Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The NHTSA site makes it clear that you cannot compare FRONTAL crash test results between cars that have more than 500 pound difference in weight.
The NHSTA site has no such restriction when it comes to the side impact crash test results.
Also, the weight of the object driven into the side of the vehicle does not change with the weight of the vehicle. It is 3,150 pounds whether they are ramming it into the side of an SUV or into the side of a lightweight, low end car.
FWIW, after I post this, I am going to be writing to the NHTSA and ask them if what I have been told about side impact crash test results (that you can compare them outside of weight class) is true.
At this point all I know is the object is moving at 38.5mph and the vehicle is stationary.
I have found evidence that suggests you can.
I have the December 2000 issue where Consumer Reports rated fuel efficient cars. The story was about the Echo, the Toyota Prius, the Volkswagen Golf GLS TDI, and the Honda Insight.
However, Consumer Reports also showed the ratings for other less fuel-efficient small sedans such as the Ford Focus, Mazda Protege ES, Volkswagen Jetta GLS 2.0, Toyota Corolla LE, Nissan Sentra GXE, and Saturn SL2. The only distinction they made was between models with an automatic transmission and those with a manual transmission.
They did NOT say you could not compare the ratings of any of these cars with the others.
Looking at those ratings, at the time of publication, Consumer Reports gave the Toyota Echo a higher overall rating then the Honda Insight, Saturn SL2, Nissan Sentra GXE, Toyota Corolla LE, and the Volkswagen Jetta GLS 2.0.
The Echo tied the rating for the Mazda Protege 2.0 and got a lower rating than the Volkswagen Golf GLS TDI, Toyota Prius, and the Ford Focus ZTS.
Pretty good showing I think.
It's also why we will probably never see the best economy cars get the highest possible rating from CR, because there will be more expensive cars that will test out better in some areas. CR just reviewed luxury sedans and said the BMW 530i is the highest rated car they have ever tested, and in fact its overall rating "bar" is all the way over to the right (Excellent), meaning I guess that CR doesn't think any car can get much better than that.
The ECHO's high rating by CR is I believe a reflection of CR's criteria for testing cars, which does NOT include totally subjective criteria such as styling. I know a lot of people on these boards don't think much of CR, but I happen to think they provide valuable information and a more scientific approach to testing cars than most (all?) auto mags.
P.S. I went to church Saturday afternoon to avoid any chance of showing up early (and for other reasons). But I also remembered to set my clocks back last night. Except on my Elantra. So as I was driving my 13-year-old son home from his campout today, he reached over without a word and reset the clock.
If I had not found my issue dealing with the Echo and the fuel-efficient cars, I would not have known for sure they were also in the category of small sedans and could be compared against other small sedans. The rating for the Echo cannot be compared against the rating for the BMW 5-series for example.
Sorry for not making that clear.
The man I wrote to is named Jeff Guiseppe and he indicated that side impact crash test results CAN be compared between cars of vastly different weight.
HOWEVER, the weight, that is crashed into the side of the vehicle, is at the ride height of a passenger vehicle. This means the test does not simulate getting hit in the side by a vehicle such as an SUV. Mr. Guiseppe said that typically the higher up you are in a side impact crash test, the better you are.
So, in summation, this means a three star rating for side impact crash protection is a three star rating is a three star rating.
IF the majority of Edmunds voters of the Most Wanted had safety as a primary concern, AND if those voters were highly concerned with the SIDE IMPACT safety of the REAR seat passengers, then they could possibly have chosen the Echo over Focus ZX3.
My point is if Edmunds truly is concerned with safety given all the harping they do where the Echo is concerned, they have a funny way of showing it.
They pick two cars that had some pretty bad safety rating scores and they don't even mention the poor safety ratings.
I know the actual Most Wanted write ups of the two cars were brief, but I cannot see that the poor safety rating has been discussed in the any article about the two cars. I specified article because Edmunds does divulge the ratings information in that section devoted to specs and safety.
What's important to me now is determining how Edmunds developed the $13,000 ceiling. The introductory article does not make it clear.
BTW thank you for writing to the NHTSA and getting an answer.
