Consumer Reports: Your Two Cents

[frigilux]

It is no secret that I subscribe to Consumer Reports both online and in print form, and consult their test results when considering a purchase. I don't consider it a bible, but it remains the only organization that tests products with no financial connection to manufacturers, either through advertising or receiving free products (which are often pre-tested and tweaked by manufacturers).

It is also no secret that Consumer Reports is one of the most disparaged organizations by AW members, second only to WCI appliances, LOL.

I thought it would be interesting to gather everyone's thoughts on CR in a single thread. In other words, even if you've expressed opinions in other threads, please restate them here.

I'll go first. Here's what I like and don't like:

1. I like that all models/brands of a product are tested under consistent protocols, which makes it easier to compare the strengths and weaknesses of each product. Tests appear rigorous.

2. They receive no money or products from the manufacturers whose products they test. They buy products off the shelf at a store the same way I do. There is no chance for a manufacturer to tweak or optimize a product that is sent to them to be tested.

3. They test hundreds of models of washers, dryers, refrigerators, ranges, and cars.

4. I wish they would abandon the red dot/black dot system of reporting their findings and instead give each tested category a numeric score of 1 to 100. Here's why: Two washers, for instance, may rate Very Good in cleaning performance. A rating of Very Good can have a 20-point spread. Does that mean the washer was only a point or two away from being rated Excellent, or a point or two away from being rated only Good? A numeric score would make that clear, allowing me to make a more informed choice.

5. I miss the in-depth articles that used to accompany tests. We often get only a few sentences and a chart of test results these days.

 

[maytagbear]

I agree

CR/CU isn't what it used to be, in my opinion, but it's still front line defense for purchasing. They still do a lot of consumer lobbying in Washington, but don't emphasize it as much as they used to.

(Gentle tone) They do 1-100 ratings in the April Auto Issue......

My big grouse is their move to "selected" product ratings....just the first 10 or so of a particular item in a category. More often than not, they are for the very expensive items in a category, like dishwashers for example, when the $700 something Bosch is considered a "Best Buy."

Similar, yet more minor, is that they seem to be focusing on electronic toys to the exclusion of almost everything else.

I KNOW they have to raise A LOT of money every year, to pay the staff, keep the lights on, and to buy the items....the cars/trucks alone cost two million (yes!) a year, but I miss the days when they didn't have all the specialty publications... Health, that "digest," Shop Smart......

I've been reading CR since I could read. I miss the longer articles. I miss the drawings by Ray (Roy?) Doty. I think Rhoda Karpatkin was a better Editor In Chief than Jim Guest.

However, I have saved a lot of money by reading CR, and although it is flawed, I will still read it until I am incapable of reading.

Lawrence/Maytagbear

 

[washman]

Trying to be nice here

When comparing older copies to new, I'd say up until the early to mid 90's or so, their reviews were very in depth and covered a lot of bases. Especially their auto reviews. While I never agreed 100%, at least one could come away with some knowledge to make a smart purchase.

That being said, I have some bones to pick with CR

1. In general, they are left leaning in their philosophies and often times anti-business slant in general.
2. their so called Annual Auto reliability is, at best, a joke. Here's why. I have seen and filled out the annual auto questionnaire. The biggest issue on that is it relies on the person, alone, to determine what constitutes a "serious" problem. What is serious to one person is nothing to another. Thus there is no consistent standardization in their responses. Example: I once owned a 1992 Dodge Spirit 4 door with a Chrysler built 2.5L four banger. For the 1992 reliability verdict, the V-6 version (both built in Toluca Mexico btw) rated "better than average" for paint durability whilst the 4 cyl version rated "worse than average". How is that possible when both cars are built in the same plant, same stampings, assembly processes and guess what, same paint in the paint booth! Does it make you wonder?
3. While free from commercial bias, they are hardly free from bias. Example, when in 1981 Japan Inc, agreed to the VRQ, ie to self limit the number of exports, CR in a 1984 or 85 issue lamented that the only problem with Japanese cars was there weren't enough of them and that government interference in free trade was bad but at the same time felt the government should mandate helmet laws across all 50 states for motorbikes.
4. In addition to #3 above, CR tests a Japanese car. It is a new model so there is no record of reliability yet. Nevertheless in the closing paragraph of the article CR will state, no data, new model but like other _______ (fill in with Japanese brand)we expect it to be reliable. Now flip the page and read the article test of a Detroit car. Last paragraph, no data, new model or, if a GM product, something along the lines of "GM cars have not exhibited the best reliability or GM is worse than average". If that is not a case of bias, then I don't know what is.
5. The various criteria used in ranking a reliability verdict was way off base. In other words, all categories were equally weighted! Sure, if you buy a new car, the paint should not peel off. Nor should it develop copious rattles and the like, but in the real world, you can have the ugliest paint on a car, it can rattle like a snake and STILL start, stop, go, etc. For years, Chrysler had issues with body hardware and integrity as did AMC and Jeep. But those vehicle lines had the best engines and transmissions in the industry. Yet CR weighted those just as they would the reliability of an engine or transmission and the final verdict would be a "much worse than average". Does it make you wonder?

