Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Do you frequent my stomping grounds like www.forums.caranddriver.com? Your post reads like it.
I have since come to realise that the reason why Honda/Toyota recalls don't get much coverage is because GM's SG&A goes mainly to enthusiast magazines, whereas Toyota/Honda advertise in the very media sources you suggest ("mainstream"). Thus, advertising revenue is maintained by the mainstream media not mentioning certain recall issues.
You are aware of the embarrassing bruhaha Honda made with the Honda Element, right? THe cracked windshield issue forced the creation of two consumer activist groups and a class action against Honda until Honda finally admitted that the cracked windshield wasn't the consumer's fault. Very LOL funny!
If you search your heart, you would find that if Honda introduced the Focus instead of Ford, then you wouldn't be claiming that the Mazda3 is the benchmark; you'd be claiming that the Honda Focus is.
"If CR were biased in favor of imports, they would get few complaints in ranking the Mazda3 over the Focus.
If Consumer Reports were to assess cars based on their merits rather than their origin of manufacture, then the GMC Acadia would outrank the Honda Pilot and here's why. The Buick Enclave would beat the Toyota Highlander, and here's why. The Passat would rank below the Saturn Aura, and it's not just because of price. The Chevrolet Silvarado would beat the Toyota Tundra. The Buick Lucerne V8 would beat the Toyota Avalon. I can go on and on and on.
The Fusion would beat the Mazda 6. The Saturn Sky Redline would would be right under the Mazda MX5 Miata.
"I also need an explanation as to why CR fell all over themselves recently praising Ford for their leap in reliability, while downgrading the Toyota Camry."
CR falling "all over themselves" had nothing to do with C/R testing Fords or Toyotas; it had to do with the consumer, and the consumer sending in their reliability surveys. Consumer Reports took no part in the "downgrading" of the Camry -- it was the cunsumer and his reliability survey that downgraded the Camry.
Consumer Reports praising Ford had nothing to do with Consumer Reports; Consumer Reports simply made the claim that their readers sent in a survey result that reflected better on Ford.
What's interesting to note is that on last Months issue of Consumer Reports, Consumer Reports made it clear that they were no longer recommending the Camry specifically because of a specific drivetrain issue, as if to say, "The car is still our most recommended but we can't because we have our hands tied from this little engine defect in the redesigned model so go ahead and buy it as if the mechanical problem doesn't even exist."
Actually, there's a strong correlation between higher mileage cars and higher ranked cars. Look at the cars Consumer Reports rates the highest and you'll also see that these are the same cars that, according to Consumer Reports, has higher MPG figures.
As far as testing fuel economy, the only thing Consumer Reports says on the matter is, "We test gas mileage and get a result that closely mimics real-world driving." Since the EPA and the others make the same claim, then Consumer Reports should return MPG figures that closely resemble the EPA's figures.
I do, however believe that CR, like many people, have preconceptions about Japanese products, and that it stems from a long history dating back to the days when many of the domestic vehicles were pathetic, and the Japanese were making honest attempts to build small fuel-efficient reliable cars, in stark contrast to the junk coming out of Detroit at the time.
BTW, every one of my four vehicles is an import... but only one is Japanese. So, I'm not trying to defend the domestic manufacturers here. I'm only after the truth, regardless of whose side it favors. I totally believe that CR is biased because I find it rather apparent, and I've already explained in some detail in previous posts the nature of that bias.
TagMan
Cheap and cheaply made, as I assume that will be reality, just as it was for the early Korean cars (and the early Japanese ones???).
BTW, CR does rank the Fusion above the Mazda6 in the V6 versions (equal in the I-4). Why they do so is a mystery to me. But, why you think your opinions (or C&D's) of the relative rankings of vehicles are objective facts is an even bigger mystery.
But that's not what we were talking about, is it? How does CR favoring cars--all cars--that get higher fuel economy relate to your claims of bias against American cars?
If you can describe to me in detail how CR's road tests parallel those the EPA uses to measure fuel economy, e.g. do both of them use the same roads and speeds, or maybe one of them tests on certain roads in NY State and one tests in a lab, then I will give your assertion some credence.
What did ya think of the SYNC system?
You claim the Civic (post-2006; pre-2006) is an "exceptional small car." The differences between the post-2006 model and the pre-2006 model are nearly equal to the differences between night and day, so I'm wondering in a rhetorical sort of way: Could it be that the Civic is an "exceptional small car" just because it's a Honda? It couldn't be an "exceptional small car" because of the car itself, since the differences between the 2005 and 2006 models are too great.
