Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Luxury Performance Sedans



  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    Ok, therefore...the CR results are a mere reflection of the Japanese car biases that are held by a majority of surveyed CR readers.

    I call BS :sick: I have subcribed to CR for over 20 years. During that time I have owned Fords, Chryslers, Acuras and Infinitis. CR sends me a survey and I fill it out. There is no bias involved at all.
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    When the new M35 was reviewed, reliability was predicted as excellent.
    How can they assume this with a completely new model?

    The M was on sale in Japan for a year BEFORE it debuted elsewhere - the new M may be technically an '06 but pragmaticaaly it it is not.
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    The problem with CR is that they do not publish any information about sample sizes. Suppose only 2 readers write in for one car, and one of them has more than a few problems. The car gets a poor rating, even though a sample of 10 may have only showed one problem car. I know this may sound extreme, but without any knowledge concerning the reliability of their own statistics, I would have a hard time buying only based on CR reliability ratings.

    Not exactly true. Look at the ratings; many times CR skips a year stating not enough replies.
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    ALL cost more over 5 years than non-hybrids.

    WRONG!!!! CR FINALLY admitted their mistake and apologized for their mathematical errors. In fact, the Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid actually come out AHEAD, and others are not near as far behind as they had originally miscalculated.

    Just another in a string of CR goof-ups over the years.

    The problem is that most folks read their mistakes and all the secondary reporting that comes right after . . . and by the time they say they are sorry for their error, no one is paying attention . . . but then it's too late . . . because CR has already done the major damage! It's a shame.

    Let's get the facts right, for goodness sakes!

  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    WRONG!!!! CR FINALLY admitted their mistake and apologized for their mathematical errors. In fact, the Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid actually come out AHEAD, and others are not near as far behind as they had originally miscalculated.

    I detect from your "screaming" and your "ranting" that you hate CR. Your bias comes thru loud and clear. I could not find an official apology from CR at all (although they should!). Could you provide a link? That a mistake was made is clear however because CR has an update on their website.

    From the CR website: So, for people who believe that hybrids will also save them money, the picture hasn't been so clear. That's why Consumer Reports investigated all of the major ownership costs and financial benefits of these models. The study reveals two notable findings:

    In our analysis, only two of the six hybrids we have tested recovered their price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership (see Hybrids vs. all gas). The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid provide a savings of about $400 and $300, respectively, over that period. But that is only if buyers are able to take advantage of limited federal tax credits. Extra ownership costs over five years for the other four models ranged from about $1,900 to $5,500, compared with those of similar all-gas models. - - - 6/overview.htm
  • msu79gt82msu79gt82 Posts: 541
    I found the math error link: - - - 6/a-note-about-this-report.htm

    Regarding the mistake CR concluded: The revised figures do not change our message to car buyers that the costs and benefits of hybrids vary significantly, depending on the model, and that consumers should weigh them carefully before buying one.

    I chimed into this discussion (rather late by the way :blush: ) because hybrids in general are not the money savers some people think they are; nor is the majority of LPS buyers interested in fuel savings anyway.
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,767
    I only wish the hybrids could do all that is claimed for them. It is obvious that they are not a good deal if you are trying to save money.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460

  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    Audis are certainly safe vehicles to drive.
    This is definitely a miracle story. I think this could be used in an Audi safety ad?

    Take a look at the video footage at the site below, Incredible!!!

    link title

  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    hybrids in general are not the money savers some people think they are; nor is the majority of LPS buyers interested in fuel savings anyway

    I think it is understandably short-sighted of some folks to think that hybrid technology is only about saving money on fuel. For the most part, that's how it has been represented. But that is starting to change, as it should. Case in point . . . the new Lexus hybrids . . . they will not only deliver better fuel economy, but will deliver MORE power, not less, and do so more efficiently. Some folks like the idea of more efficient power. Later on, even the new Lexus LS will achieve MORE power, and do so more efficiently, but that discussion will be on the HELMs forum.

