CR Backs Off Disputed Test Results

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

Help Support :

Very interesting

As I have said about CR, I just do not trust them anymore. When I get something, I want to get the best.I just wonder if they would rather sell mags than worry about what is in them.As far as outsourcing testing, there is another valid reason that it is just flat out bad and that they should not be taken seriously any longer. Do the people they have sent their testing to have anything to gain by botching it? Are they slanted tward one result? How many other tests are in fact outsourced? Ones that can't tell the difference between one washer or another and then they rate it better for no good reason when they are idenical?
 
These are all valid complaints and I believe these issues do need to be addressed, but we should also be mindful of the fact that there are those whose benefits are not well served by ANY consumer protection's organizations' existence.

Whether or not this is the true agenda of some being advanced by all this sudden hullabaloo or not remains to be seen....

Nothing can replace talking to other consumers, doing your own research by yourself, and making decisions based on your own common sense, needs, and pocketbook. Use these publications as a starting point and head start into doing your own research, but remember that no organization is immune to corporate influence in today's culture of corruption.....

Without fundamental change of this country's values, top to bottom, we will continue to be offered more of the same flawed and disposable junk we've been offered for the last twenty-five years, and continue to be thrilled at the privilege.
 
CU gave my '97 Amana washer its top rating. This is the same washer that has been referred to as junk or having been kicked to the curb by fed up owners like myself and others on this site. My opinion is that unless a product has a proven track record, it simply should not be top rated. CU often states that there wasn't enough data on repair records for a particular product, or the product was too new to provide a frequency of repair record. I say if data is incomplete, reliability is in question and you can't top rate that item. I no longer trust any of their ratings and canceled my subscription, partly because of their bad recommendation on my washer, but mostly because when I tried to access their site on line I found I had to pay for yet another subscription. Sorry, but other magazines allow access to their web sites for free. It just wasn't worth it to me to keep subscribing when I couldn't trust any of their tests to be accurate anymore, and when I was not allowed the convenience of pulling a report on line unless I shelled out more money. I got burned by their bad reporting. I'm through with CU and don't miss it.
 
In the "god old days" they would connect a washer and run it for 500 hours to test its durability. Now they only rely on readers' surveys....which can take years to uncover a defective design or poor quality.
 
Rich, I agree the good old days of 500 hour tests are what they need to bring back. Maybe they'd need space equal to that of the Smithsonian, but they have to put things through their paces the way they used to or all of their results will continue to be skewed and inaccurate.
 
And Another Thing...

One of the things I see as part of CU's mission is something they don't really do nowadays- stories on things that have big design defects that aren't being addressed proactively by manufacturers.

Two examples would be the numerous design-based issues on the Maytag Neptune, and the serious cooling-system, head gasket, and transmission issues on certain years of Ford Taurus.

It's my feeling that these kinds of issues should be cover stories, alerting the public at large that something has serious design-based problems, and that the manufacturer has taken a "too bad, so sad" approach to addressing the situation.

It would not take many of those incidents before American consumers avoided such products like the proverbial plague, creating a huge financial incentive for manufacturers to treat customers better when their design teams goof. There's very little in manufacturing more expensive than being all tooled up and assembly capacity committed for a product that no one wants to buy. If cover stories of this type wiped out the market for badly-designed products, then manufacturers would soon find it much cheaper to correct whatever problems were going on.

CR does mention this sort of thing on a limited basis, but not with the kind of emphasis I think there should be- "These bozos designed a lousy product that is failing prematurely, repairs are extremely expensive, and the company isn't doing a damn thing for customers affected by the problem. Be smart and don't buy this crock."
 