And of course today, they've swallowed the eco-koolaid that has infected and thus displaced common sense in the laundry room therefore a TL SQ will never be worth purchasing because according to them, it uses too much water to get the job done.
While I agree they do complete testing of washers, I'd like them to actually USE them as we do on the real world. Then get back to me on the mold, the blown circuit board, the failed firmware updates, the need to run special cycles to clean the darn thing, the faulty mode shifters, the endless error codes, the lengthy cycles and the overall piss poor reliability. Even that being said, they'd find someway to write the reviews to convince the brain dead among us that nope, these really are what we need because Big Goobermint said so and the EPA said so and the DOE said so therefore it must be true so let's ban anything that uses water so we call all sing Kum By Yah and save Mother Earth.

If the goobermint can't seem to run a national rail service, Amtrak, effectively, why in the world would we expect any more common sense when it comes to laundry and dishes?

So much for the free market at work.

 

[paulg]

A... fair... publication

I agree with the above. My two cents:
Indeed I miss the very good and lengthy evaluations of product in the past. Today's reviews are much too dilute for my taste. I suppose that today's audience could be bored by the technical depth of yesterday's reviews, but I still miss it. I find their reviews of the 1950's FAR more interesting than today's!
Some of their reviews are very suspect, and CR should not be considered as gospel, in MY opinion.
In one instance a CD-cartridge-type changer brand that had a HORRIBLE reputation for reliability was rated very high in Consumer Reports.
I worked for this company's authorized service station at the time and these units were dropping like flies. They were just baaaad, and it was well known.
And so I wrote a letter to Consumer Reports asking WHY did they rate a known-horrible CD player so high. Certainly they couldn't miss the many complaints for this brand!
They wrote me back!
This was long ago but if I remember correctly, their response was essentially that they weighted the reliability of the CD cartridge players and CD carousel players together and the result was a good review for that brand overall.
I appreciated the response as I was a subscriber at the time. However I did question the notion of saying a CD changer that had an extremely high failure for cartridge and rather low failure for carousel and labeling it "good" without explanation.
I still buy the magazine on occasion when they review something that has my interest or deals with product I deal with at work. Otherwise, I no longer subscribe.

 

[jeffg]

Eugene, I have the same memory as Washman. Around the mid-1990's the quality of CR took a major dive, they stopped doing truly objective (and therefore useful) testing and became little more than an industry-driven marketing tool for whatever new gimmicks are being pushed at the time of reviews.

Washing machines are a perfect example imo. Compile reviews for them over the years and the problem is self-evident. E.g. is the limited water usage of front loaders important to CR? Most definitely. Is the fact these same washers take three times as long to run as top loaders important to CR? Not according to their ratings.

IMO it's pretty much useless for anything other than misleading consumers into asking the wrong questions about goods.

 

[supersuds]

Agree with most of the criticisms above, particularly Lawrence's comment about the incessant testing of electronic gadgets.

I have some issues from the late Fifties and early Sixties. The range of products reviewed dwarfs what we get today They tested things like aluminum boats, outboard motors, pup tents, after shave, even .22 cal. varmint rifles and (horror of horrors) cigarettes.

I think testing of outboard motors, boats and rifles would be just as relevant today as they were then. The only reason they wouldn't do it is that it would piss off much of their subscriber base. Instead we get issue after issue about cell phones, tablet computers, and the like, and it gets old.

