First point: The only time I have ever seen someone get sued on a message board was Yahoo!'s finance message board, when some junior officers of a company spread false rumors about their CEO and posted other false info about the company. Their combined posts totalled over 40,000 posts. The reason why they were doing this was because they shorted the company, and stood to benefit from a decrease in that company's share price. Mind you, these weren't your average retail investors; they were corporate officers trying to bring the share price down on a public forum. Furthermore, it wasn't just a post or two that read, "11.30 YESTERDAY, 10 DOLLARS TODAY." Click on the message yields, "LESS THAN A BUCK BY NEXT WEEK! RUN! DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" There were over 40,000 posts spread out over a two year period.
In my 7 years of internet use, I have subscribed to the following forums: Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, Top Gear, Christianforums.com, IIBD.com, consumer reports (yep! about 5 years ago, when I was a subscriber. Very boring/no posters), Talkorigins.org and about three others I can't remember. The two best would be Caranddriver.com and christianforums.com. This forum isn't bad, though...
Second point: I have no worries that Consumer Reports will come after me.
Third point: I was under the impression you had the Nov 2007 issue. Since you don't, I'll get the info for us.
Fourth point (and read this point especially carefully): adding the consensus of ConsumerGuide, Edmunds and the EPA wasn't a 'spur of the moment' thing. I brought up their consensus long ago when I was illustrating that Consumer Reports is biased towards the Honda S2000. To test for any import bias by this organisation, we have to see if their data jives with the consensus. If it does not, and if their data does jive with the consensus when they test the domestic car, then we identified import bias. This is what I did with the Honda S2000 and it's what I'm [trying] to do with the cars in the Nov 2007 issue.
Fifth point (you can 'stand down' reading carefully): you said, "no matter how many facts I present..." As far as I can tell, we've only been discussing four cars in the Nov 2007 issue. Are there other facts you presented that I don't know about?
Sixth point (reengage reading carefully): About finding out about C/R's testing methods, I can't see how that's important. After all, their testing method involves "real-world" driving, right? So why should it matter which "real-world" road course is used? How does it matter that they start, stop, accelerate and drift in a "real-world" fashion? If Consumer Reports MPG test results are in-line with the consensus (as it usually is), then we know that their testing really is "real-world". C/R gets an average 24 MPG with the 2006 V6 Accord and so does the consensus. C/R averaged 15 MPG with the 2007 5.7 Tundra, and so did the consensus. Consumer Reports says the Prius averages 44 MPG. That's in line with the consensus's 43-45 MPG's. Three imports; three identical MPG's. Now go and check the Honda S2000's MPG. First Consumer Reports, then the consensus. P.S: to that guy who's always bringing up the Crossfire, although I couldn't find it on Google, if you do Google it, lol, your post is like right on top of the Google page...)
(read paragraph very carefully -- very important): We know, judging by the fact that Consumer Reports results generally agree with the consensus, that Consumer Reports testing method does not deviate significantly from the testing methods of the consensus. If this were not so, then all of Cosumer Reports results would differ significantly, not just a few imports like the Honda S2000.
Final point: One thing I do agree with you 110% on is that I have to present more than just the Honda S2000 MPG discrepancy to prove import bias, and all the cars I present have to be imports, and none can be domestics. My argument turns flimsy and weak if I can't do that. Your Nov 2007 issue is a good start, so let me get that data. Stand down careful reading...
jeffeyscott, I'm seeing nothing but import bias here. First off, when Consumer Reports ("C/R") tested the Acura TSX -- a European Accord that has a feeble engine, rough ride, high levels of road and tire noise and no interior room -- their only complaint about the car (and I mean their only complaint) was and I quote, "The ride is a bit rough." Out of all that's wrong with the import, that's the only thing they complain about? Then when we read about the domestic Lincoln, there's a littany of complaints, some of which are fabricated, and the others are distorted out of proportion. Now it's either C/R isn't discriminating when they test TSX's then suddenly become discriminating when they sit in Lincolns, or C/R is downright biased toward import cars; so much so that they'll hide any complaints about the TSX, then downplay the car's worst liability -- it's rough ride. The import TSX should be significantly below the domestic Lincoln. Even if it isn't, so what? What have I proven? Nothing. But I do find it interesting that the TSX has an equal rating yet is above the Lincoln.
You are correct about both the Cobalt and the Vibe (especially the Vibe, since it's the same thing as the Matrix). However, if the Cobalt were an import, you and I both know that it would have outscored the Scion in the first place. Sour grapes, I know, but the truth nonetheless.
Your point is a good one, but still fails to counter the fact that C/R put a more expensive, less-reliable version of one car (Mazda) on top of another (Fusion). You can bring up the Vibe and Matrix and the fact the Vibe is above the Matrix and make a good point, but unless the Vibe is more expensive and has lower reliability than the Matrix like the Mazda is to the Fusion, you really didn't accomplish anything. Your point suceeds only if the Vibe were more expensive and lower in reliability, which it isn't -- and I don't care whether $$$ or reliability is included in rankings or not. Common sense says $$$ and reliability should be tie-breakers.
jefferyscott, here are your numbers on the Mercedes C-Class coupe -- er, Chrysler Crossfire:
15/30/22 <--- C/R 17/25/20 <--- EPA
I'm seeing mixed data here -- neither favorable nor unfavorable to the Crossfire. Like the EPA's recording of 18/24 for the Honda S2000, things get worse for the Crossfire when the new EPA figures are taken into account:
15/30/22 <--- C/R 15/23/18 <--- EPA.
But it appears as if you're just reaffirming the EPA's stricter guidelines for 2008; it says nothing about bias. Even if it does, it's a well-known fact that the Crossfire is just a C-Class wearing makeup, so I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say here.
I'll put my one poswt in here regarding import bias and CR. for some reason you think CR is the only publication, organizations, people who had this same bias. My last few mechanics had this same bias. You know why, because through the 80's and 90's the imports did a much better job at building cars. it's for a host of reasons which is too long to argue here. GM, Ford and Chrysler wer ebusy building pickups and big SUVs which is why they are in the mess they are in now with $3 gas. If you can honestly say cars liek the 2002 Malibu, L-Series, Ion, Impala, Taurus, Sebring, Stratus, Neon, Venture, etc. were better then their foreign counterparts. We won't use CR but instead review the Edmunds forum pages for these cars and tell us what you read. considering have been following Edmunds since the 90's, i'm pretty confident what you will find. Then you can say everyone on Edmunds has an import bias.
last year's auto issue, CR made a huge point of saying how the domestics have improved and highlighted the Fusion on a number of pages. This has been recognized by a few other magazines. Why? the domestics have made a concerted effort to improve quality. they recoginzed they had fallen behind. So the perception had become reality. BTW, this was the CEOs of GM and Ford that stated this not CR.
Last point, CR automotive staff is as qualified as any auto magazine staff. They employ all the standard tests using some of the most advanced equipment. The only thing you can criticize them for is the practical nature they rate cars would frustrate any enthusiasts (ergonomics, fuel economy, reliability). One thing I have noticed is CR ratings aren't too far off from other magazine ratings.
Either way CR, Edmunds, Motor Trend, automobile are simply tools in selecting a car. Test drive the cars that you are interested in and buy the ones you like. Who cares what some editor thinks of your car? Not unless they are paying for it?
You guys, I did in fact vverify Backy's claim that C/R gave the Saturn Sky RedLine 34 MPG highway, which was 3 MPG's higher than what the EPA gave the same car. However; and what's more important, is that C/R gave the Redline a combined 24 MPG and a city of 18 MPG for the RedLine, yet the EPA gave the RedLine 25 MPG combined and 22 MPG city, which is in fact higher than what C/R gave the car.
Therefore, Consumer Reports still remains import biased. They gave the Honda S2000 MPG figures that were substantially higher than the consensus across the board (including the EPA), yet gave the Saturn Sky RedLine MPG figures that were substantially lower than what the EPA gave the car. The S2000 got 25/30 from C/R and 17/24 from the EPA, and the RedLine got 18/34 from Consumer Reports and 22/31 from the EPA. Thus, C/R rated the RedLine lower than the consensus, not higher.
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
I am confused by your post but it did help me recall something. When the Vibe/Matrix first came out CR listed them as separate vehicles, including reliability stats. Somehow CR messed up and the data coming from CR showed that the Matrix had far superior reliability than the Vibe. HUHHH??? They were both designed by Toyota (GM did the styling on the Vibe) and built on the same line by folks out in CA in a co owned plant that was once the home of the GM Camaro/Firebird. They should have at least had identical data on the suspension and powertrains if CR's data could be believed. What did CR do with this discrepancy? They just combined the two into one data point. No reason was ever given why the almost identical domestic vehicle had a significantly (at least in CR's data) deviant score to the Matrix.
Sure it could have been the owners of the Vibes that were surveyed were much harder on their own vehicles. Or perhaps the Toyota owners were much easier on theirs. Or the guys in the plant decided that they would build the Matrixes better. Or who knows? Nevertheless CR never gave GM nor the public a reason.
Perhaps those here can come up with it?
