Consumer Reports
Just throwing this out to start another internet argument.
Nearly all on the list far east makes, no us trucks.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/10/26/cr_mos...able/index.html
discuss
Nearly all on the list far east makes, no us trucks.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/10/26/cr_mos...able/index.html
discuss
Originally Posted by Palmateer,Oct 27 2005, 10:29 AM
It would be helpful if those commenting on this thread admitted in advance whether they actually read Consumer Reports before giving their opinion on its merits.
The following link is from a biased sourced but they make some VERY good points. Basically CR's methods are likely to produce sell fulfilling results and they are statistically suspect.
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
Originally Posted by rockville,Oct 27 2005, 09:09 AM
The following link is from a biased sourced but they make some VERY good points. Basically CR's methods are likely to produce sell fulfilling results and they are statistically suspect.
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
http://www.allpar.com/cr.html
I must say that I often disagree with the methods CR uses to derive their findings, but I thought I would post the link because I was bored.
CR used to rank the reliability of the Passport much higher than the Isuzu Rodeo, and the first gen Mitsu Eclipse higher than the Plymouth Laser. Those models were identical.
CR used to rank the reliability of the Passport much higher than the Isuzu Rodeo, and the first gen Mitsu Eclipse higher than the Plymouth Laser. Those models were identical.
Trending Topics
Originally Posted by Palmateer,Oct 27 2005, 11:46 AM
I think what is really going on here is that CR's methods are unlikely to produce many recommendations for the products advocated by that site 

The message to consumers is clear: You can't gauge reliability based only on a nameplate. Some automakers do have a better track record but individual models -- especially newer ones -- can have some problems
Regarding their methods -- you have to throw a stake in the ground somewhere and figure that they are more accurate than personal and often anecdotal evidence from forums like this.
That said, their survey sent to me for the LR3 does make you wonder -- 200+ questions that if you were to actually fill out with some thought would take over 30 minutes. In my case the first few dozen were done with thought, the rest just this or that fill in the bubbles.
So CR results *do* include some personal bias and perception plays into it .. i.e. the passport/rodeo evidence above -- I *percieve* that "this is a Honda" so I might be more likely to fill out the positive bubbles.
On the other hand we are never going to see makers dump actual statistics so ...
here's my gripe, they use the term "predicted reliability."
who are they....Nostradamus? I am not going to base anything on a predicted estimate, only on the long term track record. Hence why I bought an S2000 in it's 5th year of production, and why I would never buy a Land Rover. (sorry Steve C if you bought one....but I broker those things all day long, and they just seem to be horrifically unreliable, even in the first 5000 miles.)
who are they....Nostradamus? I am not going to base anything on a predicted estimate, only on the long term track record. Hence why I bought an S2000 in it's 5th year of production, and why I would never buy a Land Rover. (sorry Steve C if you bought one....but I broker those things all day long, and they just seem to be horrifically unreliable, even in the first 5000 miles.)