On a completely unrelated note, I've been doing some painting recently. CR tests paints and provides some useful info, but their durability tests necessarily take years and by the time they have definitive results, everybody has changed their paint formulae again...oh, well.

 

[petek]

I've subscribed for years and my dad did ever since I can remember. I'm in agreement with a lot of what's been said above. Probably my biggest pet peeve though is the aforementioned focus on electronic gadgetry aka smart phones and tablets. I'm tired of reading about them.

Oh I almost forgot. There also seems to be a lot of "the best of" rehashing

 

[iheartmaytag]

I believe they attempt to be fair, but are biased

hey promote the throw away society by making an item with lesser quality but  lower price point a best buy.  

 

example:

For years in their vacuum cleaner reviews they will rate a plastic throw away vac as a best buy only on it's price point and initial performance.  However, they will Poo-poo the Kirby on it's price but actually did add the last time I read it.  . . .though the Kirby is expensive, and subject to high pressure sales tactics,  it does do as it is promised. . . 

 

I agree with a post above. There was a time that all a car had to do was be built in Japan and it automatically got a high rating. 

 

I do consult CR, but I also read reviews online for items at Amazon, and other retailers they make my own decision in a more informed manner. 

 

[danemodsandy]

I Always Try....

....To consult Consumer Reports before making major purchases.

And since I seldom purchase anything made after 1975, I have no quarrel with the quality of the issues I read.

Current issues are total merde.

* not ducking, not running *

 

[mrb627]

Consumers Best Buy

This year will be among the lowest of the low two years down the line. How many people who purchased based on their recommendation got screwed?

Malcolm

 

[DADoES]

 
Not related to content of the publication ... I subscribed online for a brief period (less than a year) some years aago.
1)  They required a valid credit card be maintained on the online account.  I could not remove my ccard info when I decided I didn't want to keep the subscription beyond the paid year.
2)  The subscription had slightly more than a month remaining when I put in the cancelation request and access was immediately terminated.  I didn't expect a refund of the balance but I did expect to have online access for duration of the paid year.

Related to content:
1)  I noted errors on the feature description of an appliance.  Contacted them to advise accordingly, they thanked me kindly for the message but did not correct the review.
2)  The yearly survey restricts response to products (appliances, lawn mowers, etc.) of 5 years age or less.  Thus, my appliance of 7, 9, 12, etc. years of age with one minor repair or NO REPAIRS doesn't qualify for their statistics.  I could send in a response anyway and fib about the age but that doesn't incorporate the true "aged" factor into their report.

 

[tomturbomatic]

I will be forever grateful to the publication and to my parents for maintaining a subscription through my childhood as it was my main supply of appliance porn, supplemented by ads in magazines. I did not know about Consumer's Research Bulletin until I started going to the public library, but it had a lot of good information also until it changed its scope and mission. I read and reread those issues for years until I loaned then to someone who did not return them. Each time a new appliance or piece of kitchen equipment caught my interest, I would go to the back issues of the title to do research. Especially in the early years of appliances, they were good for history and background as well as individual ratings.

I remember when they did a report on cookware in the late 70s or early 80s and covered the inside of skillets with a fine layer of granulated sugar to test for evenness of heat distribution. The Farberware skillet was just about perfect. They later used that method to test for evenness of heat distribution when they tested cook tops and the daisy burners on the Chambers rebadged as KitchenAids were terrible with little burned circles all over the pan.

I also liked it when they showed pictures of appliances and pictures of appliance malfunctions. I remember the picture of a man forcing the top bowl of the Cory electric vacuum brewer into the lower bowl without the filter rod in place demonstrating how water could squirt up. It did not happen if you moistened the gasket and eased it into place. The look on his face was priceless as the spurt of water shot up. He was probably really bad at sex.

 

[petek]

They sometimes send out a few too many mailers though and the little cards stuck in between the pages annoy the bejeezus out of me LOL but that's par for the course with any magazine I guess. I renewed in the spring when they offered a one year free gift subscription so I gave that to my sister and bil. One thing I never use is their annual book since I keep the copies and also have the online subscription.

 

[norgeway]

I collect the 50s thru the early 70s issues

Pretty much right on on ranges...Westinghouse or Frigidaires were usually top rated, but on washers mostly right...but often wayyy off...for instance they said a Maytag was above average in washing ability...but a Norge would not handle a large load!!LOL..aint that a crock.I wasnt running those tests I consistantly would have rated, Frigidaire, Norge, Kelvinator and Philco as the best at cleaning, and as they did get right, the Maytag best at durability.But really, my opinion's are not lab tested...