Because the old Civic is an ergonomically designed economy car and the new Civic is a spaceship that runs on petroleum distillates, we have only to conclude that -- according to you -- the Civic is an "exceptional small car" just because it's a Honda.
Now how is our Honda Focus doing.
Look. I stated that Consumer Reports says they test MPG's by driving in the same manner that resembles real-world driving. I am not making this up; it's pulled straight from the same magazine I found their "The S2000 gets 30MPG's" lie in. The EPA and others test MPG's roughly the same way they do.
Since you hold on to this stubborn prejudice that I don't think a mountain of facts can remove, you're asking me to obtain every hill, every corner, every use of the accelerator pedal that Consumer Reports uses to obtain their "real-world" MPG figures. But to what end? Even if I were to show you aerial views of their road course and just about every detail of their tests and show that a car won't consume any more and any less fuel than one on the EPA's road course, what would that do? You'd still insist that Consumer Reports is reporting accurate mileage figures and everyone else is botching their mileage figures somehow.
This is how people with a prejudice think. Fear of admitting they're wrong? Does it take them too much effort to change their beliefs when they're given the facts? I just don't know.
It could also be that BOTH the 2005 models and 2006 models are exceptional small cars.
Saying that "the differences are too great" for both too be considered "exceptional small cars" is your opinion.
Likewise, I don't think Car and Driver ever complained that one car in their comparison test has a huge gap in an interior panel while mentioning nothing of the huge gap in the other car.
(The following photograph is the interior detail of a 2007 Honda Accord, grand canyon between the door panel/passenger compartment and all)
Notice how Consumer Reports makes no complaints about the grand canyons that plague the Honda Accord interior above (although Consumer Reports did finally mention the crappy fit and finish in the Accord after Accord owners wrote in asking why they weren't mentioning the Accord's poor panel fitment).
The car below is the new Ford Taurus and for some reason they mention wide panel gaps in the interior in this Months issue, where the Taurus and Accord are compared:
Like the S2000's exagerrated MPG figures, the demotion of the Ford Focus to 70 points and the ranking of the Fusion lower than the Mazda6, the only explination I have for Consumer Reports lying about wide interior panel fits in the Taurus is that they are biased against the domestic nameplate and dismiss -- as best they can -- issues with the import nameplate.
Do you have ten minutes, and an open mind? Then try this: go to a few of the "real world fuel economy" discussions here, and look at what real-world mpg numbers are being reported for various cars. Each person is reporting his/her real-world fuel economy. So by your reasoning, they should all be reporting the same numbers, yes? But you will find that their numbers are all over the place. Why do you suppose that is, since you have asserted that since both the EPA and CR claim to do "real world" fuel economy tests, they should report the same results.
The differences between the old Civic and the new Civic are so great that if you thought the old Civic was exceptional, then the new Civic is anything but exceptional.
If you think both old and new Civic models are exceptional despite their grotesque differences -- and if you claim the Ford Focus is overrated on top of that -- then there's a clear import bias there. Don't debate me on the idea, as I will win the debate. fair warning.
Now how do you expect John Doe to report an accurate mileage figure using just his gas gauge and the love for his car? The "ownership experience" evidence here is about as scientific as playing Intelligent Design on a Ouiji Board.
Consulting the former will help demolish your prejudice (even though such undertakings are next to impossible), while consulting the latter will mislead you ("I just got 45 MPG in my Excursion with my entire family on board while driving to the football game!" "Really? My Excursion is doing even better than that! When I drove my in-laws, kids and grandkids up a four-mile mountain while towing two boats and a motorhome and when I was nearing the top of the hill, my gas gauge read that the tank was actually more full than when I started!").
Stick with ConsumerGuide, Edmund's, the EPA, Automobile, AutoWeek and even Intellichoice. The others are lying to you.
TagMan
I will point out again that they don't.
the demotion of the Ford Focus to 70 points
When was this?
I'm not sure what you think those two pictures show. What you say may or may not be true, but how are those photos supposed to be evidence of it?
Big differences between claimed and
actual city mpg were the main reason for
the discrepancy in overall mpg. Our city
mpg figures ranged from 13 percent
better than the EPA sticker to 50 percent
worse.
the fuel economy of the Honda
Civic EX (33 claimed mpg, 29 actual) is
considerably better overall than that of
the BMW X5 (18 claimed mpg, 17 actual).