50's Consumer Reports

If any of you can get a copy of Consumer Reports from the 50's that deal with washing machines, it is fun to read. Lots of long testing was done then and I remember reading, I believe, the '57 or'58 issue about washing machines. They rated Easy as not so good because of vibration issues. Speed Queen poor, because of poor sand removal, Frigidaire because of roping,tangling issues and the list went on and on. They talked about timed fill and metered fill and the shortcomings of both etc. I wish they still did those kinds of test instead of relying on questionaires sent to people. Gary
 
You need to understand where CR is coming from

If you're looking for an exciting sports car, then CR is not the best place to get advice. CR is great if you are looking for a mild mannered, unexciting, run of the mill people mover that will not let on that it has an internal combustion motor under the hood.

As has been pointed out, CR is almost the only consumer publication that doesn't accept paid advertising. While CR does have its biases, these are not bought and paid for by the very producers of the products being reviewed.

Of course enthusiasts of every stripe are going to be po'd at CR when it gives their favorite mfg or brand a low rating. The enthusiast tends to be blind to the defects. But for most consumers, it's a valuable adjunct to shopping and buying decisions.
 
Dad subscribed since I was knee high and I had a subscription for decades as well but I don't anymore and just buy it occasionally off the rack when they're testing something I'm interested in. I don't like the format anymore either. They've forgone the testing information to fill the mag with more and more stuff on finances, retirement and insurance, wines, health care, etc. that while interesting isn't what I want the magazine for. I just want to read about appliances mainly and cars.
 
I always felt CU was in error on their nixing of suds savers on washers, which on every washing machine test report in the 50's and 60's they told readers to avoid. I know many people who used suds savers for years and loved them. Also when CR rates a Wizard Citation washer over a GE, Kenmore, Whirlpool, etc, you KNOW they dont know what they are talking about.........
 
So I am not the only one mad at them...

Abc I used to read old Consumer Reports at a community college library I went to. I was probably the only one who did and even washer reports from the 70s were a lot more detailed and interesting and it seemed that they actually examined and tested the machines, now they just rate them and don't say much. They did that with other appliances too. Now they test wine and beer, which they would NEVER have dreamed of testing years ago. When they did an article about social issues it was usually about something that concerned "less rich" people.

Oh, and if you need to know more about how CR has changed, just look at the "Guess The Test" segment at the back. In the pictures of tests from years ago they test stuff like rubber mattresses, peanuts, smoke detectors, men's underwear - no Viking ranges there.

Sudsmaster, you must not have seen Consumer Reports lately. A few months ago they tested a Lotus. Before Christmas they did tests on Cadillac big SUVs and 3000 dollar digital TVs. You are right if talking about old Consumer Reports, but now they must think all of their subscribers are rich - maybe they are, because I am no longer one of them.
 
Actually, I am a current subscriber to CR - have been for the last 10 years. Yes, they might test SUV's and sports cars, but they still downgrade passenger cars for having motors that you can actually hear and feel. "Sounds rough" is their favorite way of putting it when you can hear good honest intake noise. Ironically, a lot of car owners spend a lot of money to hear the sound of power.
 
But don't you find that there isn't much detail in the articles anymore? Also, it seems like lately they promote overconsumption with the big cars, big TVs, Viking ranges, that I wonder who is selecting the products they test - people with big money? Another example of this is that they recommend 2300 dollar treadmills. Why not tell people to spend 50 dollars on a good pair of sneakers and walk outside? Treadmills are so boooooring.

I also notice that there are almost no reports on food products anymore. OK, maybe this tells people I like to eat but I found it useful to find out what foods tasted best to save me from something that didn't taste good.
 
I also am a current subscriber of Consumer Reports and have been for nearly 40 years. However, much that has been mentioned in this thread, is sadly true. I do find the magazine informative, but it has fallen into the statistics and metrics traps that also plague businesses. Hard facts and data on a matrix do not always tell the whole story, and I miss the more editorial and personal style with which they used to write. The old style gave me a much clearer picture of what it would be like to own a certain product.
 
~Consumer Reports is forcing subscriptions because everyone

I too, let my CR magazine subscription laps and I just buy the issues that I want.