BTW, I do know that domestic vehicles overall had quality and reliability issues vs. their imported competition 10-20 years ago. Today however GM and Ford have made this a horserace in those attributes and have come so close that no one should care who the winner is. All the horses are at the finish line together. Buick tied with Lexus ahead of the pack but most of the pack is running sided by side right behind them.
pmc4 - thank you for disproving your "CR is biased towards Japanese import" hypothesis. You do it in this point:
"Sixth point (reengage reading carefully): About finding out about C/R's testing methods, I can't see how that's important. After all, their testing method involves "real-world" driving, right? So why should it matter which "real-world" road course is used? How does it matter that they start, stop, accelerate and drift in a "real-world" fashion? If Consumer Reports MPG test results are in-line with the consensus (as it usually is), then we know that their testing really is "real-world". C/R gets an average 24 MPG with the 2006 V6 Accord and so does the consensus. C/R averaged 15 MPG with the 2007 5.7 Tundra, and so did the consensus. Consumer Reports says the Prius averages 44 MPG. That's in line with the consensus's 43-45 MPG's. Three imports; three identical MPG's. Now go and check the Honda S2000's MPG. First Consumer Reports, then the consensus. "
So CR reported the same MPG values for several Japanese imports as 'the consensus', correct? How can that be, if they are biased? Bias requires a consistent trail of mistakes, not one minor (in the overall scheme of things) difference on a low-volume, low profile car.
I thought this was an easy one. If C/R deviates significantly from the consensus on all cars tested -- whether import or domestic -- then the Honda S2000 discrepancy would be a non-issue. We can simply say that C/R's testing method -- which causes all tested cars to return an abnormally high MPG figure -- was responsible for the S2000's abnormally high 25/30.
Since C/R is spot-on accurate and in-line with the consensus with most cars they test -- domestic and import, and since there are some imports that return abnormally high MPG's and no imports that return abnormally low MPG's, and since there are some domestics that return abnormally low MPG's and no domestics that return abnormally high MPG's, then we conclude that C/R is showing partiality towards some imports specifically, and thus partiality towards imports as a whole, because the broad brush that the domestic is being painted with is that the domestic car is not fuel efficient, and that the import is, in general, fuel efficient.
C/R's false MPG returns on some import cars, combined with their general, blanket assertion that "imports tend to be more fuel efficient than domestics", leads to a universal belief that the import is better designed from a drivetrain efficiency standpoint. This only works for C/R if the consumer believes in C/R's data.
I wouldn't be the least bit suprised if C/R issued something negative on the Vibe before finding out their mistake. In any case, there is consistency between Vibe reliability and Matrix reliability, so we know that their surveys are doing the job they're supposed to be doing. It would be nice if C/R were as forthright and as impartial as their reliability surveys, but then I digress.
Looking at the Best for 2008 issue, I couldn't help but notice the utter downfall of the Japanese imports (there has never been a downfall with the Europeans since they were never up in the first place). The Oddessey gets average. S2000 average. Tundra/Camry below average. QX56 below average. Even the once excellent cars are being downgraded to above average -- Civic, Accord, e.t.c.
The claim was made that CR demonstrated their bias by listing the Mazda6 ahead of the Fusion and Milan in April 2207. All three of those vehicles had the same "road test score". I listed those other ties to show that there was no pattern of listing imports ahead of domestics in these cases.
The confusion lies in the fact that you showed and compared different cars, with exception to the Matrix and Vibe.
Both the Ford Fusion and the Mazda6 are the same basic thing and so are the Matrix and Vibe, yet there is no similarity whatever between the TSX and a Lincoln. Thus it's irrevelent that the TSX and Lincoln get the same score by C/R, because they aren't the same car. The Fusion and the Mazda, on the other hand, are the same car.
This post of yours confirms that you aren't bothering to actually read my posts. Otherwise you would have noticed things like the fact that I mentioned multiple times the October 2007 issue of CR as one of my sources for some data, not the November 2007 issue that you keep talking about. Or the fact that I sourced data from multiple issues of CR, not just one as you said. And you apparently didn't read my detailed explanation of why two "real world" driving experiences, one in San Francisco and one in Fort Lauderdale, would result in different fuel economy results. (These experiences were based on test courses that you designed.)
So I won't be reading any more of your posts, either. Although I must admit I will miss them because of their entertainment value. So best of luck to you in your quest to prove to the world that CR lies about its automobile tests, and has a bias for imported cars because one sports car it tested got better fuel economy than what the EPA measured. (I could talk about what an "outlier" is at this point, but why bother...)
P.S. Have you ever driven the Mazda6, Fusion, and Milan? If so, I don't know how you could say they are the same car. Being based on the same platform doesn't make two cars the same.
One last point - simple explanation on why cars get ranked in a certain order with "identical" scores: rounding. CR probably ranks them in a spreadsheet, and they don't show the digits to the right of the decimal point, but the spreadsheet uses them in the ranking. No 'bias' required, just Excel.
pmc4: I was and am insisting that one car may be exceptional to one person yet not exceptional to another person.
Which is a totally different point than saying that because a magazine rates both versions highly, it proves some sort of bias on the part of said magazine in favor of Hondas.
pmc4: 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.
No, the old Civic had good qualities, and the new one built upon those qualities, while adding some new ones, hence the good ratings for both. It's called advancing the state-of-the-art for that particular segment, which is why the Honda gets good ratings and is one of the sales leaders among retail customers.
pmc4: 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.
Yes, they are.
Also, I never claimed that the Focus is overrated. In fact, we own a 2005 Focus SE sedan, along with a 2003 Accord EX four-cylinder sedan (and we owned a 1999 Civic EX sedan before that), so I have a very clear idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the Focus and various Honda products.
I don't know why you are complaining about the rating of the Focus. Consumer Reports has always rated it highly within its segment, and, once Ford worked out the reliability kinks, recommended it.
Given its age, the Focus still scores rather well.
pmc4: Don't debate me on the idea, as I will win the debate. fair warning.
Not quite...what I see is a personal bias against Consumer Reports on your part, followed by an attempt to substitute your opinions of how cars should rank versus its test results.
Don't like the magazine? Fine. Then don't read it, and ignore its ratings. It's not as though the Consumer Reports Secret Police Force is going to break down your door and throw you into jail for not buying a Honda or a Toyota.
But don't expect others to accept your opinion over the magazine's ratings, and please note that it is not the only automotive testing center that has rated several foreign nameplates over their domestic counterparts.
pmc4: First off, when Consumer Reports ("C/R") tested the Acura TSX -- a European Accord that has a feeble engine, rough ride, high levels of road and tire noise and no interior room -- their only complaint about the car (and I mean their only complaint) was and I quote, "The ride is a bit rough."
It's your opinion that the TSX has a feeble engine, rough ride, too much road and tire noise and no interior room. An opinion that does not seem to be shared by other magazines, which have rated it highly.
Sorry, but what you are upset about is that Consumer Reports' testing results differ from your opinions.
That does not prove bias on the part of Consumer Reports. It proves that your opinion differs from their testing results. Which is fine, but so far, I see no reason to trust an anonymous internet poster who selectively uses facts to support his opinions over a magazine with standardized testing results, especially when OTHER magazines often reach the same conclusions as said magazine.
pmc4: The Fusion and the Mazda, on the other hand, are the same car.
No, they are based on the same platform, but Ford made extensive revisions to almost every major component - including the engines - to produce the Fusion. The Mazda6 and Fusion are not the same car.
The Fusion and the Milan are the same car, except for some trim items.
Another interesting tidbit, IMO: the Mazda6 is actually more an "American" car than are the Fusion and Milan, in the sense that the Mazda6 is produced by Mazda, which is owned by Ford, and is made in Michigan. The Fusion and Milan are made by Ford, but in Mexico. Meaning they could be considered "imported" cars. So in fact CR rated the American-made car a smidgen higher than the two imports. I suspect that might be due to the slightly crisper handling of the Mazda6, maybe also better interior execution (I think the Mazda6's is better than the Fulan's, but I don't know that CR thought that). It wouldn't take much to make a fraction of a point difference in the rankings.
The confusion lies in the fact that you showed and compared different cars, with exception to the Matrix and Vibe.
I thought your point was that CR gave the cars the same score, then demonstrated bias in the order they chose to list them. If so, it makes no difference if the cars are the same, similar, or completely different all that matters is that the scores are the same.
If instead your point is you do not agree with CRs scoring that gave the same point score to the Mazda6 and the Fusion, then it is just a matter of your evaluation of them differing from CRs, based on your own preferences. If this is the case then you have absolutely no point worth making. You like the Fusion better...SO WHAT!
I happen to like the mazda6 better and bought one instead of Fusion/Milan and even instead of the higher scoring Accord. Doe this mean I can claim CR is wrong and biased against Mazda?
Again grbeck, I'm not arbitrarily biased against any magazine -- it's C/R that has the bias. And again, the only complaint they could find for the TSX was that "It rides a bit rough." I said the TSX has a feeble engine, rough ride, too much noise and no interior room. I'm not the only one who said this, either.