But as a predictor of real miles per gallon,
if the EPA ratings are exaggerated, they
are a deceptive sales tool.
“According to Honda, the Element gets 21
mpg,” says Tom Mannino, ...
“My Element, however, gets 14
mpg. Isn’t this false advertising?”
Our study found that only 10 percent
of vehicles achieved fuel economies as
good as or better than EPA estimates,
including the 2003 Infiniti FX35, the 2004
Chrysler Crossfire, and the 2000 Honda
S2000 convertible.
My opinion of some of the idiotic things they did was re-inforced by other things they tested, such as 'milk'. Geee whiz, milk is such a 'local' product that testing of such a thing is totally useless in a national publication.
As I aged, and already owned the 'usual' items of home ownership, CR became less and less useful to me. I stopped reading. Now, only when something breaks or bends and a new one is needed in the home - I venture down to the public library which has several years of CR in their stacks, and then look for the tests of my needed item.
Even now, you should not look specifically at the models being tested. You should attempt to deferentiate general qualities of items. These can 'usually' be used as guidelines of how similiar models from the same manufactor will function.
For autos, look at the annual issue with the color coded charts. Look generally at the colorful results of Manufactors and Models, and you should get useful information. But remember, when you buy a vehicle, it isn't going to be the exact vehicle that went into any of the charts. It's your one specific vehicle, and it will have develop it's own history as you own it.
TagMan
I dunno... maybe through the same kind of odd and wondrous circumstance that would allow two different testing organizations to come up with the same mpg numbers on a car model even though their tests are much different.
I don't know why you are concerned with how "scientific" the real-world mpg reports in Town Hall are. Expecting two controlled tests (e.g., EPA and CR fuel economy tests) to come up with the same results even though the tests are conducted using totally different methods is about as un-scientific a thought as I can imagine.
One problem that you might be having in communicating your view is your use of the word "bias". Now that I have read your response, it seems like you are using the word "bias" in the statistical sense of the word. By that I mean, you are suggesting that the sample set that they using does not necessarily represent the population as a whole, which I think is valid.
On the other hand, most non-statistically minded people interpret the word "bias" to mean that there is some sort doctoring of the results in order to justify an opinion. I think you will admit that the confusion is understandable, since the second meaning of word is probably its more common usage among the layman.
If we need to look up the word bias, we can do so, and discover that it doesn't really mean "doctoring".
If CR is to be described by posters here as being biased, then we are referring to a more systematic procedure for collecting data as opposed to a random procedure, which can effect the results of the final data. This is essentially one of the very meanings of the word. The other meaning that bias offers us is similar to the meaning of prejudice. And in that light, I believe that posters here are inferring that CR is prejudiced against certain models or marques and shows favoritism towards others with regards to their subjective analysis of the vehicles.
So, at the end of the day, CR is guilty of two types of bias. And I am not suggesting that either one of those types is "doctoring" the data... or cooking the books... so you are right about that, and that's a good point, humblecoder, thank you.
The two types of bias that CR is guilty of are: the inherent bias in the systematic approach that they take regarding their surverys, and separately, the subjective prejudice that seems to have been more critical of domestic cars than Japanese vehicles, and more favorable to Japanese vehicles than the rest... but I would add that, IMO, it was particularly more evident in previous years.
TagMan
You're stating that your average joe measuring gas mileage is no less scientific and no less colored than those measuements done by well-regarded institution and the equipment they use.
That's like believing someone who claim a Corvette isn't any noisier than a BMW 3-Series just because he said so. Well, actual sound level meters are used by automobile journalists to assess the cars' noise level, and if that measuring equipment is telling us that the BMW is quieter, by golly I'll believe the automobile journalist before I'd believe the Corvette owner is. If 100 Joe Blows are reporting wildly fluctuating MPG figures in their S2000's, and if Edmunds, the EPA and ConsumerGuide are all reporting the same 20/25 on the S2000, I'd go with the authorities when it comes to MPG figures.
Suppose we have a 1-mile road course that's 70% highway and 30% city. The course has two hills, with the tested car starting and stopping at sea level. There are two tight curves.
Suppose further that there's another road course that's 10 miles long with 70% highway. It has 10 hills and four curves.
These two different road courses will have a car return the same MPG regardless ogf which road course is chosen, since both road courses will record MPG's that's the same as the car that's being driven in real-world conditions.