Pat
Host
Sedans Message Board
Let me provide an example and see what you think. Look at the August 2001 issue (the only one I can find in the house right now; beloved wife has a bad habit of tossing out my mags). It reviews compact crew-cab pickups (sorry, out of topic--but then so are 747s). Take a look at the ratings for Ride. All the scores save one is Fair or Poor; the S-10 gets a Good for full-load ride. Then notice the comments about ride. For example, on the S-10 they say, "Though it doesn't compare with a sedan's ride, the S-10's is relatively well isolated." (There's more, but I don't want to violate the Membership policy with too long a quote.) It's clear from the reviews that the S-10 has the best ride in the group. So, can you explain why the S-10 did not get an Excellent for Ride? If the trucks are really weighted within categories, and this category is compact crew-cab pickups, and CR tested all the trucks in that category in this review (except the Sonoma, a twin of the S-10), how come the best-riding truck doesn't get an Excellent score?
Check out all the other ratings in this article. Of all the ratings, there's only 4 Excellent marks, all for either climate control system or controls and displays. The compact crew-cab pickup with the best acceleration (0-60 in 8.9 seconds, not bad for a pickup) in the category doesn't get an Excellent. The compact crew-cab pickup with the roomiest rear seat doesn't get an Excellent. The quietest compact crew-cab pickup doesn't get an Excellent. And on and on. The only explanation I have for these scores is that these trucks are being compared against vehicles that are outside of their category.
Also look at the overall ratings. The highest rated vehicle in the category, the Ford Explorer Sport Trac, only makes it half-way into the Very Good Category. Three others are Good. One is Poor. So what is CR trying to say here? That they have some idealistic vision of what the perfect compact crew-cab pickup should be, and all the pickups in the category fall far short? Back to the drawing boards, Ford, GM, Daimler Chrysler, Nissan, and Toyota!
How about cars (finally!)? Don't you wonder why no car has ever scored the maximum possible rating on the Overall Rating bar until the BMW 530i did it last month? Even though CR has rated many excellent economy cars over the years and has gushed over many of them? So why would it not give these fine small cars its highest rating? Maybe because they are being compared against cars outside of their category.
P.S. The family decided to play Monopoly instead of Life. I still got the car. I won.
"Not all cars are created equal. [snip] The graphs on these pages show how we've rated each recently tested vehicle, and how it compares to its class peers. [snip]
Each tested model is evaluated against comparable vehicles, and our scoring theme is adjusted to suit the vehicle's type and intended purpose. [snip]"
This is from the Consumer Reports New Car Preview Guide 2001. In this issue they have categories and subcategories.
I believe, but don't know that the admonition on what vehicles you can compare relates to the categories and not the subcategories. Thus, I believe the overall rating for the Echo which is listed in the subcategory of fuel-efficient vehicles can be compared with the rating of the Mazda Protege which is in the small sedans subcategory. Both are in the Mainstream cars category.
However, you cannot compare the rating of the Echo with the rating of the BMW 325i since the former is in the Mainstream cars category and the latter is in the High-End sedans category.
Sorry for the long post and I hope it answers your question.
FWIW, when this question first came up many months ago, I did write a snail mail letter to Consumer Reports asking them to clarify, but I never got a response.
Consider: the statement you quoted says that CR's scoring is adjusted to suit a vehicle's intended purpose. So that would mean that for 2+2 sport coupes, rear seat room/comfort should be scored on a different scale than for 4-door family sedans, because no one buys a 2+2 sport coupe to get a roomy back seat--I've seen CR acknowledge this in their reviews. Yet invariably, CR's reviews will rate the coupes Poor in rear seat room. Poor compared to what? To other 2+2 sport coupes, or to cars in general? I think the latter.
Based on following CR's ratings for over 25 years, I still think the ratings in the monthly reviews are on an single scale, otherwise the best vehicles in each category should score higher than they do. As soon as I get some time I will ask CR about this (maybe when they ask me for the annual contribution ;-) ).
I am not sure about the comparability among any car of the "dots."
I will research my issues and let you know.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Based on sitting in all low end sedans at the Auto Show, here are some suggestions:
ECHO: offer an LE model with padded armrest on doors, fold down center armrests, Cruise control, nicer materials for doors and seats.
