CR and Ojectivity

[rinso]

Over the years I have kept my subscription to Consumer Reports current. I feel CR is a most valuable tool in helping make purchase decisions, manage money, and keeping one informed of legislative issues that impact all consumers.

Having said that, I do feel that at times CR is brand biased, having a tendency towards pseudointellectualism, and sometimes out of touch with the needs of the average Joe like me.

In the 1970's, CR consistently rated Maytag clothes washers as their top choice. The Maytag was certainly a solid, and well-designed machine, but was light years behind the Frigidaire 1-18 (and others) in overall performance. And, (hold your tounge) reliability. The Maytag mechanism was almost old enough to vote, when the belt-drive, mechanically simple roller mechanism of the 1-18 was introduced.

A more modern example of bias, is CU's ratings of automobiles. CR slams American small-engined cars as having "unrefined noisy engines" and yet just let a foreign car with much more road noise and engine noise enter the venue, and they practically pee all over themselves in favor of it. My personal road tests while shopping for new cars have not found CR to be very objective. For example, A highly-rated Acura I tried out, had a straining, buzzing engine that made so much noise when pushed, it was almost frightening. You couldn't even hear the radio at a normal volume when the car hit coarse pavement. A Ford 500 I tried still had some of the same problems, but was not nearly as sluggish or unrefined or noisy as CR would have us believe. Consumers Union, we love ya, but please test things as a normal middle class, blue collar yo-yo like me would use and perceive them. PS: I don't like Starbucks coffee, and never make a spectacle of myself trying to select the latest snob appeal wine with dinner.

 

[Cybrvanr]

I never have been able to take their ratings, especially for automobiles, seriously. I have noticed many of the same issues you have stated here as well.

I have noticed some other inconsistancies too. They consistantly rate the same vehicles, with different nameplates, totally different. In today's automotive industry, there are many vehicles that are pretty much the same, and are in fact built on the same assembly lines. These vehicles may share Asian, American, and even European nameplates. How on earth can vehicles that are different only in the sticker on the rear trunk get such drastically different ratings.

The thing I cannot stand is that a totally re-designed vehicle will "inherit" the ratings of it's older sibling even if it was totally re-designed. They have seemed to look into this problem lately, but I remember when Ford re-designed the Escort back in the early 90's. The new Escort was now a flavor of a Mazda 323, which oddly enough, got very good ratings. The Escort however was torn to shreds, and carried an almost an identical ratings of it's previous model. How much testing did they REALLY do on that car?!?!

The other gripe I have about their automotive reports is that they don't test a vehicle for it's intended purpose. C.R. constantly put down the Astro van because of it's rough ride and poor handling. The only problem is that they always tested the van unloaded! The van is designed with a much higher load carrying ability than other minivans. If C.R. ran the same tests with 1200 pounds of weight in the back of all the minivans, they would have found the Astro van's handling to be much more precise than the others, and it's ride quality much better. Among other testing, they consistantly down-rate SUV's, but they never take the vehicles off of the paved roads.

If they are this bad with automobiles, how well can they be trusted with other products? I have found the same thing holds true with appliances, as many brands are sharing products today too, the ratings for practically the same machine can be drastically different depending on whose name is on the front.

 

[jmm63]

I have to agree. I use CR more for a very loosly based opinion on something before I buy lately. Case in point, I bought thier highly rated Frigidaire 10,000 btu window AC this spring, drove 45 minutes to my nearest Lowes, dragged the thing home, installed it, and couldn't believe how LOUD it was. I even called Frigidaire service who came out and said its "normal" Needless to say, it got returned and I bought thier lower rated GE 12K and LOVE it. I wrote letters to CR and to Frgidaire but only got the "we'll forward it on" response.
I've ALWAYS thought they slammed very worhty American cars and I no longer consider CR when its time for a new one. Although, I LOVE my Subaru Outback, and so do they. I wonder if the testers don't have some kind of vested interest in the foreign car market. Just my 2 cents

 

[Designgeek]

Good point about the Chevy Astro van, it's designed as a real truck for commercial service, so it should be tested under those conditions.

As for taking SUVs off road. Ha, that's really really funny. Most of those stationwagons-on-steroids don't have real offroad capability. Many of them will get stuck on a wet lawn. "Help, someone get a real Jeep and get me outta here!" Meanwhile, 12 miles per gallon and Osama is laughing his way to the bank.

 

[toggleswitch]

CR for me is just to see new models that I may not have physically on the sales-floor. And perhaps for analyzing insurance, contracts and medical care issues.

IMHO, their criteria in judging appliances and household goods are as faulty as it comes and varies from year-to-year with the wind.

 

[agiflow]

I don't even bother anymore with CU. The appliance testing is a joke, especially with the washers.