Both Consumer Reports and Edmunds/EPA/ConsumerGuide claim to test their cars similar to the real-world situation, yet Consumer Reports is the only one that didn't record a figure consistent with the other ones.
And if Consumer Reports's road course does favor a higher MPG result, then we can expect all of Consumer Reports's tested cars to have MPG's that are higher than the mean.
Since many of Consumer Report's cars return MPG's consistent with the Edmunds/ConsumerGuideEPA figures for those cars, then we can logically claim bias in Consumer Reports MPG figures, since there are some cars (all import branded) that have overly optimistic MPG figures (a-la Honda S2000).
I showed, in pictures that Consumer Reports claims that the import Honda Accord has narrow gaps in interior panels even though it doesnt, and that Consumer Reports claims that the domestic Ford Taurus has wide gaps in interior panels even though it doesn't.
I showed that Consumer Reports grossly exagerates the MPG figures of the import Honda S2000.
I have shown that Consumer Reports advertises the fact that the import Kia Amanti has rebates, Yet consumer Reports never mentions the fact that the domestic Buick Lucerne and other domestics gets rebates.
More Consumer Reports Busts coming soon...
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that using two totally different testing methods to measure fuel economy and expecting that they will return the same results is un-scientific thinking. I will use your example of the two different test courses to illustrate this point.
The first course, as you stated, is a 1-mile road course that's 70% highway and 30% city. The course has two hills, with the tested car starting and stopping at sea level. There are two tight curves. The second course is 10 miles long with 70% highway. It has 10 hills and four curves. Your contention is that these two different road courses will have a car return the same MPG regardless of which road course is chosen, since both road courses will record MPGs that are the same as the car that's being driven in real-world conditions.
Now, I don't fully understand that last part about both road courses recording MPGs that are the same as the car that's being driven in real-world conditions, because we have no idea what those real-world conditions are and they can vary greatly for each car on the road. So I will assume that your contention is that, if a car is tested on each of these courses, it will return the same MPG. That is consistent with what you have asserted earlier about the EPA and CR tests.
Here is why that assertion is likely not true. I will provide some additional details about the two road courses:
* Course 1, the one-mile course, is laid out in downtown San Francisco. The test takes place at 8 am Monday morning, in heavy traffic. The two hills are very steep (imagine Nob Hill), about a 40% grade. The curves are tight curves, on city streets, and the car must slow to a low speed to navigate them. The average speed of the test car on this course is 14 mph, because of many stop signs/lights, the steep hills, and congestion on the urban streets and freeways used for the test.
* Course 2, the ten-mile course, is laid out in suburban Fort Lauderdale. The test is conducted at 7 am Sunday morning. There is virtually no traffic. There are very few stop lights and signs on the course, and because of the light traffic the test driver makes all of the stop lights. The hills are all gentle grades, about 5%, and the curves are sweeping, banked curves that can be taken at normal speeds. Note also that the 1-mile course has twice as many hills per mile and five times as many curves per mile than the 10-mile course. The average speed on this course is 54 mph.
Also, different drivers conduct each test. While they both adhere to posted speed limits and traffic laws, their driving styles are not the same.
What do you think the chances are that the car will get the same MPG in both test runs? I think the odds are close to being zero.
Now: do you still find it surprising that CR could get different MPG results on its tests than the EPA got, and still maintain that the fact that CR did get different MPG results on its tests compared to the EPA that it is clear evidence of bias on the part of CR?
* In the April 2007 Auto Issue, the Mazda6, Ford Fusion, and Mercury Milan are all rated 69 in CR's scoring when equipped with 4-cylinder engines. With V6s, the Fusion and Milan received 77 and the Mazda6 69. Thus the assertion that CR rates the Mazda6 higher than the Fusion is incorrect. (See pgs, 36-37.)
* The photos you posted to demonstrate the panel gap issue are not photos of the cars CR actually tested.
* When CR tested the Chevy Cobalt (May 2005 issue), they achieved 35 mpg highway, or a little over 9% better than the car's 2005 EPA rating of 32 mpg. But in the same test group, they got only 33 mpg highway on an import car, the Hyundai Elantra, which is only 3% better than its EPA highway rating of 32 mpg.
* When CR tested the Saturn Sky (October 2007 issue), they achieved 34 mpg highway, or nearly 10% better than the car's 2007 EPA rating of 31 mpg. But in the same test group, they got only 36 mpg highway on an import car, the Hyundai Elantra, which is the same as its EPA highway rating for 2007. In the same test, CR got only 34 mpg highway on the Nissan Sentra, while its EPA highway mpg is 36 (!).
