CR Backs Off Disputed Test Results

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

danemodsandy

danemodsandy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 6, 2006
Messages
8,180
Location
The Bramford, Apt. 7-E
Apropos of the thread on Consumer Reports testing, I thought I'd link to this McPaper (USAToday) article on CR.

Basically, what has happened is that CR went on the warpath about child car seats, rating several as having "failed disastrously" in testing. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has found that CR's results can't be duplicated at the speeds CR said it used for testing.

Could it be that other tests are fundamentally flawed?

 
I heard this story on MSNBC several times today, each time they stressed that CR takes their credibility issue very seriously and this was a very difficult and rare move for them to retract a published story.

I'm not surprised they might outsource their testing - why not, they have barely credible data gathering methods for reliability ratings anyway...
 
In Defense Of CR

As a member of Consumers Union (and a "Consumer Reports" subscriber since 1971), I was sorry to hear about the mistake that occurred in the recent tests of child safety seats. Unlike some other news/testing organizations I can name, at least CU did the right thing by admitting a mistake was made and coming out publically over it. I agree it's a mistake for a third party to test without proper oversight, but that's an internal problem CU will have to deal with.
"Consumer Reports" is not always right about everything, but the reason I support the magazine and the organization is that for the most part, it gets its facts right. Being a journalist, I respect that--along with the fact that if you screw up, you make things right, apologize, learn from the mistake and move on.
Regarding the 1978 Omni/Horizon tests: What kenwashesmonday may not have realized is that when CU tested the 1979 models, it found the steering effort had been increased on both manual and power assisted models; the '79 Omni/Horizon was rated "poor to fair" in emergency handling compared with the "not acceptable" rating the cars received in '78. (Chrysler did not publicize the steering change.)
Just a reminder that companies do take "Consumer Reports" seriously.
 
Gyrafoam, I think we are all pretty savvy around here because of a shared interest in "white goods". I will admit i have brought cu along when it comes to electronics, I often feel overwhelmed. " I just want to make a cell call, not launch a missile".
 
I'm basically in agreement with you, Mike. I feel that CR does a great service to many by testing various products and writing evaluations that are not subject to undue influence from manufacturers or dealers. Of course CR has its own set of biases, mostly middle-America nuclear family, but if you know where they are coming from, these are fairly predictable and can be used to help determine how a product will work for you.

What sets CR apart is that it generally errs on the side of being negative about a product. This is a welcome change from the usual print "consumer" publication that gushes over anything that is just released (no doubt to keep the mfg's happy so they continue sending them free product and/or all expense paid trips).
 
Omni/Horizon

They found that if you yanked the steering wheel of the Omni/Horizon, then let go of the wheel and floored the accelerator, the car went out of control. Therefore, these cars were "not acceptable". Sorry, that's just foolish. Just what Chrysler didn't need when they were trying real hard not to go out of business.

They are journalists stating opinion, sure, but they have way too much power, so when they screw up big affecting millions of dollars in sales, it's our civic duty to point it out in order to dislodge some of their power.

Was it Motor Trend that did a C.U. test parody that year with the military tank test? (noisy, cramped interior, ergonomic nightmare, etc).

Also, CJ5 Jeeps don't flip over if you use them for their intended purpose, and that purpose has nothing to do with going fast on the highway and yanking the steering wheel like an idiot. Too bad C.U. was able to start the campaign to do away with them. Thousands of hunting trails had to be widened after their demise.

Ken D.
 
Steering Wheel Idiocy

A good friend of mine was an engineer at Chrysler in the late '70s and once told me that he took part in some tests dealing with steering issues on the Omni and Horizon. I think the result was that they reduced the weight of the steering wheel but did no changes to the steering rack itself or the suspension geometry. He did say that the car wasn't unsafe to start with, but Chrysler was trying to avoid any appearance of problems.

I seem to recall that CU did something equally stupid when they tested the Fiat X1/9 in the mid '70s, like turning the wheel 90 degrees and then not correcting the resulting sideways yaw motion. They then suggested that the X1/9 had unsafe handling with a tendency to spin, a real joke when every other publication raved on and on about the handling.

I had three X1/9s over a twenty year period and used them as daily transport. In hundreds of thousands of miles I only spun one once, on glare ice here in Los Angeles at a walking pace. That wasn't the car's fault; someone's sprinklers ran too long one night when it just barely froze in Encino Hills and iced the street. The X1/9 is one of the safest cars I have ever driven, in that it will oversteer, understeer, or be neutral in a corner according to what you ask it to do. However, you must use the steering wheel to direct the car, something that evidently escaped the idiots at CU.
 
