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.
Consumer Reports: Your Two Cents
- Thread starter frigilux
- Start date
Help Support :
twintubdexter
Well-known member
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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>
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>
"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.
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.
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".
It seems to me they have become obsessed with whatever happens to be "trendy".
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!
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.
"...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.
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.
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.
At this point CU's "reports" aren't worth "2 cents"let my subscription run out.Not going to bother with them anymore.-Just my 2 cents!
Ooh, forgot about AUTOMOTIVE in my post in the other Thread, but there's Car & Driver and Motortrend...
-- Dave
-- Dave
jerrod6
Well-known member
I used to read CR faithfully until I noticed a few things. First back in the late 1990's they slammed by Miele DW because it had a filter that had to be rinsed, saying that you would use just as much water to rinse the filter as the water the DW saved. This was very different than my experience so I began to wonder if they actually had data to back up their statement.
Next problem came along when I tried to fill out the reliability data survey. They would not accept ratings on machines older than 6 years. So there I was with my DW at year 9 with no problems but unable to add it to the ratings review.
Finally I noticed that they began sharing very little information about their testing methods instead the just posted the ratings and short paragraphs stating their recommendations...nothing about how they tested to come up with their recommendations.
At this point I decided that I might use them as a starting point if I was going to buy a new appliance, or I might NOT.
Seems like for appliances you can get better information right here on this site. Cars and electronics might be another thing, but this site has a lot of real world appliance experience being shared.
Next problem came along when I tried to fill out the reliability data survey. They would not accept ratings on machines older than 6 years. So there I was with my DW at year 9 with no problems but unable to add it to the ratings review.
Finally I noticed that they began sharing very little information about their testing methods instead the just posted the ratings and short paragraphs stating their recommendations...nothing about how they tested to come up with their recommendations.
At this point I decided that I might use them as a starting point if I was going to buy a new appliance, or I might NOT.
Seems like for appliances you can get better information right here on this site. Cars and electronics might be another thing, but this site has a lot of real world appliance experience being shared.
