 2010 GXs in the United States and Canada in the four months it has been on the market, 580 in the Middle East and Russia.

But, you'll find something wrong with this, too.

What's wrong is CR never admitted to giving recommendations WITHOUT EVER DRIVING THEM. This article does a better job of explaining it.

http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/10/consumer-reports-toyota-quality-sees-cracks-in-its-armor.html

CR gave recommendations to new and redesigned vehicles for which they had no reliability ratings. The vehicles still had to do acceptably in road tests and in government crash tests.

Now I'll admit, most of the confusion is CR's own fault, they're the ones who used the phrase 'automatic recommendations' in their inital press release, which included no phrase about not driving the vehicles. However, that's no justification for those who continue to misrepresent what it means.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Volkswagen Passat
Mitsubishi Galant
BMW 335d
Saab 9-3 2.0T
BMW 535i
Audi A6 3.0T
Mercedes-Benz CL
Lexus GS 450h
Jaguar X
Volvo S80
Honda Civic EX
Mitsubishi Lancer ES
Kia Rio Sedan
Hyundai Accent
Toyota Yaris
Smart ForTwo
Mazda2
BMW 135i
Subaru Impreza WRX
Nissan 370Z
Mazda RX-8
Mitsubishi Lancer
Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution
Mitsubishi Lancer Relliart
Mini Cooper Covertible S
Mini Cooper Hatchback S
Nissan Sentra SE-R
Honda CR-Z EX
Mitsubishi Eclipse

I don't care enough to post an exhaustive list across all product classes.

and an even better explanation of what it takes to earn a recommendation.

http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/pressroom/2010/11/redesigned-jeep-grand-cherokee-outperforms-toyota-4runner-in-face-off.html

"The redesigned Jeep Grand Cherokee midsized SUV earned a Very Good road test score and outscored its traditional rival, the Toyota 4Runner, which earned a Good score, in a face-off between the two vehicles in Consumer Reports’ December issue.

The Grand Cherokee is too new for Consumer Reports to have reliability data and the 4Runner scored too low in CR’s testing for CR to Recommend it. CR only Recommends vehicles that have performed well in its tests, have at least average predicted reliability based on CR’s Annual Auto Survey of its more than seven million print and Web subscribers, and performed at least adequately if crash-tested or included in a government rollover test."

The claim was that CR recommends Toyota without testing them. What is the factual basis for THAT claim?

Now I remember, driving the cars doesn't qualify as testing. :rofl:

Not a one.

CR claims 7,000,000 subscribers. But they test cars like they do washing machines, without ANY thought to practical everyday use. And their Foreign bias is legendary.

good reviews from CR at the time. My father has been using CR as a basis for buying cars for nearly 40 years.

Torah, and Magna Carta all rolled into one big pile of yuppie self-confirmation. There are people who do not buy ANYTHING without pulling out a year's worth of CR back issues and buying guides.

...and while I DO read their reviews of cars I'm considering purchasing, I don't give them any more weight than any other auto magazine. I DO pay attention to the reported reliability ratings that other owners have submitted, though. I place a lot of weight on the opinions of actual owners.

My problem with CR is that they simply don't keep most of their cars long enough to really flog them and find out how they perform in the real world. Two weeks on a skid pad isn't enough to really give you an "owners feel" for a car.

OTOH, I rely on CR heavily for things like appliances and electronics. I just bought a new carpet cleaner for my house almost entirely based off the testing and ratings CR had given it.

"The Chevy Tahoe, in turn, was downgraded for its “ungainly” handling and long stopping distances. Consumers Reports said the interior fit and finish didn't match the Tahoe LTZ's high price of $57,435 as tested."

$60K when you consider taxes & fees. For $60K the vehicle better be downright flawless which it wasn't.

What is ignored is that the "biased" consumer reports recommended Chevy Suburban and Ford Expedition instead.

Then one hands to pretend that CR didn't recommend the Ford Focus, Ford Fusion and Chevy Malibu and put them in the coveted top cars under $25K list. Silverado and Avalache are recommended yet again this year by CR for I don't the 10th year in a row?