The few manufacturers left who produce TL washers are all carbon copys of each other. No diversity as their was in years past. So i guess their testing reflects that.

Pat

 

[toggleswitch]

Personally I would love to see SUV's classified as cars to be held to emissions and fuel-economy standards, while being classified as trucks to be prohibited from Parkways.

I am not sure about this elsewhere, but in NY state, commercial vehicles may NOT use "Parkways" (bridges are too low.) They may, however use Expressways. Hey California, Freeway? what's a Freeway?

There is inevitably some @$$hole trukdriver, with the top three feet of his truck sheared off, crying under a bridge......and always at rush hour. Messes things up for HOURS.

Bitter in aisle #1, bitter in asile #1. LOL

 

[westytoploader]

I have held a constant subscription to CR for 7 years, and I can't really consider their ratings seriously. The main reports I look at are the washer and vacuum reports, and there are both ridiculously inaccurate. In the February '05 washer test, the Fisher & Paykel IWL12 and GWL11 didn't have identical ratings...the GWL11 was two ratings down! The worst difference is with Whirlpool/Kenmore machines...I mean how can they both have high and low-rated models?? With the vacuum report, both the top and bottom-rated machines are Hoovers...go figure. Even if they are "plastic", can they really be </em>that</em> different?

And also, stop the unneccesary reports! I mean, is someone really going to turn to CR's condom or fine chocolate report? (LOL) Let's get in touch with reality here...

 

[agiflow]

True Austin,...you either love or hate chocolate LOL. The people at CU should take a look at this website and see how many of the washers they rated 50 yrs.ago, are still being cherished and washing just as good or better than the "disposables" out there today.

 

[tolivac]

I got tired of CU -and their crazy reveiews of products-esp appliances,cars,and Hi-fi gear.At this point let their subscription go.They are nagging me to renew.
I have a Kirby salesmans magazine-that has a letter in it from a recent Kirby buyer(Ultimate G)The letter slams CU's choice of the Hoover Windtunnel.The buyer mentions that he has a housekeeping service do the vacuuming for him.The janitor service he used has Hoover Windtunnels-the same CU reviewed.He mentions that same day in the afternoon a Kirby van crew comes by-"doorknocking" and wants to show him the Kirby-he says the floors were just vacuumed by the cleaning crew with the Windtunnels-Guess we all know what this leads too-the Kirby is tried and the Dirt meter fills up!!I mean they say it is truely full-not just the pad lightly coated with dirt.He buys the Kirby and cancells the janitoral service. He wrote a letter to CU questioning their tests.It didn't say what type of Hoover Windtunnel was used-the bagged or bagless.I didn't see any mention of the persons letter in CU.This would be about a year and a half ago.The Kirby folks gave me the magazine.Kirby is not the only one that questions CU's reveiews of vacuums.Rainbow questions them too.
also on air purifiers-sort of related to vacuums-"IQAir" machines WERE NEVER TESTED.You can see it on their website.They have a very fine well engineered unit. CU doesn't want to test it.Why? that is the question.
I can see what you folks mean on the cars-their car reviews seem inconsistent. same as with other products._I read "Epinions" now.Yes-I think the tests on Condoms,chocolates,wines etc-are silly and unnecessary._And what about sporting goods?? don't see any reveiews or tests on those products-folks would be more interested in that than tests on boxed chocolate candies.

 

[petek]

I've been reading CR since the mid 60's when my dad was a subscriber and have had a subscription on and off since then, when it's off I buy it at the newstand. I haven't been impressed with the newer format either for the last couple of years. The seem to be trying to jam more in each issue and in doing so they've reduced the amount of pages pertaining to each item so you're getting less information than you used to. Plus I don't care either for all the ratings on chocolates, wines, condoms etc..I only buy it for the appliances, electronics and car reviews.

 

[MikeS]

I have been a CR subscriber since 1970, when I read my first copy in junior high school. Over the years, I have found their advice to be mostly on the mark. (To be honest, I didn't always follow the recommendations. I use Great Value dishwasher detergent and have been happy with White Cloud toilet tissue, but I drive a low-rated Saturn ION and am VERY happy with it.)
When I was given the choice of several BOL washer-dryers for my new condo, I chose Roper because of its good repair record in the CR surveys. Seven years later, and still no problems.
My Magnavox 27 inch color set still works like a champ, but I plan to splurge on a new HDTV this Xmas.
So I do understand some of the complaints; I miss the old days when CR would write long articles on appliances and cars. And the magazine's frugal advice seems to be more for yuppies with big incomes than more modest households such as mine. Still, I'd rather improve my odds by following CR's advice--even though it has some drawbacks.