    Regarding your remark that LPS buyers aren't interested in fuel savings anyway . . . I disagree. IMO, most people in the performance category are interested, but they do not want to give up horsepower and performance. Once it is realized that hybrid technology can deliver an increase in fuel efficiency AND horsepower, it then becomes more attractive to the performance buyer as well as others. This will be more obvious as more vehicles like this come to marketplace. Lexus will prove this as well as anyone.

  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    call BS I have subcribed to CR for over 20 years. During that time I have owned Fords, Chryslers, Acuras and Infinitis. CR sends me a survey and I fill it out. There is no bias involved at all.

    Interesting! And are you the spokesman for every single CR survey taker? Do you really believe and know that there is no bias whatsoever in CR surveys? If that is what you honestly believe then there is nothing more to discuss.
  • gohorns1gohorns1 Posts: 53
    I just don't get why some folks get so bent out of shape regarding CR. It is a survey of drivers based on the cars they drive. Do drivers of Japanese cars write in regarding BMW or Audi. I really doubt it. For what ever reason, those who drive Japanese cars respond more favorable than those that drive cars made in other countries, most notably Germany. I will assume that CR does not alter the results. If they base their conclusions on the responses of drivers, one would have to assume that more drivers of German made cars, at least in the past, responded negatively than drivers of Japanese cars. Now, maybe the survey doesn't ask enough about performance (I personally, have never taken the time to fill out the survey), but if I am not mistaken, CR's criticism of BMW and Audi, the two car makers in this forum, have been reliability not performance. In fact, I believe they often give BMW the nod for performance but knock it for reliability. Now, is CR just seeking out disgruntled BMW drivers? If they are, then I can see the bias. Maybe one could argue that the content BMW/Audi drivers don't respond because they are too busy driving their cars. Who knows. Take CR for what it is, nothing more and nothing less.
  • gohorns1gohorns1 Posts: 53
    I should have included MB with Audi and BMW in the above post. Didn't want to leave anyone out........
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    Everything you have written does not contradict what I have said. Saying that CR alters results is silly and I did not say such a thing.

    What does it mean to be unreliable according to CR?

    My mother drives a 01 MB C240 which has a notorious CR reliability rating.

    Does that mean her car breaks down a lot? No

    Does it mean she spends a lot of time getting her car serviced? No

    Does it mean that her car is expensive to maintain? As far as I know she is not spending big $$ for maintenance.

    Ofcourse her individual car is not a statistically valid example. BUT what if she used CR to buy her car? Would she have bought her MB. Absolutely not since those black dots would be a fearful sight for almost anybody. And following CR as a guide for car purchases would have deprieved her from owning a car she loves.

    Which brings me to one point that is raised by the CR findings:

    None and I repeat none(not even the least reliable German cars) are on the List of the Least Satisfying Cars to Own. While quite a few of the Least Satisfying Cars to Own are Japanese cars.

    WHat does this say? To me it says that having a black dot for reliablity is not at all as bad as most CR readers would interpret it to be. The difference between reliability and unrelibility does not carry the same weight as it did in the past. The CR stats in the 1960s/70s showed that MGs were unreliable and yes they were very unreliable. Today it can be argued that the differences between the ratings of CR reliability and unreliability is more subtle than what it was in the past

    But today unfortunatley most readers view a CR unreliability rating as if if owning such a rated car will be horrific experience(a myth indeed)
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,767
    Friday, March 17, 2006-Sebring, FL.

    Two Audi diesel powered sports racing cars qualified 1 and 2 for Saturdays 12 hour race. They both broke the track record in doing so.

    Saturday, March 18, 2006-Sebring, FL.

    One of the diesel powered Audi R10s went on to win the grueling 12 hour race. Taking over the lead from the other R10 when it was forced to retire due to overheating problems. These cars were so quiet you could hardly tell there was an engine back there one of the drivers said.
    Further, there was no smell and no smoke. The fuel was a new type of diesel developed by Shell Oil.

    If anyone else has any info on this race I would love to hear about it. For some reason info is very difficult to come by.

    I guess I am thinking that history was made Saturday and hardly anyone noticed! Comments please!