 

[bwoods]

only a shadow of its former self

After over 30 years of subscription to CR magazine, I finally had enough and let the subscription die. For all the above reasons that all of you have given.

Consumer reports used to be FUN to read. As people mentioned previously, past articles used to be in greater depth and better written. I much prefer the old P, F, G, E ratings versus the circles, half-filled in circles, etc.

Take dishwashers. they used to tell you which got dishes cleanest, which got glassware cleanest, which got flatware cleanest, etc. The reader decided which aspects were the most important to them. Now they don't break down separate functions, like drying ability, glassware ability, etc. as a rule. They just give an overall rating based on THEIR perception of what features, qualities are most important.

I would like to see washer ratings broken down for best washing score, best rinsing score, best water extraction score. I'll determine which machine has the best overall abilities for MY purposes.

They expend too much money and time on energy ratings. Why not just show the U.S. Government Energy use rating and leave it at that. No, the U.S. government ratings aren't perfect but they give an overall comparison.

Too much of the overall ratings are influenced by the above energy rating score. We all want to conserve resources, but some of us want performance and will give this a higher weight in our standards. They don't, for example, tell you which dishwashers leave garbage in the bottom of the tub filter, with every drop of wash and rinse water being strained through this filth, Dishwashers with a food waste disposer don't do this.

If a consumer doesn't want their dishes washed in garbage, they must rinse them before putting them into the dishwasher. However, consumer reports does not calculate this into the energy use of the machine.

Likewise, newer clothes washers often don't rinse well, and some of us with allergies to detergents (or who just don't like detergent residue on our clothing) may have to run the clothes through several additonal rinses because many of these newer machines don't have the rinsing ability of the older ones. That shoots down all energy savings. No mention of this by CU.

In the "older days" of CR Magazine I just couldn't wait until the end of the month for the new issue to come out. When it did it was a great joy and I would read and re-read it.

Recently, I grew to hating the issues. They were depressing to read and were basically putting their emphasis on things that would attract younger readersto buy tgheir issues at the newstand. Things such as electronic gadgets, as many of you noted above.

In the older issues useful household items such as caulk, drills, stereo components, sewing machines, garbage disposers, vaporizers, men's electric shavers, pots& pans, sheets/bedding etc, were routinely tested. Now these are largely pushed to the back burner, if even tested at all, in favor of gadgets.

(It might be nice if someone compiled our "complaints" and sent them to the administrators at CU.)

 

[washman]

here's an example of things they used to review

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Consumer-Re...331243644039?pt=Magazines&hash=item4d1fa8e487

 

[arbilab]

As above, I subscribed for decades but finally tossed the renewal for reasons already given. Dumbed down, too much stuff I'd NEVER buy, too impressed by the gimmick/cheapness/government nonsense of the month, analysis abbreviated or deleted. It became like they were writing for the consumption of walmart customers and nobody else.

 

[carmine]

Guess I'm not the only one who notes the problems with their methodology, lol.

One of the most famous of examples of their/subscriber biases was the comparison of the Mitsubishi Eclipse and Plymouth Laser. (This was actually noted in one of Lee Iacocca's books) The Plymouth scored much lower in each rated category despite the fact that it was designed/built and physically identical to the Mitsu version with the exception of exterior badges. This was one of the reasons there was so much name-gaming in the 80s-90s (Eagle, Geo, Saturn, Merkur, etc.) Manufacturers knew they had a better shot in CR ratings if their products sounded as foreign as possible... Quite the reverse from 15-years earlier when Japanese products like Panasonic and JVC were re-branding themselves as "National" and "Delmonico".

Also remember an article where they railed against trade laws against "dumping" television sets to capture market share and kill US competition. These were seen as "anti-consumer" in their eyes. Almost as if to prove how morally absent they ere, they ran a sidebar that explained that Sony was not participating in this predatory collusion... Rather they were trying to capture market share based on quality, which was true. (Remember this was Sony of the 70s.) Of course dumping ain't so good for consumers in Japan, as they must absorb the costs of below-cost exports in their own consumer market. But I guess they weren't buying subscriptions either, lol.