 

[rinso]

One of the things I liked about CU years ago, especially with appliances, was the way their articles and tests were written. They used to give you a much better feeling of what it was like to experience a product. Unfortunately, the anal-retentive world of over-measureing and trying to break everything down to black and white facts has overwhelmed CR as it has with many businesses. It seems the attitude is if you can put it in an Excel spreadsheet, it has no value. One of the things that Consumer's Union needs to exercise caution with is what is known as the "Insertion Effect." They alter realistic data, just by their measurment methods. Yet, having said all that, I still think they are a worthwhile organization, and can provide guidence in many ways.

 

[rinso]

I meant can't put it in a spreadsheet. My typing skills are not a quality process. )

 

[maytagbear]

Well, it's flawed--

and I am not happy with the direction it's taken under Jim Guest, I miss Rhoda Karpatkin, but CR is still better than that other magazine "Consumer's Research(?)" --the one that accepts advertising, and allows it's "findings" to be used in advertising for other items.

Consumers Union/Consumer Reports makes an effort to be unbiased. They may not always succeed, but at least they make the effort.

As I have said before, many items are chosen on market share.

As for certain reports mentioned, I happened to welcome the condom report. From time to time since 1985, I have been a volunteer for various AIDS agencies, and that report was solid, useful, non-hysterical information.

CR's articles on insurance, mutual funds, and long term care facilities have lead to overdue reform in those fields.

CU/CR has advocated energy conservation, safety innovations, and health care finance reform, all which have great merit.

Sometimes when I am at the library at Kent State University, I read CR from the 50s-70s. The plainly unsafe products which were common then are rare now. In fact, I really cannot remember a "Not Acceptable" rating for safety reasons since perhaps 1975. That is admirable!

I have read CR since around 1967. I miss Roy Doty's line drawings, and I do miss expanded articles, but it is a balance--between expanded articles, and more articles. Furthermore, cars and automatic washers are "mature" products. Most of us have access to them.

Lawrence/Maytagbear

 

[rinso]

Lawrence, I agree with all that you have said. What CU provides outweighs their flaws, especially when it comes to safety and scams. They have been right about tippy SUV's, "fake science" equipment and products, and general financial advice. Although I have my issues with some of their testing methods and results, I'll not be cancelling my 30 year subscription anytime soon.

 

[deeptub]

Over the past few years I've noticed that CR doesn't encourage thrift the way they used to.

Perhaps it's just a reflection of their readership, but where it used to be a useful tool to help savvy consumers squeeze a penny five times before they spent it (complete with cranky comments like, "Think twice--do you even need this product"), it's now a big glossy spending guide.

It's sort of difficult to read a smallish article about the evils of getting into too much debt and then read a massive section on home electronics, when to purchase many of the items tested would require anyone I know to open a Best Buy account.

Hmph.
T.

 

[stainfighter]

what tolivac said

Ditto, I use Epinions, this forum and THS forums for my purchasing research. If there is a lot of negative buzz on the web about a product that's good enough for me. Can't imagine anyone talking about CR review on chocolate or condoms, "Gee, since the CR review I use X brand of condoms"

 

[Cybrvanr]

Tippy SUV's have always been an interesting topic for me. It seems to be an operator error issue. There are many much larger, and more top-heavy vehicles made than SUV's, like semi-trucks, busses, and such. The operators of these vehicles do not seem to have a problem keeping all 4 wheels (or more) of these vehicles on the ground. There however is never ending chatter in the media about SUV's and their propiensity to roll-over. I believe much of this is due to the idiot drivers of these vehicles that are not giving their size, bulk and high center of gravity the respect it is due.

The biggest thing to remember is that an SUV is NOT a sports car and will not handle like one. Part of the reason there's a tip-over problem may be because SUV's have typically been equipped with powerful engines that will make an SUV accellerate like a little sports car. It makes people complacient, and they'll drive the vehicles like they would a sports car, like cornering at high rates of speeds, making quick maneuvers, etc. Auto manufacturers have also made great strides in tightening up the suspension and steering of SUV's and making them "feel" like they can corner hard. This is done because many people don't want an SUV to feel "trucklike" despite the fact that they are a truck!

"Big trucks" like semi's, cab-overs, and busses have high power to weight ratios and accellerate slowly. Their steering systems are also sloppier and looser. This, in effect makes the driver of the vehicle be more concious about how quickly they are taking a turn or performing some other maneuver, and thus maybe be safer at operating it. There's also the fact that in order to drive a "big truck" you need a commercial drivers license in many localities.


You won't EVER hear C.R. though talk about sloppy steering and poor accelleration being a safety feature! It would also be good to see light trucks come under some type of C.D.L. or large vehicle permit regulations like medium and heavy duty trucks do.