Also recommended are Ford Tarus Limited, Cadillac SRX, Ford Expedition CL, Chevy Suburban LT3, Chevy Traverse, Ford Flex Limited, Lincoln MKT Ecoboost, Ford Escape Hybrid, and more.

Dozens of foreign models failed to make the cut off for recommended. Even such vehicles as BMW 535i and Volvo V80.

Yup they only recommend foreign brands, and never domestics.

QC is better in the plants that make the Focus, Fusion, and Malibu. It could be the plant that makes the Tahoe has a management team that doesn't stress quality. Their focus could be with numbers, not a quality product.

During the Roger Smith years I kept hearing from GM workers complaining about the assembly line being sped up to the point where they could barely keep up.

There are others like Motorweek and Edmunds.

So for example the lower priced Chevy had fit and finish that are comparable to their competitors/peers. However $60K is asking a lot for a vehicle and when the fit and finish is mostly cheap, hard plastic, and doesn't line up properly in places that is a lot to ask.

What might be acceptable or even good at a $30K price tag is no longer acceptable at $60K price tag. The fit and finish declined from last years Tahoe obviously an attempt to lower cost of production while still keeping the sky high pricetag.

Lasts years Tahoe was a better vehicle for the price and was recommended.
This years Tahoe is a worse vehicle for the same price and is not recommended.

with foreign cars have more time to take surveys than people with American cars.

:shrug:

Quite possibly the most unreliable, cantankerous tub of shit on wheels sold today. Ungodly, unseemly and completely unlikable.

As a quick not to both CR and Ford, the latest (I think) issue rates smaller cars, and Ford got not only high marks from CR but also very high praise.

Really??? $58,000 tub of shit on wheels?

:spray:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

platform where they use that chassis and stick a different body on top...

Handling, shit...

Quality, shit...

MPG, shit...

Styling, shit...

Want to see something funny, the review of the Cadillac Escalade on Top Gear. Fucking Hilarious
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0dTkoJ0i2s

Toyota Motor Corp.’s Prius retained its title as Consumer Reports magazine’s top pick for environmentally friendly vehicles two weeks after the automaker recalled 437,000 hybrids to fix a brake software flaw.

The carmaker’s $76,572 Lexus LS460L was named best overall vehicle among more than 280 autos tested, the publication said at a news conference in Washington today. The Prius was ranked best “green” car for the seventh straight year.

The Consumer Reports rankings, used by U.S. car buyers, may help Toyota weather recalls now totaling more than 8 million vehicles worldwide and widening probes into its handling of the faults. A federal grand jury has asked for documents related to unintended acceleration and braking in the Prius, and three congressional panels are planning hearings, starting with a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee today.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-23/toyota-prius-keeps-consumer-reports-nod-after-recall-update1-.html

Bias anyone?

CR's right about that.

In fact, what I remember from reading the last CR car buying guide was that every Toyota with braking problems was noted with an asterisk instead of the typical checkmark they give recommended vehicles...

And face it, with very few exceptions, Toyotas and Hondas typically are just plain better than their domestic counterparts. Domestic companies made some fairly good engines and platforms, but they weren't widely distributed...which is why people are right in saying that domestic cars are less reliable. Now look, I drive a Dodge and a Lincoln, and I love them both, but I've noticed them having more problems more often than my parents' CR-V and Ridgeline.

Anyone who bases their entire car-buying purely off of CR is just wrong anyway. You should never go to just one source for all your information.

Toyota's and Hondas AREN'T plain better than domestics. Having GOOD friends who own a Toyota dealership, they write over 25,000 repair orders a month in a 20 bay repair shop open 6 days a week , attached to a dealership with 5 other Toyota dealers in a 25 mile radius. And those aren't for oil changes.

Correction, I just called the Service manager (1:35PM), they wrote over 26,200 in December, and expanded their service hours from 7am - 5pm to 6AM-9PM because they couldn't get enough work done.


http://wheego.net/more/vehicles/



http://wheego.net/more/vehicles/specs/

And as usual, no response.