We could conclude from the last two examples that CR did something with the fuel economy tests to have the American cars come out better than the imports on the EPA tests.
Or it could be that when cars are driven on CR's test course, with real drivers in real weather, fuel economy can be different than what is measured in EPA's tests.
I'll go with the 2nd conclusion.
To prove my point I say Edmunds picks out 10 members to test a Fusion and I volunteer to sell them the 10 cars to do the testing with.
It would help if you would take a few minutes to read and comprehend what others post here. Then maybe you wouldn't mis-interpret these posts, as you have done with mine.
Since you think I'm lying, here are the specific references for you (or anyone else) to check whenever you wish (e.g. go down to your local library):
* 2005 Cobalt AT and 2005 Elantra AT (please note the model years and transmissions, they're significant) fuel economy results from CR: See p. 55 in the May 2005 issue of CR.
* 2007 Elantra AT, 2007 Sentra 2.0 CVT, and 2007 Sky 2.0T MT (please note the model years, engines, and transmissions, they're significant) fuel economy results from CR: See pgs. 57 and 59 in the October 2007 issue of CR.
* Because all the tests were on model years 2007 and prior, I used the EPA numbers that were in effect as of the time the cars were made and the CR tests were performed, that is, the old EPA ratings from before 2008. For example, the highway EPA rating for the 2007 Sky was 31 mpg, but under the new system that took effect this year, it drops to 28.
So tell me, why was this information I posted "misleading" when it was simply facts from CR reports and fueleconomy.gov, all of which can be verified by anyone who wants to do so? Why did I need to post all the specs on the cars CR tested, when those are clearly stated in the CR reports themselves?
You were quoted as saying: "In the April 2007 Auto Issue, the Mazda6, Ford Fusion, and Mercury Milan are all rated 69 in CR's scoring when equipped with 4-cylinder engines", but fail to mention that out of all three cars, the Ford is on the bottom and the Mazda, which costs over $1,000 more and has worse reliability, is on top.
What I stated is true: all three I4 cars got the same numerical score from CR. What you just stated is not true. In the actual report, the order of listing was: Mazda6, Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan. We've already discussed how CR does not take price nor predicted reliability into account on their numerical ratings. If you didn't follow that discussion, you could go back a few pages and catch up.
Note that the link you provided to the "October 2007 issue of Consumer Reports" is not that at all--it is a link to a 3rd-party summary of that report. The only way to see the actual report is to be a CR subscriber or buy it off the shelf, or get it from the library.
Thanks for posting the spreadsheet from 2004. Note that it shows that CR found that an American car, the Saturn L200, tied the Accord and Camry for highest overall fuel economy (24 mpg) for family cars in their tests, with the Grand Am not far behind at 23 mpg, bettering many import cars. It also shows that an American car, the Lincoln LS, got the highest overall mpg of any upscale sedan in CR's tests, and the Park Avenue Ultra tied the Avalon for the highest overall mpg of any large sedan, again in CR's tests. And the Pontiac Vibe got the highest overall mpg of any wagon/hatchback in CR's tests, while the Chevy Venture tied the Odyssey in highest overall fuel economy in CR's tests of minivans. Very interesting results I think, for an organization that has been said to have a bias against American cars.
If you want to continue to call me a liar, you can do that by yourself.
I did say that you mislead us with the data you provided for us in your post. And I did not call Consumer Reports a liar to be boorish, I called them liars because they deliberately lie to advance their agenda of promoting import cars. There is nothing uncivilised about that.
Back to the discussion. Since Consumer Reports doesn't allow any of their recent stuff to be broadcasted over the internet (they won't do it on their own website and since it's all copyrighted, there's no way a C/R subscriber can cut and paste the info from their website), we will have to rely on your honesty.
The only thing I'm asking that you do is type the MPG city, MPG highway and MPG mixed of the following cars in the Nov 2007 issue. Please also list the trim levels tested:
1) 2005 Cobalt
2) 2007 Saturn Sky
3)2007 Nissan Sentra
4) 2007 Hyundai Elantra.
I know you just got done doing it, but we really have to establish which trim levels were tested. The only way you can show that you're not being misleading and that C/R does not have an anti-domestic bias in the MPG department is if we compare these cars first against the EPA, then against Edmund's and ConsumerGuide. Motor Trend and Road and Track can follow.