They sometimes make things up to be sensational. They tried to trash the 1978 Omni/Horizon at launch saying that when you whipped the steering wheel hard in one direction and kept the gas down, the wheel didn't re-center itself without driver input. This was their own test, not something that people actually did. By '79, the changed their rating from not-acceptable to acceptable, and the Omni/Horizon lived another 12-years with no significant design changes (or stories about uncontrollable steering).

Not only are the surveys skewed for the reasons mentioned previously, but as we all know, sample size increases accuracy. You never know how many of a given item they use to compare one to another. They only survey their subscriber base, which is flawed for two additional reasons:

1) Sample Size: I think it's safe to say their subscribers buy more Toyota Camry's then Dodge Challenger R/T's, so which survey is more inclined to be accurate? One that includes 1000 responses or one that has a sample size of 2-3?

2) Consumer Expectations: When the Jeep Wrangler began offering a 4dr model, people began cross-shopping it against more "civilized" vehicles like the Nissan X-terra or Ford Escape. None of the latter vehicles include removable roofs, doors, windshields, etc. Guess who suddenly took a quality nosedive based on road/wind noise because thousands of new Jeep customers expected a Wrangler to be as quiet as their previous car-based SUV?

For me, the magazine is fish wrap.

 

[MikeS]

My Two Cents

Let me start by saying I have a personal bias toward "Consumer Reports": When I was 13 years old, I asked my parents for a subscription for my birthday. They granted my wish. I've been a loyal subscriber ever since.
On the plus side, most of the products I have purchased by using CR have been solidly dependable and well worth the cost. But that's not to say CR is perfect:
1. Like many of you, I miss the old CR and the detailed information they provided. I have mixed feelings about the colored dots, but the 0-100 scores work well for me.
2. Frequency of repair information: I have found it quite accurate in my personal experience. The complaints about sample size and methodology may be valid, but somehow it works.
3. Predictability: I know which products will be reviewed in each issue: Cell phones in January, TV sets in March; summer products in July; kitchen products in August. Etc, etc, etc. There was once a time when each issue of CR was wonderfully eclectic. No longer. But that's the price of trying to reach a larger subscriber base.
4. Random notes: Carmine, you are right when CR gave the Omni/Horizon a "Not Acceptable" rating in 1978. What you failed to point out is that in 1979, Chrysler changed the steering (both manual and power), requiring more effort. As a result, the Omni/Horizon was rated "acceptable", though their emergency handling was still below average.
Petek, I agree about the endless mailers, card inserts and other things I get as part and parcel with CR. Less paper, please.
And finally, regarding the complaints that CR is "anti-free market" and left-wing: Yes, CR (or at least its advocacy arm Consumers Union) tends to advocate government regulatory solutions. On the other hand, there have been many incidents where a CR article has led to legislation. I recall CR's remaining competitor, Consumers Research, ended product testing in its final years and became a libertarian magazine espousing free-market solutions to consumer issues. It didn't work out too well for them. Isn't the free market supposed to weed out the good from the bad, and stimulate competition and improvement? I feel CR has actually strengthened the free market, not suppressed it. People who buy Toyota Camrys, Bosch dishwashers and other products highly rated by CR are voting with their pocketbooks. Like it or not, today's cars and many other products are better because of CR's findings.
I truly respect the opinions of my fellow AW readers--even though I may disagree with them. Call me a First Amendment nut, but so be it! Now if you excuse me, I'm about to read my new "Consumer Reports"!

 

[tomturbomatic]

CR had some funny ideas about cars, down-rating the 4 cylinder engines in Toyotas when they were perfectly suited to the cars unless you were seeking a high performance car at the sacrifice of fuel economy.

 

[twintubdexter]

As a young person I remember reading a CR article on car buying where they said power windows and air conditioning were total wastes of money. How things change! As far as creating static, It appears discussions about Consumer Reports is right up there with Sears. I guess as far as accurate information goes you need to analyze everything you read but that even the worst of it can be somewhat helpful. I find the customer reviews on Amazon a decent source on how things behave, provided there are enough of them to make it valid.

 

[carmine]

I thought this might arise...