The Prius has been around since 1997. It's still one of the most mainstream and affordable environmentally-friendly vehicles.

And while I know dealers and shops write up a lot of repair orders, I'd like to see that Toyota dealership's numbers stacked up against a Chrysler or GM dealership. And while you say they aren't oil changes, there's tons of factors that could play into what those problems are...could be some driver error as well...not everyone is responsible for driving their car how a car should be driven.

If you can drive a Honda or Toyota responsibly, they'll last well over 200K miles. If you know what you're doing and you're willing to keep up with maintenance on them, most domestic cars can do the same. I recently brought a 1993 Dakota that was my cousin's car when he was in high school (he's been graduated from college for four years now) back to life and it's still running like a champ.

so once again, you're wrong.

You can drive any car well over 200K miles. My 1998 Blazer which I SOLD two years ago had 229,000 on it without a major can't got to work failure in 10 years.

Once again, you're wrong.

Since you don't work at a dealership, how can you assume anything regarding repairs such as you made in your second paragraph?

Once again, wrong.


Leafs ARE on the road.

Once again, wrong.

Google is your friend. If you had simply searched you'd find the articles showing the deliveries of the Leafs and Volts.

And then you wouldn't be wrong.

And yes, they ARE extremely environmentally-friendly, but not even the Prius was named by CR (them darned Toyota lovers) as its most environmentally-friendly car its first few years.

I didn't make any assumptions. I don't work in a dealer, but I have worked in a couple different shops in addition to my own freelance work on the side, and I'll tell you right now, more times than I care to count, people brought in their cars to be fixed after they did something REALLY stupid with them. Some idiot blowing the clutch after he tried to peel out of his driveway, someone with massive alignment problems because he took his unmodified Sierra over some extremely bumpy roads, or people who nearly ruined their transmissions by neglecting to have the ATF flushed until nearly 8k miles after they were supposed to.

I wasn't making assumptions, and I'm not trying to degrade your work experience (which you obviously have plenty of), I simply want to see the numbers of that Toyota dealer stacked up against someone else's. Then we'd have numbers for comparison.

But from the smarmy attitudes of most Pious owners, they don't care much for humans anyway.

lots of repair problems. Same for Dodge Caravan. Had a Toyota Sequoia - loved the car, no repair problems but it couldn't break its addition to gasoline. Bought Prius for mileage. Hope some company comes out with a hybrid minivan. I'd buy it in a New York minute whoever makes it. With gas going to $4 - $5 a gallon, don't need a car/SUV that takes a lot of gas.

or a Toyota or Honda which are middle of the road soulless transportation appliances, then you basically don't understand what the love of automobiles is all about. You'll never understand why they make Ferrari's what it feels like to go 175 mph in a ZR1 Corvette, enjoy the driving experience in a Bentley Continental, drive a Mercedes Benz SL65 AMG at 120mph with the top down and enjoy listening to the radio. They'll never understand or enjoy any of that.

It wasn't thrilling. It was scary and don't need to do it again. On a race track it may be appropriate but when those high powered cars pass me on the freeway and on country roads, it's not a sense of wonder that is felt - it's fear for myself and my family and for the driver of the fast moving car.

Vanilla, is that your favorite pudding?

You can damn well drive one of those "middle of the road soulless transportation appliances" and understand a love of automobiles. It's possible to love a Civic, and it's possible to love a Corolla. Not everyone can afford to hop into a Ferrari or Corvette, so some of us just have to make do with what we have.

I tell you, the hundreds of hours I've poured into modifying my Ram to transform it into a combination heavy-duty work truck and a weekend 4x4 or the many hundreds of dollars that have gone into turning my old Town Car into the luxury ride it's supposed to be have taught me a lot about the love of automobiles. You don't have to be an adrenaline junkie to appreciate cars.

I'm so sorry I didn't put a jacked up mud truck in my post as an example.




There, is that good enough to make you feel included?

Because, obviously, if I talk about an off-road capable truck, it MUST have a ten inch lift and enormous tires.