(Edmunds) "Jump from the TSX to the GLI and the Volkswagen instantly feels like a more serious sport sedan. The seats are firmer, the steering wheel thicker and the seating position more upright. The GLI's gauges look less cartoonish and the Volkswagen's door closes with a solid thud instead of the Acura's soft whump. Compared to the tricky clutch and lazy low-rpm power of the TSX, the VW is an easy drivin' dragster. We also prefer the GLI's shift knob as it's easier to handle than the Acura's shifter. With 200 hp from its turbocharged 2.0-liter, the GLI has no significant horsepower advantage over the TSX other than the fact that its 5,500-rpm power peak arrives 1,300 rpm earlier than the Acura's. There's 207 pound-feet of it versus 166 lb-ft in the TSX. The Volkswagen not only has more torque, it peaks at just 1,800 rpm compared to 4,500 rpm for the Acura. From zero to 60 the GLI bests the TSX by a half second with a pass of 8 seconds flat. The GLI's 121-foot stop from 60 was a full 10 feet shorter than the TSX. At 16 cubic feet it has a solid advantage over the TSX's 12.8-cubic-foot hold. (Car and Driver) So the TSX suffered in the instrumented testing. With the exception of 30-to-50 and 50-to-70, it was dead last in all the acceleration runs, and a rather distant last at that. It managed to place fourth in the braking test at 177 feet from 70 mph, three feet sooner than the Honda, the penalty for those smooth-riding Michelin HX MXM4 all-season tires. And the modest grip of the Michelins (0.80 on the skidpad), plus a shortage of torque, relegated the agile little TSX to last in the lane change.
Everyone else is saying, "Ride firm but not punishing", "Kicks over rough pavement", "Tense on the freeway," ETC.
You're claiming that Ford changed everything about the Mazda6 except the chassis in creating the Fusion. Since Ford started with the "Average" reliability Mazda6 and turned it into an "Excellent" reliability Fusion and reduced the price by $2,000 in the process, I'd say the Yankees are easlily beating the Japanese. GOOOOOOOO O'l Glory!
The differences between the old Civic and the new Civic are as dramatic as night and day! You still won't believe this, even after I show you pictures. Pictures notwithstanding, here are the two, radically different cars:
This is the old Civic. Notice the ergonomic correctness, with two same-size dials, A/C closest to the driver, and symmetrical layout. The interior is generally held in high esteem.
The new Civic departs radically from the old ergonomic correctness. Now we get a digital speedometer way far away and high way high, with a tachometer that's so low it's in your lap. The ergonomic layout of the previous car had been abandoned. Since the car's designers consisted of Alien leading the Focus Group, the DVD slot is wedged tightly in between the other controls, suitable only for Alien's 2.8 fingers. The minivan-sized windshield is raked at the same angle as Alien's forehead. The buttons on the steering wheel are down low, since Alien is from a planet that evolved a thumb that's even more opposeable than a human's.
Not that it has anything to do with the topic, but there is not a $2000 price difference between Mazda6 and Fusion, when comparably equipped. They are priced about the same and the 6 might even usually sell for less (despite being assembled with UAW labor in Michigan) as it has typically had more generous rebates than the Fusion.
Due to the generosity of a friend, I had the opportunity to drive a new hybrid Civic with Navigation and Voice Command for a while when it first came out. (a friend of mine owns a Honda dealership)
I have driven and owned a lot of cars, most of them high-end marques. The fact is that the Civic is shockingly comfortable to drive and the ergonomics are fantastic. The twin-tiered dash layout is awesome, interesting, and incredibly functional. All information is readily supplied to the driver, and all buttons were in a logical place. The pictures do not accurately reflect the true terrific driving experience, or the excellent ergonomics of this vehicle... as I know from first-hand experience.
While I have been fairly supportive of many of your posts and views, I must say that without any question, the newest Civic was well-deserving of the Motor Trend Car of The Year Award. What a great little car for the money!... and without question an improvement over the previous model.
I'd agree that the Civic is a neat little car and like it in the same way I like that scene on Close Encounters of the Third Kind where the Aliens came out of their spaceship. The car itself has a high-grade interior and with exception to the car's road noise, it rides well. It's very safe, saves gas, etc.
But the interior is a far cry from ergonomic. Admit it. I thought the steering wheel buttons were in the wrong place, and the center stack was poorly executed. Sure, the materials used gave me the impression of a more expensive car, but materials notwithstnading, the center stack confuses. The raked windshield providid me perhaps the best view and airiest greenhouse I ever saw in a car, and the drivetrain still works well.
I still insist that Honda should be punished for taking a giant leap backwards for the poorly thought-out interior. Weirdness and ergonomics can coexist if it's executed correctly, and in Honda's case, they blundered in that department with the Civic. Why the interior ergonomics is not downgraded by Consumer Reports I do not know. But the reason why they witheld complaint on that car could be that they're biased toward imports. I dunno.
Would I buy a Civic? Absolutely, but I also like the mid-1980's Cadillacs and mid 80's Buick Somerset -- cars that consumer and critic alike seemed to have forgotten about. There are some things I'm willing to forgive in certain cars because the rest of the car is so outstanding (Things I'll forgive: Civic interior, Solstice interior, NSX V6 engine, Lexus's poor clumsy handling).
I still insist that Honda should be punished for taking a giant leap backwards for the poorly thought-out interior. Weirdness and ergonomics can coexist if it's executed correctly, and in Honda's case, they blundered in that department with the Civic. Why the interior ergonomics is not downgraded by Consumer Reports I do not know.
Perhaps because you are not correct in your perspective regarding the interior.
I don't agree with you at all regarding the ergonomics of the Civic. I think they are actually better than most vehicles. I recently rented a Volvo (not by choice but it was the last available car on a short notice trip) and I discovered that its ergonomics were not nearly as good as they used to brag about. Ergonomics affects safety from my perspective, and I expected better from Volvo. Looking at a picture and driving a car for a day are two different things. As far as the Civic goes, I drove it for well more than a single day. It was easy to get acquanted with the location of all controls, dials, gauges, buttons, etc. Logically located and easy to deal with.
Your perspective on the Civic is not in line with my actual hands on experience, and I must say that it is logical for CR to not have slapped Honda on the wrist for the Civic's ergonomics because, quite frankly, the Civic's ergonomics are fine.
Sorry I can't agree with you on this one at all. Some of your other points are very well presented, and I agree with them... but not this one.
The only complaint I would have about the current generation Civic's interior is that the look of plastic everywhere is a bit too much for my taste.
Whether another's opinion is "correct" depends only on one's perspective.
While I don't agree with pmc4's stance about CR, the new Civic's interior (especially the dash) is a horror. Worse, unlike the last generation, at 6-4 I can no longer comforably fit in one.
I never thought I'd see the day when the Toyota Camry 6 cylinder was not recommended by Consumer Reports. This may be old news to you, but first I've read of it in this months CR. It gets half a black circle. I've heard the 6 cylinder has been having transmission software problems. Maybe CR isn't so biased after all?? nahhh... they're still kissing the Honda Ody's booty, and it has been having problems for years with it's trans. :sick:
2020 Honda Accord EX-L, 2011 Hyundai Veracruz, 2010 Mercury Milan Premiere, 2007 Kia Optima
While I don't agree with pmc4's stance about CR, the new Civic's interior (especially the dash) is a horror
A matter of minority opinion. As you aptly pointed out, and I agree, (although I used a poor choice of words) there is no true "correct" perspective, but the concensus of most reviews (opinions), but not all of course, was that the latest Civic, both interior and exterior, represented an improvement over the previous generation.
I happen to agree with the concensus on this one.
I also tend to agree, in part, with pmc4's allegations of internal bias at CR, and I applaud the efforts to expose CR where such biases might be true.
but the concensus of most reviews (opinions), but not all of course, was that the latest Civic, both interior and exterior, represented an improvement over the previous generation.
C&D:LOWS Pricier than some good Korean competitors, video game dash doesn’t please everyone
R&D:You face the unusual double-tiered dash (an acquired taste, not acquired by all) with the tach front and center, and a digital speedometer up top framed by curved bar-graph readouts for coolant temp and fuel level.
Motor Trend:A Cockpit from "Star Trek"--
Automobile:but the new car has a small, handsome steering wheel, an ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments,
You beat me to it, 62vette. But I must reemphasize that I do like the Civic interior 'strangeness.' Then again, I do have a strong physics background and I like sci-fi. To a lesser degree, I'm 'into' finance.
As far as the Civic interior is concerned, tagman mentioned that he did "had to aquaint" himself with the controls of the Civic, which tells me right off the bat that those controls weren't ergonomic for him, since controls -- to be truly ergonomic -- should be immediately intuitive to use. No aquainting should be necessary.
The next dashboard was in a car I once owned: the 1984 Vette. Not liked by the critics (kinda like the Civic dash isn't liked by the critics), but I really liked it:
OOk, tagman, then can you please define for me your definition of 'ergonomic correctness.' For me, ergonomic correctness is the placement of controls such that the most often used are also easiest to reach. Controls most often looked at should be easiest to be seen. Ergonomics must also include, necessarily, the car's greenhouse. The passenger compartment must also be ergonomically correct (dual climate control). Ergonomics must include seat comfort. Handbrake placement. Shifter action (excludes, obviously, AT).