"4. Random notes: Carmine, you are right when CR gave the Omni/Horizon a "Not Acceptable" rating in 1978. What you failed to point out is that in 1979, Chrysler changed the steering (both manual and power), requiring more effort. As a result, the Omni/Horizon was rated "acceptable", though their emergency handling was still below average. "

Here's a story from the era. There's no way to cut/paste, but the story is fairly short...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...kUiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eawFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1835,2543830

I have to agree with the engineer quoted for this reason... There is no "dampening" component in a steering system. Having the wheel return to center is a mechanical function of geometry (caster angle), which is the number of degrees ahead/behind of the centerline of the axle. Basically think of a shopping cart wheel... It returns itself to center because the axle centerline is behind the pivoting portion of the wheel.

Increasing the effort to turn the steering wheel would do nothing to stop the oscillation that CR claimed. Changing the ratio of the power steering pump, (no changes on manual steering) made in response to customer preference gave CR an "out" to stop talking about the issue after the other testing magazines of the day were basically laughing at the CR claims. (The editor of Car & Driver even wrote a column ripping CR.) It was one of the first US mass-market cars with rack & pinion steering, which actually gave it more precise (if different) handling.

 

[moparguy]

This has been a very interesting thread, to see that many of us share the same disappointment that Consumer Reports has commercialized (or dumbed down, depending on point of view) their text to extraordinarily high level, little detail or description, overview and ratings summary. I, too, miss the discussion of individual merits and results during testing. But I guess we in part can blame that on the short attention spans today, nobody wants to read anything that they can't fit on the screen of a "smart" phone or at least review in short bullet points.

But aside from the lack of detail, my bone with Consumer Reports is their bias, which others in this thread have pointed out. But what makes it most annoying to me is Consumer Reports' 'holier than thou' attitude (and frequent pronouncements) that they claim to be so free of any bias. Case in point are car reviews; what is 'unacceptable' or otherwise gets criticized for one make (usually domestic) gets a free pass on another make (usually an import). Although CU has always had a bias toward practical sedans (which impacts their ratings of vehicles that make no pretention of being a practical sedan even though the impacted vehicles may be outstanding for their intended use), their desire to highly rate certain cars really began in earnest in the 70s and has continued to this day. Granted, Detroit put out some bad vehicles, and Japan built some good ones; but not EVERYTHING Detroit was bad, and not EVERYTHING Japan is good. Or today, where their current desire is to promote hybrid and electric cars, they rate the Tesla as the best car ever tested... REALLY? It may be a fine vehicle, for somebody who has (often well over) $80,000 to spend on a car that can go a hundred miles... and has an unproven reliability record (which per above would be enough to tank another car) and has some questionable safety (fire) issues... let alone that the jury is still out on how "green" electric vehicles are when you consider the environmental cost of making and disposing of the batteries.

The bias continues in ratings, which are self reported by consumers. Those consumers' perceptions may often be impacted by Consumer Reports itself, which tells them how great or bad one brand can be expected to be. Which is evident in the examples above where the Mitsubishi same car as a Plymouth was rated higher than the Plymouth; or where Toyota Corollas outscored Chevy/GEO Nova/Prizms, also same vehicles built on same assembly lines.

So in conclusion, I don't view Consumer Reports as the ratings/testing holy grail that they claim to be; but I do view them as one data point among many when evaluating a potential large purchase.

 

[nanook]

It's obvious that many of us are disappointed in what has become of Consumer Reports.  Undoubtedly the current format (of the printed magazine)</span> is partly the result driven by a public already over-saturated with "information" everywhere it turns - much of it useless, biased, exaggerated or outright lies.

 

What strikes me as appalling is how CU <span style="text-decoration: underline;">under</span>utilizes its On-Line publication.  What a perfect platform to expand upon articles that have been subject to space constraints in the printed magazine.  Or an explanation of testing methods.  Or, hows-about using it for inclusion of products that haven't made the cut for the abbreviated "top choice" lists-?  Those inclusions would be a low-cost change that could provide actual on-line reader participation statistics as to just how many of its readers would prefer the in-depth information sorely lacking in both the printed magazine, and to a lesser extent - but still present - in the current on-line platform.  (And don't get me started on the poor layout and unnecessarily difficult-to-navigate on-line publication-!)
</span>

 

I wouldn't want to be in Jim Guest's shoes following the "test results" of how Consumer Reports performs these days.
</span>

 

[jeffg]

"What a perfect platform to expand upon articles that have been subject to space constraints in the printed magazine. Or an explanation of testing methods. Or, hows-about using it for inclusion of products that haven't made the cut for the abbreviated "top choice" lists-?"