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460

  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    What a great post! The interpretation of CR's ratings is part of the problem. People see those black dots and wham, they think those cars are a p.o.s. Yes, they are not as reliable as the red dots, but the red dots are more reliable than they used to be as well. From what I understand, there is almost a threshhold that has been reached with regards to reliability, and that it is practically impossible to reach higher reliability levels than what has been reached by the most reliable cars.

    So, by comparison, the black dots of today could easily be better than the red dots of generations ago!

    The real point is that CR is largely unsuccessful at having their data understood for what it truly indicates. If they are going to take the time to acquire and publish so much data, it stands to reason that they should take more responsibility to make sure that the data is interpreted a little better.

    Man, I sure liked your post.

  • james27james27 Posts: 433
    CR's reliability ratings used to be (I haven't looked for awhile) based on number of non-routine maintenance visits, and their cost. So, new brakes or wiper blades, being routine, don't count against it, but a new radiator, or an early water pump, or a bad bushing or seal at an early mileage would count. Two reasons I didn't buy a new AUdi, the sunroof takes up too much headroom, and I had to replace too many things, too early. I liked driving the car, but not the trips to the shop, or their cost. One shouldn't have to replace radiators, steering components, water pump, bushings, nor seals on a car with 40K.
  • gohorns1gohorns1 Posts: 53
    WOW, or should I say WOW.
    My initial question remains, why such ire for CR.
    But, to respond and I should be clear, I nor any of my family works for CR (whew!)
    Of course your mom should drive what she wants. As I said in my post, CR is just one tool that can be used. But I interpret their comparisons to be relative. So while all cars may have better reliability than equivalent cars from decades ago, the red dots are still relatively better. If one feels that this is an insignificant difference, then interpret it as such. But, it doesn't take away from the results. I could point out my dad's horrendous experience with an A6. While he has had no out of pocket expense due to the warranty, he had to go back and forth to the dealer continuously.
    Does that mean his car breaks down a lot? Yes

    Does it mean he spends a lot of time getting his car serviced? Yes

    As you said, one example is not statistically significant. But, to use your conclusion, if he had used the black dots, he may have avoided the hassles. He loved driving the car when he had it, but the hassles out weighed the driving experience. Again, for some, the CR ratings may be helpful and have value.

    Again, why such ire?
    (Should I use more bold in my posts?)
  • gohorns1gohorns1 Posts: 53
    I find that hard to believe. There is still room for improved reliability for all cars. But to accept your conclusion, that still leaves room for the less reliable cars to improve to the level of the most reliable. For some, reducing the risk of lost time due to trips to the dealer is an important factor. While it may be less of a difference than in the past, it may still be one factor to consider. I do agree that no one should rely on just one source regarding such a significant purchase
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    What are a lot more useful in general than CR's individual dots are their comparison charts that show just how reliable (or not) the owners reported their cars to be, rather than just <2-5% (full red dot) or >15% (full black dot) in a particular area. In the "luxury car" comparison chart, the GS scores the best by a wide margin, but you'll notice that the GS only manages a mediocre overall score from CR. They take reliability into consideration when determining a car's overall rating, but it is not the only priority that they have.

    What would make me nervous looking at that chart is the S-type, with its 121% worse than average reliability score. Theres certainly a chance that you could buy an S-type and have the most wonderful, trouble free experience in the world with it. Obviously however, there's a FAR greater chance that something will go wrong with it than say the GS, M, or even the 5.

    Also, for those that say CR loves everything Japanese, they should note that the Infiniti QX56 is CR's least reliable new car, with far worse scores than the Range Rover, Cayenne, and even the Toureg.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    I am a little in steam Engines myself as some of my models are powered by this technology

    cdnpinhead has well underlined the issue of bulkiness. the other issue will be the water supply. creating steam will use a lot of (distilled) water and there is no way to stock it in a big tank as for steam locomotives. So BMW must design a condensor to re-transform the exhaust steam back into water. This condensor is (was) often built in steam ships as there was enough accomodation for it, but this would be a huge hardship in cars where space and weight are limited.

    so I think 10 years is an understatement for "never".
Sign In or Register to comment.