My Ram's barely lifted two inches and actually has stock A/T tires attached to it, and when I mention off-road modifications, I mean a brush guard, a headache rack with a light bar attached, and a winch. You know, PRACTICAL things that have just as many uses on-road or in my potential job market (pending the required several years' work experience, being an ASE-certified technician; construction work on the side) as they do off-road.

And I guess I never mentioned the weeks I spent modifying my EVAP and EGR systems in the truck to further reduce any of the emissions coming out of it. But then again, by your logic, "modified truck" obviously means an environment killer driven by a drunk redneck who goes around shooting at road signs and plowing through brush.

Or all the parts I've been slowly accumulating to convert my friend's old Ranger into an EV?

Most of the time for good reason.

Not only domestics, but they raved about a Toyota and didn't recommend the IDENTICAL Lexus model.
They are useful for people who think cars are appliances.

I don't see the problem there. 10 years ago I thought the Ford Crown Victoria was an incredible deal, but at double the price as a Lincoln Town Car the car had much more serious competition and wasn't special.

If they're identical vehicles, why is one priced higher?

Thee is no Toyota and Lexus model that is IDENTICAL (to use your upper caps for emphasis).

Sure there are models which are similar, and based on the same chasis and powerplant but they have differing options, trims, fit and finish, and most importantly price.

Maybe they gave the Lexus lower marks because there wasn't enough to distinguish the Lexus from the highly similar Toyota given the price increase?

All ratings are relative to the price. Obviously an entry level vehicle ($20K) is going to have lower quality finish, be smaller, and have less options. Still it can get a high rating relative to it's peers AND price.

Why this bogus black and circle red circle thing? CR has demonized American cars mostly without reason.

Funny my sister just bought a new Prius and has already had more problems than the rest of the families 100k+ miles Jeeps.

BTW, the Prius is built with close to slave labor (contract labor from Vietnam with passports held)

Harvey Balls, and yes that's what they are named, are often used to allow easy comparison of quality.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Balls

<http://www.truedelta.com/>

Still a self selecting survey but much better than CR

The owner shows up on some other boards I visit, explaining his site and asking people to register and report their experiences.

and nothing but housework to do for me today!

Pass the salt, please?

This should be good. Buttered popcorn here!

:popcorn:

spouse figured it out right away. CR hasn't had any credibility in this household for years but I'm a bit surprised about their stated reasons this time. At least they finally admitted that they rate a goodly percentage of their cars without driving or substatively testing.

Of course as you get use to it, it would not be as distracting since you would not be looking at it as much as when you first drive one. The displays are more digital than analog and I found myself reading the displays rather than watching the road. The dealer said that it would take about 24 hours for a person to get use to the technology. I think he is right.

If you like technology you would like the "my touch" and the navigation options.

We ended up buying a used Edge with less technology than the 2011 version and we love the car!

The cognitive dissonance angle has merit. The buyers of "highly rated" ( expensive/foreign ) loath to admit faults. It must be asked of them: Did you buy it because you like it, or did you like it because you bought it?

When I was working my way through school at at a relative's auto repair/gas station in the 80's/90's, I used to fume at CR's raving about Saabs, Volvo's and Audi's of the era. They were glitchy high maintenance JUNK yet the yuppie scumbags that drove them defended them even as we fixed their overrated shit...and yet, the 2 Ford Mustang GT's I bought over 9 years were rated lower than whale shit, despite the fact that they were absolutely trouble free, other than a clutch ( from weekend drag racing it at Englishtown ) and tires, filters etc.

I want to know about a car, I'll ask a fellow gearhead, not some starch shirted smug prick.

Rant mode off

Compared to 25 years ago, your average car in 2011 is vastly more reliable.

There are some exceptions however. I know several mechanics & repair shop owners and have asked them what used cars people should avoid. They all have said stay far, far away from anything Jaguar or Ranger Rover. Not like I could afford either, but I would warn anyone considering purchasing those brands.

So that I can tow my money around with me.


:P