All other but Prius: Raise the height of the seat off the floor by copying Toyota ECHO. Place an excellent drive train into your sedans so they will perform and also provide the reliability and excellent fuel economy of the ECHO.
If it does come over, it will probably be a Suzuki since the Swift has also been canceled.
Or maybe not.
Chevy is killing the Prizm? I didn't realize that. I guess the 2003 Corolla platform redesign dictated that move.
After 2002, other than Cavalier/Sunfire, what will GM offer in the low-end Spectrum (pun intended)?
Once more I can happily report that CR dismal prediction of reliability of DC minivans has again been WRONG. Instead of self-destructing as predicted by CR, our GC has had ZERO problems as have the DC minivans owned by numerous friends.
I would select the ECHO over any other sedan but it has nothing to do with my rating of "NOT Recommended for Purchase" Consumer Reports.
And people need to understand that being listed as unreliable or reliable does NOT guarantee something bad or nothing bad will happen.
It just helps you better determine the odds.
#64: "The actual speedo is of nice size, but people (not I) might be complaining about the size of the idiot lights. One thing I would have liked to have would have been an actual temperature gauge and not an idiot light."
#154 (Carleton1 - Question for majorthomecho): "Keep everything the same as with current ECHO but add an LE with padded armrests on the doors, fold down padded armrests on inside of front seats, padded/carpeted doors, cruise control,nice seats as in all Siennas?
It should not cost very much for these items over the cost of the cheap appearing items they would replace (except the addition of Cruise Control and possibly the addition of a Tachometer.)"
#155: "I seriously doubt that it will happen. I know there were different trim levels for the Tercel, but the Tercel was a different car for a different time.
Personally, I don't miss any of those items with the exception of a tachometer."
This was not an exhaustive search, I just did enough to prove to myself that my memory neurons are still in working order and I did not imagine that you had mentioned these things before.
I have to agree with you on both counts--I prefer gauges to idiot lights, and I think a tach adds a lot to the driving experience on a stick shift car.
I do not feel that strongly about the absence of a true temperature gauge and the tach. I guess that is why I didn't remember saying it.
The absence of a tach does not prevent a satisfying driving experience although it would make getting better 0 to 60 times easier. ; )
And whose past experience are they talking about? The results come not from the reliability of any Volvo S80s they [Consumer Reports] have owned, but rather from data gathered from surveys sent out to [and returned by] other Volvo S80 owners.
This is the way it is for ANY model.
As far as Consumer Reports hating any car without a Toyota symbol on the front; if this was true, no non-Toyota model would be recommended. This is simply not true.
The BMW 3-series is recommended; the BMW 5-series is recommended; the Buick Park Avenue is recommended; the Chevrolet Impala is recommended; the Chrysler 300M is recommended; the Chrysler Concorde is recommended; and none of these wear a Toyota badge. These are not the only non-Toyotas that are recommended in the 2002 New Car Preview guide, but I think you get my point.
Also, I want to say a few things regarding Hyundais and how they fared in Consumer Reports.
Number one is that the key for trouble spots shows that the little marks indicate a range of the percentage of owners reporting problems. A full red circle does not mean a car scored "excellent" in that category. A half red circle does not mean a car scored "good" in that category. In other words, the way you have characterized the "scores" is incorrect.
Also, the range for the second highest rating (for example) is three percentage points. The number of owners reporting problems could be at the high end of the range and thus it looks like the car did very well, but when compared to the results of other cars in its class [if the results for them were at the low end of the range], it did badly.
You should check out the Consumer Reports Used Car Yearbook. It has an explanation as to why a car that looks reliable (based on the results in individual categories) gets no check for overall reliability.
One final word about Consumer Reports supposedly hating non-Toyota cars. If this were true, they would not have given the Hyundai Elantra an overall higher rating (the little bar graph rating) than the Toyota Corolla. Check out page 18 of the aforementioned New Car Preview.
Clay, you are arguing something with no facts to support your contention. In fact, there are plenty of facts to suggest you are wrong.
FWIW, welcome to the board. Would you mind telling us which car you own and how it has been running for you? I know your profile says you have a Chrysler, but it does not say which Chrysler.