All these things add up to the whole, ergonomically correct, package. Honda Civic succeeds in shifter action, handbrake placement and greenhouse, but the speedometer is digital and the tachometer is analogue, which is a critical ergonomic blunder (these gauges must, by default, be identical in size and composition). Controls on the center stack are 'stacked' too close together. And the steering wheel button placement doesn't favor the '10-and 2' hand position. Because the outgoing model had both the former (greenhouse; shifter) and the latter (control position and size) going for it, it is a better car, ergonomically speaking.
If I were you, I'd just say, "PMC the Fourth, sure the ergonomics are oddly placed, and the interior is strange to look at, but in that lies the new Civic's charm! I'll fforgive the Civic's ergonomic deficiencies and learn how to live with them (shouldn't take long in such a likeable car), and enjoy driving this funky little car with a spaceship dash that brings a little grin to my face every time I look at it. Besides, it looks even more space-shippey when the sun sets and I turn on the lights. It's weird, and I love it!"
the speedometer is digital and the tachometer is analogue, which is a critical ergonomic blunder (these gauges must, by default, be identical in size and composition).
What kind of rule is that? Did you make it up?
My Porsche Carrera S, for example, has a wonderful interior, with full analogue instrumentation, and the addition of a dead-center digital speedometer (in addition to the analogue speedo). I just love a digital speedo, as well as full-instrumentation. Additionally, there are tons of buttons and controls. At first, it was unfamiliar, but it didn't take long to get familiar, and be able to quickly control all the essential functions within arms reach, and without taking my eyes off the road for any extended periods. Is it ergonomically correct? I'd have to say no because there are just too many little tiny control buttons everywhere. They can be learned, but it's never intuitive enough.
My Jaguar XJ Vanden Plas, however, is incredibly intuitive in its layout. Darn near everything is exactly where you think it should be, and is easy to reach and touch. Very well done. And includes Voice command.
The Civic's layout is very easy to become familiar with, and in addition, the one I drove had voice-command, which made the interior controls even more ergonomically functional. To be able to keep your eyes on the road and control the car's audio, navigation, and climate systems with your vocal commands is a surprisingly terrific feature for a simple little Civic... all ergonomically correct, IMO.
Some cars require perpetual searching for switches and knobs, and never seem familiar. They make little sense, or many knobs or controls don't illuminate at night. That is a mistake, and is not ergonomically correct, IMO.
Pricier than some good Korean competitors, video game dash doesn’t please everyone
R&D:You face the unusual double-tiered dash (an acquired taste, not acquired by all) with the tach front and center, and a digital speedometer up top framed by curved bar-graph readouts for coolant temp and fuel level.
Motor Trend:A Cockpit from "Star Trek"--
Automobile:but the new car has a small, handsome steering wheel, an ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments,
So... "ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments?" None of those remarks indicates that there is anything wrong with the ergonomics. The only negative I get from those remarks is that the layout was unusual when it first appeared. I agree, but I like it actually... and I remember that it has a great look at night when fully illuminated.
BTW, I dug this up just for you. Since you liked the dash in your '84 Vette. It's the cockpit of a Boeing 777. I just happen to like it a lot, so I thought I'd share it with you.
Not sure what you think the pictures of the Mazda6 and Milan interiors were supposed to show...you apparently think the Milan's is preferable. But my reaction to that Milan interior is...
OK, tagman, so we're in agreement that we both like these high-tech, perhaps downright strange looking dashboard layouts. For me it's the 84 Vette and perhaps the Honda S2000; you, the Civic.
This interior was actually the influence for the chief designer at Cadillac in the design of the new Cadillac CTS interior. You will notice the same 'flourescent-behind-the-doorpull' theme in the new Cadillac:
The manufacturer of the aircraft doesn't need mention, and if you do like the Boeing, you'll also like the dashboard of this unit...
PMC4: the speedometer is digital and the tachometer is analogue, which is a critical ergonomic blunder (these gauges must, by default, be identical in size and composition). Tagman: What kind of rule is that? Did you make it up?
Well, gee. While we're at making the speedo digital and the tachometer analog, why not just make the A/C display lenticular, like this?:
Then, we can make the NAV holographic, like this:
While we're at it, let's make the clock display look like this:
INCONSISTENCY IS JUST AS ERGONOMIC AS CONSISTENCY, I SAY! :P :P
Is it my imagination, or do you tend to get very emotional? :P
BTW, this is the Porsche Carrera S instrumentation I was referring to... that has a digital speedo readout within the analogue gauges. I posted that I didn't consider it ergonomically correct due to the multitude of so many buttons and switches. But... hardly anything like the extreme reaction you posted above. :sick:
Take a deep breath, and lay off those giant caps for a while. Everything's going to be OK.
Ummm, tagman, I wasn't being emotional, I was "trying" to be funny (the key word is "trying"...). Many times the correct context of words (funny, angry, jest, etc) can't make it to the reader on these message boards, mainly because of the brevity of the posts (compare message board posts to the short story or novel and you'll see what I mean). Emoticons help, however.
Anyway. While Porsche does make some great sports cars (GT3, for example), their interiors are not the final say in ergonomics. You may consider the F1 dash to be the standard (you'd think they'd have to be out of the necessity of driving the car), but there are some fine examples in the commercial segment:
^^^ Honda's F1 car is brutally ergonomic out of necessity.
^^^ Early 1990's Lexus LS400 interior is very ergonomic. Electroluminescent dials with a small number of legible buttons to conttrol the car's many functions. The Corvette also is on the list:
The heads-up display makes this cockpit rival Formula-1 interiors when it comes to utility and functionality. Buttons are exactly where they should be. The complaints regarding Corvettes ergonomics are in it's high beltline (claustrophobic greenhouse) and it's wheighty shifter, but that's about it.
We can never forget what may be the most ergonomic interior in any car and at any time, the Acura NSX:
Beats the Vette in greenhouse and shifter, and matches it in everything else, with exception to a lack of the heads-up display. Like the Vette, one of my most favorite interiors.
The real litmus test to Consumer Reports import bias will be manifest when they test and rate the 2008 Cadillac CTS. So far, the 2008 CTS garnered the following awards:
Motor Trend's Car of the Year award for 2008 Car and Driver's 10-Best for 2008 Popular Mechanic's Automotive Excellence Awards 2008. 2008 EyesOn Design Awards c.net's 2007 Tech Car of the Year Award Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick award for 2008 Second Consecutive 2008 EyesOn Design Awards (Awarded to the CTS-V)
We are therefore left with no doubt that the 2008 Cadillac CTS is the best car in the luxury sport sedan category, seeing as how every automotive critic ranks the CTS above the Infiniti M35/G35, BMW 335i and others.
So if this domestic sedan doesn't dethrone the import Infiniti M35 at Consumer Reports HQ, we know there must be some import bias there. We can make allowance for a Second Place ranking, but anything below that will prove an obvious anti-domestic bias.
I absolutely agree that CR's perspective on the Cadillac CTS will indeed be interesting. I'm not sure it would be a litmus test, however, but at the very least it most certainly would be a red flag if they serioulsy under-rate it or wrecklessly criticize it.
While I certainly enjoy driving my '07 Carrera S, and am familiar with all the interior controls, there are simply way too many complicated buttons and switches to be considered a prime example of good ergonomics, IMO... especially in the center stack surrounding the navigation / vehicle information screen.
CR already had their "litmus test" with the 2006 Ford Fusion. My guess is they will like the vehicle, nitpick on some ergonomics but not recommend since they have no data on reliability.
BTW, if you don't like or trust CR, why do you care what they say about the 2008 CTS?
Listen man: I am very familiar with the S2000's nature and it can get the mileage stated by C/R. It really depends on the car (if broken in properly), atmospheric conditions, and driver habits. It is a hand built engine that is independently tuned by engineers at Honda Motor Co. so not every single one is going to perform at specification. Variances are to be expected. It is rated conservatively at 120hp/L. Many dynometer results show 210-220 rear wheel horsepower. After drive line loss, that equates to more than 240hp. Furthermore, Honda consecutively outperforms their EPA ratings year after year. How do they do this? I don't know but it is a fact ...even more so with the new rating system. This is just a hunch...but It might have something to do with the conservative tuning that goes into each vehicle that roles off the assembly line.
I believe the auto manufacturers are to perform their own mileage test based on the EPA's rules and regulations. I am not sure if the EPA tests every single vehicle that is produced and soled state side. Does anyone know? If this is the case, Honda may just be implementing it's humble attitude towards understating its products.
This is a good discussion; however, I cannot help but think that someone is insinuating a conspiracy here. A few outliers does not indicate bias. The fact is: most domestic and European brands have consistently fallen behind the Asian brands and still do today. The gap is narrowing, but there is still a gap and that is the truth. If you want to investigate conspiracies, I suggest you take a look at Aaron Russo's film here: link title
I am not sure if the EPA tests every single vehicle that is produced and soled state side.