You may find it interesting that the only way you can subscribe to the online CR service is w/ a credit card or debit card and only w/ the renewing feature where they charge you every year whether you want them to or not. There is no way to use a check or money order. Apparently their new policy is NO CARD = NO SUBSCRIPTION and you must allow them to charge your card automatically each year. I called them to let them know that I did not wish to have my card charged automatically every year. I would renew each year if I chose to.

Well, they were quick to tell me that I could stop the entire subscription and forfeit the rest of it (I’ve paid for a year which expires in May) or I could allow them to charge my card each year; it was entirely up to me (Gee thanks). When I asked how I could stop the subscription I was told to call before May when my card was to be charged and from the day I called on; I would no longer be able to log in on line. When I protested they told me that I had already agreed to this when I clicked “I AGREE” and subscribed on line. I’ll be sure to read the 10 pages of writing before I click “I AGREE” the next time.

Beware, it seems like CR is anticipating people not renewing their subscriptions on line and doing something about it. I’m sure it will only be a matter of time before they do the same with their magazine if they haven’t already.
 
I haven't noticed a major change in the way CR does it reviews in the past decade. Before that, I usually just bought the yearly summary books, which were mostly of value in describing what to look for in a product type.

I have read most of the vintage CR washer reviews in the library here, and they are excellent. However, at the time they reviewed maybe three or four washers at a time. Nowadays, the available models number in the scores. How can they continue doing a folksy narrative type of review for so many more machines?

Even with its various flaws, I look forward to every CR issue that comes in the mail. There's always something worthwhile reading in it. I may not agree with the performance reviews, but you can't have everything.
 
Jeff, been there done that with CR online subscription a couple years ago. I had two weeks left on the subscription and couldn't find a way to remove my ccard info (the card had expired anyway, I should have left it). I don't recall exactly what happened, if I selected a "cancel subscription" function on the site or if I e-mailed them. In any case, I immediately lost the remaining two weeks access. It's a rip-off. The IDIOTS keep sending postal solicitations to subscribe. I get a perverse internal pleasure from ripping them to pieces in the trash, LOL.
 
OK, here I go:

1) Yes, yes, yes, I miss the more indepth ratings system (especially for washers, of course) of the past. I would applaud a ratings list that listed exact spin speeds in rpms, the exact number of gallons of water each machine used, etc.

2) I am an online subscriber and did realize you'd have to keep track of when your year is up and cancel at that time. I don't plan to cancel. I log on regularly, especially when it comes time to buy a small or large appliance. I've canceled magazine subscriptions and not received a rebate for the undelivered issues. CR is certainly not out of step with most other subscription services in that regard, heinous as the practice might be.

3) I still think their tests give you a better idea of what to expect from an appliance's performance than will a showroom salesperson or manufacturer's advertising. You want real confusion? Go to the other leading laundry website and read the wildly conflicting posts about almost any brand/model washer you care to name.

4) They test many models of many, many different items, from bed sheets to automobiles. At some point, you're bound to disagree with their test results. For any number of reasons (availability, aversion to certain brands, cost factors) I rarely buy an item at the top of their ratings. Most of my Frigidaire appliances, for example, fall midpack in the ratings. But at least I get an idea of what to expect----what the general performance strengths and weaknesses will be. I bought the bottom-scraping Frigidaire TL'er and so far, everything CR said about it has proved to be true. It's a low-capacity water hog that doesn't clean large heavily-soiled loads well. I knew the machine wouldn't be my daily driver; I just wanted the old-school, slow-stroke, tub indexing tranny. Therefore, I'm not disappointed with it. Were I a parent of several laundry-producing offspring and the Frigi TL'er was my only machine, I'd probably be quite disappointed with it.

5) Are the reliability ratings scientific? Of course not. But neither is running a machine for 500 hours. The true test is how the machine holds up after several years of use, something quite different than how it will handle running for 500 hours when it's new.

CR isn't perfect, nor do I always agree with every one of their test results. But my new top-rated Kenmore vac is a dream and the top-rated SA8 detergent is the best I've used. Would I have known to make those particular choices without seeing CR's test results? Probably not.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top