I just got done reading C/R's "2008's Best and Worst", and they're telling me that the Saturn Sky got like 26 MPG, which is far lower than the 34 you posted. I know their Best for 2008 didn't include the Saturn's trim levels, but we shouldn't see an 8 MPG difference in the same car.
If you can show that there are domestic cars C/R tests that return very high MPG figures, and if the consensus between ConsumerGuide, the EPA and Edmund's states that those same domestic cars have substantially lower MPG figures, then I will have to retract all that I have said about import bias inherent in C/R's test results (in other words, C/Rs optimistic MPG figures for the S2000 have to be considered objective, according to their testing methods).
You will have to do this to bust me. But I don't think you can. C/R always adds a detail that misleads people into believing imports are better than domestics, and I think the key in this case lies in the trim levels of the tested cars.
I will verify your data when you present it.
Again, I'm hoping you can display the MPG figures on these four cars in a compact spreadsheet, including trim levels. Don't bother with the EPA numbers, that'll be my job.
Other domestic/import ties and order they are listed in April 2007:
Acura TSX, Lincoln MKZ, Audi A4
Chevrolet Cobalt, Scion TC
Ford Escape, Mazda Tribute, Mercury Mariner
Pontiac Vibe, Toyota Matrix
Volvo V50, Subaru Imprezza, Chrysler PT Cruiser
Not seeing an import bias here, are you?
2004 Chrysler Crossfire was mentioned as exceeding EPA figures in the CR peice I had quoted. In Dec 2006 they tested this model with 3.2-liter V6 (215 hp) and
6-speed manual, mpg was 15/30/22 (city, highway, mixed).
EPA has revised numbers at 15/23/18, original sticker had 17/25/20.
Some friendly advice, do with it what you will: if I were you I'd be very careful about making accusations about an organization such as "...they deliberately lie to advance their agenda of promoting import cars." The reason is, I have heard of cases where someone who made accusations against a company or organization on a Web forum was sued by the organization for slander. So, you might want to be real sure of your facts before making accusations like that.
Regarding your request for more data, I'm sorry, I don't have the November 2007 issue of CR and I don't have time in the near future to run to the library to get it. I only buy issues when there's something that interests me, e.g. the Annual Auto Issue, or a product test on something I might be interested in buying in the near future.
Also, I have no interest in playing this game in which you make an assertion, I provide facts that counter your assertion, then you challenge the facts I presented as being false and change the "rules" by which you originally made your assertion (e.g. adding a consensus of Consumers Guide, the EPA, and Edmunds into the mix). So I could spend lots of time presenting still more facts, and I think you would dispute them, then change the "rules" yet again. You have demonstrated to me in your prior posts that you have no intention of accepting evidence that others present that is contrary to your opinions, so you will have to forgive me but I don't want to waste more of my time on this. I have a distinct feeling that no matter how much data I present here, it will not be enough for you, or you will simply dismiss the data I present as being "false", as you have done before. As another poster recently remarked, I've done the best I could. There's an old saying, maybe you know it: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
Also, you have declined my earlier request to do some research and present some details on the different testing methods used by CR and the EPA, to back up your assertion that a car should get the same FE results when tested by either CR or the EPA, and also my request to present additional data beyond the S2000 example that backs up your assertion of bias against CR on how it reports fuel economy. I have already presented more data to counter that assertion than what you have presented to support it. So perhaps it's your turn to present more evidence here?
Backy,
I'm not about to get in the middle of the nasty argument that you and pmc4 are having, but you need to be clearer about the serious statement you just made.
This forum is meant to be focused on CR... and it is expected that there will be serious criticisms as well as supportive statements made regarding CR.
What have you "heard" of, as opposed to what you "know" of? And specifically how does it relate to this situation here? Pmc4 is entitled to the opinion that CR is not straightforward with its information and to suggest that CR isn't entirely objective in its presentation of its data, as well as entitled to offer the opinion that CR is biased in its reviews of various automobiles.
If this were not a forum for opinions and perspectives, and it was a publication (online or not) that "reported" that CR was deliberatly lying about its data without presenting any evidence, then that would be a very different scenario.
Otherwise, your post sounds threatening to pmc4 for expressing opinions that are not in agreement with yours and that are critical of CR.
Perhaps you should refer the entire question to the Edmunds host to determine if pmc4 is at genuine risk of violating legal boundaries here, before resorting to scare tactics.
TagMan
Let's move on, shall we?