If you mean they have a test at the end of the line and check each car, no.
They do not even test every model. The Impala/Grand Prix/LaCrosse, which are all W cars, are all validated under the same initial test. The EPA numbers are revised for specific models depending on the variation in a myriad of components. i.e. the mpg is varied depending on the actual tires rolling resistance used on the vehicle. The SS version of the Impala will have much stickier tires than the base version and the rolling resistance will be higher and therefore the EPA MPG will be lower.
Some of the attributes: Cd, rolling resistance, weight class (including options), powertrain. Also the expected penetration of options will determine EPA mpg. An example is the heavy sunroof. If it is less than ~33% (I cannot remember the actual number) the weight will not be figured into the epa number.
As far as Honda having better mileage than epa estimates that is a new one on me. Here I thought that GM tended to get better MPG than the epa estimates.
I really doubt Honda is sandbagging on the epa estimates, but who knows. I would really think the biggest variation in the drivers. My guess is that a person buying a Honda (non performance models) is perhaps a bit more conservative in their driving than someone buying an Impala or truck.
Thanks for your reply. Your point regarding Honda drivers as more conservative in their driving style is a safe bet. However, based on the forums I belong to and the friends with S2000's, they are getting better than EPA...not driving like sissy's either. I have seen a wide disparity in the fuel economy return of the S2000 and like I stated in the above post, I'm guessing it has something to do with the fact that it is a specialty car. Therefore, it is a poor example of bias on C/R's part.
I just think this guy is beating a dead horse. It really is a moot point. A few outliers just don't render a journalistic mag bias IMHO. On the other hand, we are human and arguing completely objectively is not. We are entitled by our nature to be subjective; that is the nature of the beast. I like C/R as well as the others and I use all to gain insight into the product before I make my purchase.
Furthermore, if I'm a mag editor, I'm going to error on the side of caution. As fare as the Matrix/Vibe debate, that is precisely what C/R did. Let's face the facts again, American auto makers have had a stigma that is hard for many folks to disregard. I live in Michigan and I feel the punch. Believe me: It sucks! But sticking our head in the sand and playing the victim is not the answer to solve the big question: Is the big three going to survive?
As fare as the Matrix/Vibe debate, that is precisely what C/R did.
How did C/R explain the discrepancy in their data? I do not understand your answer.
Is the big three going to survive?
No, most likely Ford will have to merge / go under. They are just to far behind Toyota and GM in their going global and the next two years are going to be very tough. They have mortgaged everything they own and it is a bit too late. Chrysler will become a niche carmaker and merge with somebody(sold to someone by Cerebus), most likely Nissan. GM will struggle one more year but 2009 will be a good year. Many of the cost savings / fixed cost will be reduced by then.
First of all, the F20C engine in the S2000 is the same basic 4-cylinder in the TSX-the engine is not anything special, nor is it "specially tuned by performance engineers with extreme TLC who are involved directly with Formula-1." It's just a garden-vareity 4-cylinder engine with a re-programmed chip, slightly modified intake plumbing and strengthened main bearings, that's all. "Horsepower-per-liter" is an absolute meaningless statistic. Petrol engines on remote controlled aircraft and R/C cars get even higher hp/liter (this is a matter of fact, btw). The real statistic is something like comparing Corvette's LS3 with Honda's F20C. The LS3 generates twice the horsepower, over twice the overall power, propells a car that weighs over 100 pounds more, and gets roughly the same mileage as the S2000, according to the EPA (Corvette: 16/27, S2000: 18/24).
THe S2000 getting 240+ is no big deal. How to explain the S2000's 160 ft/lbs torque, which is about the same torque output as a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier LT? You'd have a difficult time explaining that, indeed. (but as a general rule, I like the S2000, so don't misinterpret this)
As for "Honda outperforming the EPA year after year," just about every car is beating the EPA year after year! I don't care if it's Consumer Reports, Edmunds, ConsumerGuide or the large automotive media companies -- they all will report higher MPG's than the EPA, whether the tested car is a Honda or not.
My problem from the outset was that Consumer Reports was generating overly optimistic MPG numbers on some import cars that did not agree with "the consensus" (Edmunds, Consumer Guide and large automotive media journalists). The Honda S2000 was just one car out of a number of cars that Consumer Reports reported overly favorable MPG numbers on -- overly favorable numbers that were not reflected in the domestic cars' MPG numbers by C/R.
I absolutely agree that CR's perspective on the Cadillac CTS will indeed be interesting. I'm not sure it would be a litmus test, however, but at the very least it most certainly would be a red flag if they serioulsy under-rate it or wrecklessly criticize it.
March issue of CR ranks CTS 3rd behind G35 and TL. There were some "buts".
Comments
Do you have any proof of that happening in a general talk forum?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Mind you, these weren't your average retail investors; they were corporate officers trying to bring the share price down on a public forum. Furthermore, it wasn't just a post or two that read, "11.30 YESTERDAY, 10 DOLLARS TODAY." Click on the message yields, "LESS THAN A BUCK BY NEXT WEEK! RUN! DON'T SAY I DIDN'T WARN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
There were over 40,000 posts spread out over a two year period.
In my 7 years of internet use, I have subscribed to the following forums:
Car and Driver, Road and Track, Automobile, Top Gear, Christianforums.com, IIBD.com, consumer reports (yep! about 5 years ago, when I was a subscriber. Very boring/no posters), Talkorigins.org and about three others I can't remember.
The two best would be Caranddriver.com and christianforums.com. This forum isn't bad, though...
Second point: I have no worries that Consumer Reports will come after me.
Third point: I was under the impression you had the Nov 2007 issue. Since you don't, I'll get the info for us.
Fourth point (and read this point especially carefully): adding the consensus of ConsumerGuide, Edmunds and the EPA wasn't a 'spur of the moment' thing. I brought up their consensus long ago when I was illustrating that Consumer Reports is biased towards the Honda S2000.
To test for any import bias by this organisation, we have to see if their data jives with the consensus. If it does not, and if their data does jive with the consensus when they test the domestic car, then we identified import bias.
This is what I did with the Honda S2000 and it's what I'm [trying] to do with the cars in the Nov 2007 issue.
Fifth point (you can 'stand down' reading carefully): you said, "no matter how many facts I present..." As far as I can tell, we've only been discussing four cars in the Nov 2007 issue. Are there other facts you presented that I don't know about?
Sixth point (reengage reading carefully): About finding out about C/R's testing methods, I can't see how that's important. After all, their testing method involves "real-world" driving, right? So why should it matter which "real-world" road course is used? How does it matter that they start, stop, accelerate and drift in a "real-world" fashion?
If Consumer Reports MPG test results are in-line with the consensus (as it usually is), then we know that their testing really is "real-world".
C/R gets an average 24 MPG with the 2006 V6 Accord and so does the consensus. C/R averaged 15 MPG with the 2007 5.7 Tundra, and so did the consensus. Consumer Reports says the Prius averages 44 MPG. That's in line with the consensus's 43-45 MPG's.
Three imports; three identical MPG's. Now go and check the Honda S2000's MPG. First Consumer Reports, then the consensus.
P.S: to that guy who's always bringing up the Crossfire, although I couldn't find it on Google, if you do Google it, lol, your post is like right on top of the Google page...)
(read paragraph very carefully -- very important): We know, judging by the fact that Consumer Reports results generally agree with the consensus, that Consumer Reports testing method does not deviate significantly from the testing methods of the consensus. If this were not so, then all of Cosumer Reports results would differ significantly, not just a few imports like the Honda S2000.
Final point: One thing I do agree with you 110% on is that I have to present more than just the Honda S2000 MPG discrepancy to prove import bias, and all the cars I present have to be imports, and none can be domestics. My argument turns flimsy and weak if I can't do that.
Your Nov 2007 issue is a good start, so let me get that data. Stand down careful reading...
First off, when Consumer Reports ("C/R") tested the Acura TSX -- a European Accord that has a feeble engine, rough ride, high levels of road and tire noise and no interior room -- their only complaint about the car (and I mean their only complaint) was and I quote, "The ride is a bit rough."
Out of all that's wrong with the import, that's the only thing they complain about? Then when we read about the domestic Lincoln, there's a littany of complaints, some of which are fabricated, and the others are distorted out of proportion.
Now it's either C/R isn't discriminating when they test TSX's then suddenly become discriminating when they sit in Lincolns, or C/R is downright biased toward import cars; so much so that they'll hide any complaints about the TSX, then downplay the car's worst liability -- it's rough ride.
The import TSX should be significantly below the domestic Lincoln.
Even if it isn't, so what? What have I proven? Nothing. But I do find it interesting that the TSX has an equal rating yet is above the Lincoln.
You are correct about both the Cobalt and the Vibe (especially the Vibe, since it's the same thing as the Matrix). However, if the Cobalt were an import, you and I both know that it would have outscored the Scion in the first place. Sour grapes, I know, but the truth nonetheless.