I still read CR, but don't take their tests or recommendations seriously. Some of the results are downright mind-boggling, such as two similar Whirlpool direct-drive washers receiving two separate ratings.

When I saw the safety seat reports in this February issue, I did have my doubts as well...
 
I subscribe on line only... I won't even be doing that after this year... I have a frigidaire affinty washer and it washes just fine if you use the heavy duty setting on any cycle selection... I also use stain clean and it too helps for really soiled stuff... 58 min isn't bad for laundry.... Ughhh
 
Mike S, I feel that Consumer Reports articles now are just written to get people to spend big money on big SUVs and big digital TVs. I remember, and liked it better, when it was "grouchy" and encouraged people to buy products that saved money. The articles are also less detailed than they used to be. That's why I don't subscribe to them anymore.

As for the car seats, I was going to start the thread about that, titled "Consumer Reports is in Trouble!".

Oh, and here is a bit of trivia: Consumer Reports is one of two magazines that does not accept advertising. The other one is the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - The super smart people who moved the Doomsday Clock to five minutes before midnite. I guess CR is trying to be less grouchy than they are!
 
My mom and dad bought one of each in 1978. Sort of a his and hers deal. In the time they owned them, they never experienced the steering and handling problems CU published. However, normal conversation could not be carried on in either car above 40 mph, soft trim deteriorated at an alarming rate, welds could easily be seen under the dashes of both cars, various body panels didn't match up in fit, an electrical fire destroyed the Omni, and a year later, the Horizon was thankfully stolen, never to be seen again.
 
Consumer Reports variations.

I take anything from Consumer Reports with a big bag of salt. As many of y'all know, I'm a bit of a Volvo 240 nut. The Volvo 240 underwent no major mechanical changes between 1986 and its end of production in 1993. During that time, its ratings in the used car catagory varied wildly from year to year. Why would one system or charictaristic work so poorly one year, then be much improved in later years, and then go back, sometimes several times? I respect and admire the mission of Consumer Reports, but I certainly don't use them exclusively when researching anything. If they really wanted my respect, they would write that many old appliances are just better made than newer ones, and will last longer tha new ones, all the while out-performing them too. Also, they would include a rating of product life. A washer or a refrigerator that is only expected to last for 8 years or less is, in my opion, junk.

Just a little venting,
Dave
 
The reliability rating for products and cars in CR is completely based upon subscriber responses to annual mailed questionaires from CR. It's quite possible that an irate, dissatisified consumer might skew the results when the number of respondents for a particular product is small, although I would hope that CR has ways of addressing that kind of issue (minimum data count, outliers, etc). Overall for the few cars and other products I've owned that have been rated by the CR system, I've found the ratings to be fairly accurate.

However the ratings do go down easier with salt.
 
I did see something about it on Fox news-that is what the TV here at work is tuned to-read the article in the latest CU magazine on the child car seats.If they outsourced the tests-that is their problem-they have NO control on how the "contractor" does the test.CU should adopt a polocy of NO MORE "OUTSOURCING"-and do the tests themselves-they are more than capable of doing them.I subscribe to their book-but have less faith in them-esp on appliances,audio video gear,cars,and of course vacuum cleaners.
 
Two issues that have been recurrent with the folks at CU are A. They are constantly changing the criteria the products are tested against----therefore what is rated "number one" this year could end up dead last next year---even though not a thing has changed about the product.

B. As far as their "reliability" ratings and other "surveys"---they do not survey "America at large" but only survey THEIR subscribers. A relatively narrow field. Under this system they would certainly be able to compile a lot more information from say, Nissan and Toyota owners than Rolls-Royce owners---well, you get the picture.

They also provide information that THEY don't have to follow. They certainly won't be there to stand beside you against a defective or poorly performing product----especially if they rated it highly!
 
Yes-I see their flawed advice on vacuum cleaners-Hoover Windtunnel,now Eureka "Electrolux" uprights and canisters.Some customers expressed anger about CU when the customer drags in their broken vacuum to Vacuum Cleaner Hospital-and CU rated that model as "the best performer"Now the customer follows the advice from the vac shop operator.They replace the broken Windtunnel or "electrlux" with a different machine-one that may NOT have been reveiwed on Consumer-or Communist Reports.with the retraction of the report on the children car chairs-what next--customers will have less faith in CU-wonder what the next issue of CU will say abvout the reveiws of the car seats.Can't wait to see-CU will be backpedaling!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top