I agree completely. The least they should offer imo are user forums to allow sharing of real-life consumer experiences with products and CR recommendations. It's so obvious a place to have these discussions imo, yet imo CR will never do it because their product and rating biases would become immediately apparent.

 

[circlew]

Used to read every months issue at the library, and subscribed for a couple years in the 90's. In the past few years, I hardly ever look at one.

It seems to me they have become obsessed with whatever happens to be "trendy".

 

[cuffs054]

I've been a subscriber for more than 30 yrs. I too used to eagerly await every new issue, not so much. I long for the days when every tested item was pictured. I guess "stuff" has become so similar. If you have nothing better to do, try to find the video test of the 1955 large sedans. It was Olds versus Cadillac versus New Yorker (with factory air!) Most entertaining!

 

[suburbanmd]

In 2010 I urged Consumer Reports to tell their readers that manufacturer tax credits, not hard-and-fast restrictions, were the reason why US front-loading clothes washers were using less water and lower temperatures. The Home Editor responded that he didn't believe what I was saying, but if I could prove it, they would print it. I proved it, but he didn't come through on his promise. Instead, a staffer wrote to me:

"...the claim that energy and water conservation in front-loading washers is voluntary is, technically, not correct. Both top and front-loading washers have Federal Standards that have to be met. We do not want to speculate on how effective tax incentives are at improving product performance or efficiency. We evaluate both performance and efficiency and there continues to be improvements in both areas. We regularly test these products and publish the results for the benefit of our readers."

As many people on this site realize, the Federal Standards in 2010 were so loose as to barely affect HE front-loaders at all, yet they were well on the way to dumbed-down temperatures and inadequate rinsing by then.

Needless to say, my opinion of Consumer Reports dropped considerably after this.

 

[washman]

All the more reason

to question these so-called nebulous "regulations".

 

[murando531]

I agree with all of the above.

My granddad has subscribed for years, and now has an online account that I have access to. My two main problems with CR are as such:

1. As almost everyone has said, they are biased towards anything that abides by strict energy standards. Is saving resources a good thing? Absolutely. But not to the point that it affects performance as it does today. I understand that they put dishwashers and washing machines through "rigorous" testing, but they're not seeing the long-term issues that come up with these machines. Sure, clothes may look clean, but are they actually wearing them all day afterwards to see if their skin irritates from the poorly rinsed detergent? I believe they should keep a station of each main-line of products, and have employees use them as laundromats for their own clothes. The machines would get use just as they would in a home, and issues like mold, irritation from poor rinsing, and testing of components and build-quality would be ongoing. Their ratings on energy consumption weigh too heavily on the overall score, because the '12 Whirlpool agitator model I have performs far better than the new TL LG my mom has, simply because it uses enough water for the job. CR won't tell you that though. They subtract points instead.

2. This is more of a personal peeve, but it really bothers me that they treat Kenmore as a completely independent manufacturer, and they praise them constantly for their innovation and quality. Now, everyone knows, and should know, that Sears-Kenmore has never built/produced/manufactured a single product in their brand name years. They basically contract to a company for permission to rebadge their machine with their name and logo upon it, along with renaming certain key features. Their laundry machines have primarily always been Whirlpool, as have been dishwashers. Recently, Kenmore contracted use of the LG top-loader design, and CR did an entire news article about how Kenmore "made new strides in capacity with their 5.2 cu.ft. tub, larger than any manufacturer thus far". Upon looking at this particular machine, it is an unaltered LG washer. They didn't even change certain aesthetics like they do with Whirlpool built machines, like the wash arm on their dishwashers or the Turbo Zone modification. Now, I love Kenmore, but only because it's almost like a collection of the best products from each manufacturer. They need to inform the consumer and give credit to the companies where credit is due.

I also agree that they seem to lean heavily on the side of what is "trendy", and right now the "trend" is for users to be uninformed and for machines to require as little effort and time from the user as possible. They went from appealing to people like us who crave knowledge and want a high quality, high performance machine, to appealing to the "smart phone" era, and to people who treat a washing machine the same way they would a disposable drink cup.