Your point is a good one, but still fails to counter the fact that C/R put a more expensive, less-reliable version of one car (Mazda) on top of another (Fusion). You can bring up the Vibe and Matrix and the fact the Vibe is above the Matrix and make a good point, but unless the Vibe is more expensive and has lower reliability than the Matrix like the Mazda is to the Fusion, you really didn't accomplish anything. Your point suceeds only if the Vibe were more expensive and lower in reliability, which it isn't -- and I don't care whether $$$ or reliability is included in rankings or not. Common sense says $$$ and reliability should be tie-breakers.
15/30/22 <--- C/R
17/25/20 <--- EPA
I'm seeing mixed data here -- neither favorable nor unfavorable to the Crossfire.
Like the EPA's recording of 18/24 for the Honda S2000, things get worse for the Crossfire when the new EPA figures are taken into account:
15/30/22 <--- C/R
15/23/18 <--- EPA.
But it appears as if you're just reaffirming the EPA's stricter guidelines for 2008; it says nothing about bias. Even if it does, it's a well-known fact that the Crossfire is just a C-Class wearing makeup, so I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say here.
last year's auto issue, CR made a huge point of saying how the domestics have improved and highlighted the Fusion on a number of pages. This has been recognized by a few other magazines. Why? the domestics have made a concerted effort to improve quality. they recoginzed they had fallen behind. So the perception had become reality. BTW, this was the CEOs of GM and Ford that stated this not CR.
Last point, CR automotive staff is as qualified as any auto magazine staff. They employ all the standard tests using some of the most advanced equipment. The only thing you can criticize them for is the practical nature they rate cars would frustrate any enthusiasts (ergonomics, fuel economy, reliability). One thing I have noticed is CR ratings aren't too far off from other magazine ratings.
Either way CR, Edmunds, Motor Trend, automobile are simply tools in selecting a car. Test drive the cars that you are interested in and buy the ones you like. Who cares what some editor thinks of your car? Not unless they are paying for it?
However; and what's more important, is that C/R gave the Redline a combined 24 MPG and a city of 18 MPG for the RedLine, yet the EPA gave the RedLine 25 MPG combined and 22 MPG city, which is in fact higher than what C/R gave the car.
Therefore, Consumer Reports still remains import biased. They gave the Honda S2000 MPG figures that were substantially higher than the consensus across the board (including the EPA), yet gave the Saturn Sky RedLine MPG figures that were substantially lower than what the EPA gave the car.
The S2000 got 25/30 from C/R and 17/24 from the EPA, and the RedLine got 18/34 from Consumer Reports and 22/31 from the EPA. Thus, C/R rated the RedLine lower than the consensus, not higher.
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
I am confused by your post but it did help me recall something. When the Vibe/Matrix first came out CR listed them as separate vehicles, including reliability stats. Somehow CR messed up and the data coming from CR showed that the Matrix had far superior reliability than the Vibe. HUHHH??? They were both designed by Toyota (GM did the styling on the Vibe) and built on the same line by folks out in CA in a co owned plant that was once the home of the GM Camaro/Firebird. They should have at least had identical data on the suspension and powertrains if CR's data could be believed. What did CR do with this discrepancy? They just combined the two into one data point. No reason was ever given why the almost identical domestic vehicle had a significantly (at least in CR's data) deviant score to the Matrix.
Sure it could have been the owners of the Vibes that were surveyed were much harder on their own vehicles. Or perhaps the Toyota owners were much easier on theirs. Or the guys in the plant decided that they would build the Matrixes better. Or who knows? Nevertheless CR never gave GM nor the public a reason.
Perhaps those here can come up with it?
BTW, I do know that domestic vehicles overall had quality and reliability issues vs. their imported competition 10-20 years ago. Today however GM and Ford have made this a horserace in those attributes and have come so close that no one should care who the winner is. All the horses are at the finish line together. Buick tied with Lexus ahead of the pack but most of the pack is running sided by side right behind them.
"Sixth point (reengage reading carefully): About finding out about C/R's testing methods, I can't see how that's important. After all, their testing method involves "real-world" driving, right? So why should it matter which "real-world" road course is used? How does it matter that they start, stop, accelerate and drift in a "real-world" fashion?
If Consumer Reports MPG test results are in-line with the consensus (as it usually is), then we know that their testing really is "real-world".
C/R gets an average 24 MPG with the 2006 V6 Accord and so does the consensus. C/R averaged 15 MPG with the 2007 5.7 Tundra, and so did the consensus. Consumer Reports says the Prius averages 44 MPG. That's in line with the consensus's 43-45 MPG's.
Three imports; three identical MPG's. Now go and check the Honda S2000's MPG. First Consumer Reports, then the consensus. "
So CR reported the same MPG values for several Japanese imports as 'the consensus', correct? How can that be, if they are biased? Bias requires a consistent trail of mistakes, not one minor (in the overall scheme of things) difference on a low-volume, low profile car.
If C/R deviates significantly from the consensus on all cars tested -- whether import or domestic -- then the Honda S2000 discrepancy would be a non-issue. We can simply say that C/R's testing method -- which causes all tested cars to return an abnormally high MPG figure -- was responsible for the S2000's abnormally high 25/30.
Since C/R is spot-on accurate and in-line with the consensus with most cars they test -- domestic and import,
and since there are some imports that return abnormally high MPG's and no imports that return abnormally low MPG's,
and since there are some domestics that return abnormally low MPG's and no domestics that return abnormally high MPG's,
then we conclude that C/R is showing partiality towards some imports specifically, and thus partiality towards imports as a whole, because the broad brush that the domestic is being painted with is that the domestic car is not fuel efficient, and that the import is, in general, fuel efficient.
C/R's false MPG returns on some import cars, combined with their general, blanket assertion that "imports tend to be more fuel efficient than domestics", leads to a universal belief that the import is better designed from a drivetrain efficiency standpoint. This only works for C/R if the consumer believes in C/R's data.
In any case, there is consistency between Vibe reliability and Matrix reliability, so we know that their surveys are doing the job they're supposed to be doing. It would be nice if C/R were as forthright and as impartial as their reliability surveys, but then I digress.
Looking at the Best for 2008 issue, I couldn't help but notice the utter downfall of the Japanese imports (there has never been a downfall with the Europeans since they were never up in the first place).
The Oddessey gets average. S2000 average. Tundra/Camry below average. QX56 below average. Even the once excellent cars are being downgraded to above average -- Civic, Accord, e.t.c.
The claim was made that CR demonstrated their bias by listing the Mazda6 ahead of the Fusion and Milan in April 2207. All three of those vehicles had the same "road test score". I listed those other ties to show that there was no pattern of listing imports ahead of domestics in these cases.
Both the Ford Fusion and the Mazda6 are the same basic thing and so are the Matrix and Vibe, yet there is no similarity whatever between the TSX and a Lincoln. Thus it's irrevelent that the TSX and Lincoln get the same score by C/R, because they aren't the same car.
The Fusion and the Mazda, on the other hand, are the same car.
So I won't be reading any more of your posts, either. Although I must admit I will miss them because of their entertainment value. So best of luck to you in your quest to prove to the world that CR lies about its automobile tests, and has a bias for imported cars because one sports car it tested got better fuel economy than what the EPA measured. (I could talk about what an "outlier" is at this point, but why bother...)
P.S. Have you ever driven the Mazda6, Fusion, and Milan? If so, I don't know how you could say they are the same car. Being based on the same platform doesn't make two cars the same.
A parting gift for you (there's more like this out there, easy to find on your favorite search engine, if you have the inclination):
http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/63/A-Tangled-Web-We-Weave/
Which is a totally different point than saying that because a magazine rates both versions highly, it proves some sort of bias on the part of said magazine in favor of Hondas.
pmc4: 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.
No, the old Civic had good qualities, and the new one built upon those qualities, while adding some new ones, hence the good ratings for both. It's called advancing the state-of-the-art for that particular segment, which is why the Honda gets good ratings and is one of the sales leaders among retail customers.
pmc4: 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.
Yes, they are.
Also, I never claimed that the Focus is overrated. In fact, we own a 2005 Focus SE sedan, along with a 2003 Accord EX four-cylinder sedan (and we owned a 1999 Civic EX sedan before that), so I have a very clear idea of the strengths and weaknesses of the Focus and various Honda products.
I don't know why you are complaining about the rating of the Focus. Consumer Reports has always rated it highly within its segment, and, once Ford worked out the reliability kinks, recommended it.
Given its age, the Focus still scores rather well.
pmc4: Don't debate me on the idea, as I will win the debate. fair warning.
Not quite...what I see is a personal bias against Consumer Reports on your part, followed by an attempt to substitute your opinions of how cars should rank versus its test results.
Don't like the magazine? Fine. Then don't read it, and ignore its ratings. It's not as though the Consumer Reports Secret Police Force is going to break down your door and throw you into jail for not buying a Honda or a Toyota.
But don't expect others to accept your opinion over the magazine's ratings, and please note that it is not the only automotive testing center that has rated several foreign nameplates over their domestic counterparts.
It's your opinion that the TSX has a feeble engine, rough ride, too much road and tire noise and no interior room. An opinion that does not seem to be shared by other magazines, which have rated it highly.
