CR Backs Off Disputed Test Results

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

Help Support AutomaticWasher.org:

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?

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-01-18-child-car-seat-report_x.htm?csp=24
 
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...
 
I thoroughly enjoy watching the expressions of appliance sales people as a customer with a copy of CU wanders into their domain.
Nothing says "dumb as a rock" any louder.
 
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!
 
Well, the store DOES have some validity to it...The child seats were tested at higher speeds than they were supposed to, and most dismally failed, except two. It's quite obvious that those two are exceeding specifications quite considerably! If I was to take this test data seriously, well, I'd still like my child riding in one of those two seats!

This test of the Omni & Horizon is quite interesting. If car manufacturers were to design their vehicles to this spec, they would all have terrible understeer issues. One would not be able to get through an on-ramp without the vehicle drifting to the outside of the turn and smacking the guardrail! There's a REASON why the vehicle didn't return to straight ahead, and it has something to do with a science they don't know much about...physics!!! Most automobile manufacturers take the laws of physics at hand when they engineer a car so they will in fact they will turn when the steering is rotated in the direction the driver desires. THE CAR OPERATED AS IT SHOULD!!!

Here's another interesting factoid. The Omni's and Horizons use the exact same interior materials as the Honda Civics! I remember having a 1978 Civic, and just like Gene mentioned, the interior construction was just as terrible in the civic as it was in these cars. Oddly enough, CR rated the Civic as having a better interior!!!
 
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.
 

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top