Sorry, but what you are upset about is that Consumer Reports' testing results differ from your opinions.
That does not prove bias on the part of Consumer Reports. It proves that your opinion differs from their testing results. Which is fine, but so far, I see no reason to trust an anonymous internet poster who selectively uses facts to support his opinions over a magazine with standardized testing results, especially when OTHER magazines often reach the same conclusions as said magazine.
No, they are based on the same platform, but Ford made extensive revisions to almost every major component - including the engines - to produce the Fusion. The Mazda6 and Fusion are not the same car.
The Fusion and the Milan are the same car, except for some trim items.
I thought your point was that CR gave the cars the same score, then demonstrated bias in the order they chose to list them. If so, it makes no difference if the cars are the same, similar, or completely different all that matters is that the scores are the same.
If instead your point is you do not agree with CRs scoring that gave the same point score to the Mazda6 and the Fusion, then it is just a matter of your evaluation of them differing from CRs, based on your own preferences. If this is the case then you have absolutely no point worth making. You like the Fusion better...SO WHAT!
I happen to like the mazda6 better and bought one instead of Fusion/Milan and even instead of the higher scoring Accord. Doe this mean I can claim CR is wrong and biased against Mazda?
And again, the only complaint they could find for the TSX was that "It rides a bit rough." I said the TSX has a feeble engine, rough ride, too much noise and no interior room. I'm not the only one who said this, either.
(Edmunds) "Jump from the TSX to the GLI and the Volkswagen instantly feels like a more serious sport sedan. The seats are firmer, the steering wheel thicker and the seating position more upright. The GLI's gauges look less cartoonish and the Volkswagen's door closes with a solid thud instead of the Acura's soft whump. Compared to the tricky clutch and lazy low-rpm power of the TSX, the VW is an easy drivin' dragster. We also prefer the GLI's shift knob as it's easier to handle than the Acura's shifter. With 200 hp from its turbocharged 2.0-liter, the GLI has no significant horsepower advantage over the TSX other than the fact that its 5,500-rpm power peak arrives 1,300 rpm earlier than the Acura's.
There's 207 pound-feet of it versus 166 lb-ft in the TSX. The Volkswagen not only has more torque, it peaks at just 1,800 rpm compared to 4,500 rpm for the Acura. From zero to 60 the GLI bests the TSX by a half second with a pass of 8 seconds flat. The GLI's 121-foot stop from 60 was a full 10 feet shorter than the TSX. At 16 cubic feet it has a solid advantage over the TSX's 12.8-cubic-foot hold.
(Car and Driver) So the TSX suffered in the instrumented testing. With the exception of 30-to-50 and 50-to-70, it was dead last in all the acceleration runs, and a rather distant last at that. It managed to place fourth in the braking test at 177 feet from 70 mph, three feet sooner than the Honda, the penalty for those smooth-riding Michelin HX MXM4 all-season tires. And the modest grip of the Michelins (0.80 on the skidpad), plus a shortage of torque, relegated the agile little TSX to last in the lane change.
Everyone else is saying, "Ride firm but not punishing", "Kicks over rough pavement", "Tense on the freeway," ETC.
Since Ford started with the "Average" reliability Mazda6 and turned it into an "Excellent" reliability Fusion and reduced the price by $2,000 in the process, I'd say the Yankees are easlily beating the Japanese.
GOOOOOOOO O'l Glory!
You still won't believe this, even after I show you pictures. Pictures notwithstanding, here are the two, radically different cars:
This is the old Civic. Notice the ergonomic correctness, with two same-size dials, A/C closest to the driver, and symmetrical layout. The interior is generally held in high esteem.
The new Civic departs radically from the old ergonomic correctness. Now we get a digital speedometer way far away and high way high, with a tachometer that's so low it's in your lap. The ergonomic layout of the previous car had been abandoned.
Since the car's designers consisted of Alien leading the Focus Group, the DVD slot is wedged tightly in between the other controls, suitable only for Alien's 2.8 fingers. The minivan-sized windshield is raked at the same angle as Alien's forehead. The buttons on the steering wheel are down low, since Alien is from a planet that evolved a thumb that's even more opposeable than a human's.
American version:
'NUFF SAID!!!!!!!
I have driven and owned a lot of cars, most of them high-end marques. The fact is that the Civic is shockingly comfortable to drive and the ergonomics are fantastic. The twin-tiered dash layout is awesome, interesting, and incredibly functional. All information is readily supplied to the driver, and all buttons were in a logical place. The pictures do not accurately reflect the true terrific driving experience, or the excellent ergonomics of this vehicle... as I know from first-hand experience.
While I have been fairly supportive of many of your posts and views, I must say that without any question, the newest Civic was well-deserving of the Motor Trend Car of The Year Award. What a great little car for the money!... and without question an improvement over the previous model.
TagMan
The car itself has a high-grade interior and with exception to the car's road noise, it rides well. It's very safe, saves gas, etc.
But the interior is a far cry from ergonomic. Admit it. I thought the steering wheel buttons were in the wrong place, and the center stack was poorly executed. Sure, the materials used gave me the impression of a more expensive car, but materials notwithstnading, the center stack confuses.
The raked windshield providid me perhaps the best view and airiest greenhouse I ever saw in a car, and the drivetrain still works well.
I still insist that Honda should be punished for taking a giant leap backwards for the poorly thought-out interior. Weirdness and ergonomics can coexist if it's executed correctly, and in Honda's case, they blundered in that department with the Civic. Why the interior ergonomics is not downgraded by Consumer Reports I do not know.
But the reason why they witheld complaint on that car could be that they're biased toward imports. I dunno.
Would I buy a Civic? Absolutely, but I also like the mid-1980's Cadillacs and mid 80's Buick Somerset -- cars that consumer and critic alike seemed to have forgotten about. There are some things I'm willing to forgive in certain cars because the rest of the car is so outstanding (Things I'll forgive: Civic interior, Solstice interior, NSX V6 engine, Lexus's poor clumsy handling).
Perhaps because you are not correct in your perspective regarding the interior.
I don't agree with you at all regarding the ergonomics of the Civic. I think they are actually better than most vehicles. I recently rented a Volvo (not by choice but it was the last available car on a short notice trip) and I discovered that its ergonomics were not nearly as good as they used to brag about. Ergonomics affects safety from my perspective, and I expected better from Volvo. Looking at a picture and driving a car for a day are two different things. As far as the Civic goes, I drove it for well more than a single day. It was easy to get acquanted with the location of all controls, dials, gauges, buttons, etc. Logically located and easy to deal with.
Your perspective on the Civic is not in line with my actual hands on experience, and I must say that it is logical for CR to not have slapped Honda on the wrist for the Civic's ergonomics because, quite frankly, the Civic's ergonomics are fine.
Sorry I can't agree with you on this one at all. Some of your other points are very well presented, and I agree with them... but not this one.
The only complaint I would have about the current generation Civic's interior is that the look of plastic everywhere is a bit too much for my taste.
TagMan
While I don't agree with pmc4's stance about CR, the new Civic's interior (especially the dash) is a horror. Worse, unlike the last generation, at 6-4 I can no longer comforably fit in one.
A matter of minority opinion. As you aptly pointed out, and I agree, (although I used a poor choice of words) there is no true "correct" perspective, but the concensus of most reviews (opinions), but not all of course, was that the latest Civic, both interior and exterior, represented an improvement over the previous generation.
I happen to agree with the concensus on this one.
I also tend to agree, in part, with pmc4's allegations of internal bias at CR, and I applaud the efforts to expose CR where such biases might be true.
TagMan
C&D:LOWS
Pricier than some good Korean competitors, video game dash doesn’t please everyone
R&D:You face the unusual double-tiered dash (an acquired taste, not acquired by all) with the tach front and center, and a digital speedometer up top framed by curved bar-graph readouts for coolant temp and fuel level.
Motor Trend:A Cockpit from "Star Trek"--
Automobile:but the new car has a small, handsome steering wheel, an ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments,
But I must reemphasize that I do like the Civic interior 'strangeness.' Then again, I do have a strong physics background and I like sci-fi. To a lesser degree, I'm 'into' finance.
As far as the Civic interior is concerned, tagman mentioned that he did "had to aquaint" himself with the controls of the Civic, which tells me right off the bat that those controls weren't ergonomic for him, since controls -- to be truly ergonomic -- should be immediately intuitive to use. No aquainting should be necessary.
The next dashboard was in a car I once owned: the 1984 Vette. Not liked by the critics (kinda like the Civic dash isn't liked by the critics), but I really liked it:
All these things add up to the whole, ergonomically correct, package. Honda Civic succeeds in shifter action, handbrake placement and greenhouse, but the speedometer is digital and the tachometer is analogue, which is a critical ergonomic blunder (these gauges must, by default, be identical in size and composition). Controls on the center stack are 'stacked' too close together. And the steering wheel button placement doesn't favor the '10-and 2' hand position.
Because the outgoing model had both the former (greenhouse; shifter) and the latter (control position and size) going for it, it is a better car, ergonomically speaking.
If I were you, I'd just say, "PMC the Fourth, sure the ergonomics are oddly placed, and the interior is strange to look at, but in that lies the new Civic's charm! I'll fforgive the Civic's ergonomic deficiencies and learn how to live with them (shouldn't take long in such a likeable car), and enjoy driving this funky little car with a spaceship dash that brings a little grin to my face every time I look at it. Besides, it looks even more space-shippey when the sun sets and I turn on the lights. It's weird, and I love it!"
What kind of rule is that? Did you make it up?
My Porsche Carrera S, for example, has a wonderful interior, with full analogue instrumentation, and the addition of a dead-center digital speedometer (in addition to the analogue speedo). I just love a digital speedo, as well as full-instrumentation. Additionally, there are tons of buttons and controls. At first, it was unfamiliar, but it didn't take long to get familiar, and be able to quickly control all the essential functions within arms reach, and without taking my eyes off the road for any extended periods. Is it ergonomically correct? I'd have to say no because there are just too many little tiny control buttons everywhere. They can be learned, but it's never intuitive enough.
My Jaguar XJ Vanden Plas, however, is incredibly intuitive in its layout. Darn near everything is exactly where you think it should be, and is easy to reach and touch. Very well done. And includes Voice command.
The Civic's layout is very easy to become familiar with, and in addition, the one I drove had voice-command, which made the interior controls even more ergonomically functional. To be able to keep your eyes on the road and control the car's audio, navigation, and climate systems with your vocal commands is a surprisingly terrific feature for a simple little Civic... all ergonomically correct, IMO.
Some cars require perpetual searching for switches and knobs, and never seem familiar. They make little sense, or many knobs or controls don't illuminate at night. That is a mistake, and is not ergonomically correct, IMO.
Pricier than some good Korean competitors, video game dash doesn’t please everyone
R&D:You face the unusual double-tiered dash (an acquired taste, not acquired by all) with the tach front and center, and a digital speedometer up top framed by curved bar-graph readouts for coolant temp and fuel level.
Motor Trend:A Cockpit from "Star Trek"--
Automobile:but the new car has a small, handsome steering wheel, an ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments,
So... "ergonomically pleasing sweep of instruments?" None of those remarks indicates that there is anything wrong with the ergonomics. The only negative I get from those remarks is that the layout was unusual when it first appeared. I agree, but I like it actually... and I remember that it has a great look at night when fully illuminated.
BTW, I dug this up just for you. Since you liked the dash in your '84 Vette. It's the cockpit of a Boeing 777. I just happen to like it a lot, so I thought I'd share it with you.
Ergonomically correct? LOL!!
TagMan
This interior was actually the influence for the chief designer at Cadillac in the design of the new Cadillac CTS interior. You will notice the same 'flourescent-behind-the-doorpull' theme in the new Cadillac:
The manufacturer of the aircraft doesn't need mention, and if you do like the Boeing, you'll also like the dashboard of this unit...
Tagman: What kind of rule is that? Did you make it up?
Well, gee. While we're at making the speedo digital and the tachometer analog, why not just make the A/C display lenticular, like this?:
Then, we can make the NAV holographic, like this:
While we're at it, let's make the clock display look like this:
INCONSISTENCY IS JUST AS ERGONOMIC AS CONSISTENCY, I SAY! :P
Is it my imagination, or do you tend to get very emotional? :P
BTW, this is the Porsche Carrera S instrumentation I was referring to... that has a digital speedo readout within the analogue gauges. I posted that I didn't consider it ergonomically correct due to the multitude of so many buttons and switches. But... hardly anything like the extreme reaction you posted above. :sick:
Take a deep breath, and lay off those giant caps for a while. Everything's going to be OK.
TagMan
Looks like the cockpit of a Honda jet.
BTW, I agree with you that the S2000 is a cool car. I'll bet a large amount of green that they ruin its replacement.
TM
Many times the correct context of words (funny, angry, jest, etc) can't make it to the reader on these message boards, mainly because of the brevity of the posts (compare message board posts to the short story or novel and you'll see what I mean). Emoticons help, however.
Anyway. While Porsche does make some great sports cars (GT3, for example), their interiors are not the final say in ergonomics. You may consider the F1 dash to be the standard (you'd think they'd have to be out of the necessity of driving the car), but there are some fine examples in the commercial segment:
^^^ Honda's F1 car is brutally ergonomic out of necessity.
^^^ Early 1990's Lexus LS400 interior is very ergonomic. Electroluminescent dials with a small number of legible buttons to conttrol the car's many functions. The Corvette also is on the list:
The heads-up display makes this cockpit rival Formula-1 interiors when it comes to utility and functionality. Buttons are exactly where they should be. The complaints regarding Corvettes ergonomics are in it's high beltline (claustrophobic greenhouse) and it's wheighty shifter, but that's about it.
We can never forget what may be the most ergonomic interior in any car and at any time, the Acura NSX:
Beats the Vette in greenhouse and shifter, and matches it in everything else, with exception to a lack of the heads-up display. Like the Vette, one of my most favorite interiors.
Motor Trend's Car of the Year award for 2008
Car and Driver's 10-Best for 2008
Popular Mechanic's Automotive Excellence Awards 2008.
2008 EyesOn Design Awards
c.net's 2007 Tech Car of the Year Award
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's Top Safety Pick award for 2008
Second Consecutive 2008 EyesOn Design Awards (Awarded to the CTS-V)
We are therefore left with no doubt that the 2008 Cadillac CTS is the best car in the luxury sport sedan category, seeing as how every automotive critic ranks the CTS above the Infiniti M35/G35, BMW 335i and others.
So if this domestic sedan doesn't dethrone the import Infiniti M35 at Consumer Reports HQ, we know there must be some import bias there. We can make allowance for a Second Place ranking, but anything below that will prove an obvious anti-domestic bias.
While I certainly enjoy driving my '07 Carrera S, and am familiar with all the interior controls, there are simply way too many complicated buttons and switches to be considered a prime example of good ergonomics, IMO... especially in the center stack surrounding the navigation / vehicle information screen.
TagMan
BTW, if you don't like or trust CR, why do you care what they say about the 2008 CTS?
I believe the auto manufacturers are to perform their own mileage test based on the EPA's rules and regulations. I am not sure if the EPA tests every single vehicle that is produced and soled state side. Does anyone know? If this is the case, Honda may just be implementing it's humble attitude towards understating its products.
This is a good discussion; however, I cannot help but think that someone is insinuating a conspiracy here. A few outliers does not indicate bias. The fact is: most domestic and European brands have consistently fallen behind the Asian brands and still do today. The gap is narrowing, but there is still a gap and that is the truth. If you want to investigate conspiracies, I suggest you take a look at Aaron Russo's film here: link title
This may be reason for discussion!
If you mean they have a test at the end of the line and check each car, no.
They do not even test every model. The Impala/Grand Prix/LaCrosse, which are all W cars, are all validated under the same initial test. The EPA numbers are revised for specific models depending on the variation in a myriad of components. i.e. the mpg is varied depending on the actual tires rolling resistance used on the vehicle. The SS version of the Impala will have much stickier tires than the base version and the rolling resistance will be higher and therefore the EPA MPG will be lower.
Some of the attributes: Cd, rolling resistance, weight class (including options), powertrain. Also the expected penetration of options will determine EPA mpg. An example is the heavy sunroof. If it is less than ~33% (I cannot remember the actual number) the weight will not be figured into the epa number.
As far as Honda having better mileage than epa estimates that is a new one on me. Here I thought that GM tended to get better MPG than the epa estimates.
I really doubt Honda is sandbagging on the epa estimates, but who knows. I would really think the biggest variation in the drivers. My guess is that a person buying a Honda (non performance models) is perhaps a bit more conservative in their driving than someone buying an Impala or truck.
I just think this guy is beating a dead horse. It really is a moot point. A few outliers just don't render a journalistic mag bias IMHO. On the other hand, we are human and arguing completely objectively is not. We are entitled by our nature to be subjective; that is the nature of the beast. I like C/R as well as the others and I use all to gain insight into the product before I make my purchase.
Furthermore, if I'm a mag editor, I'm going to error on the side of caution. As fare as the Matrix/Vibe debate, that is precisely what C/R did. Let's face the facts again, American auto makers have had a stigma that is hard for many folks to disregard. I live in Michigan and I feel the punch. Believe me: It sucks! But sticking our head in the sand and playing the victim is not the answer to solve the big question: Is the big three going to survive?
How did C/R explain the discrepancy in their data? I do not understand your answer.
Is the big three going to survive?
No, most likely Ford will have to merge / go under. They are just to far behind Toyota and GM in their going global and the next two years are going to be very tough. They have mortgaged everything they own and it is a bit too late. Chrysler will become a niche carmaker and merge with somebody(sold to someone by Cerebus), most likely Nissan. GM will struggle one more year but 2009 will be a good year. Many of the cost savings / fixed cost will be reduced by then.
"Horsepower-per-liter" is an absolute meaningless statistic. Petrol engines on remote controlled aircraft and R/C cars get even higher hp/liter (this is a matter of fact, btw). The real statistic is something like comparing Corvette's LS3 with Honda's F20C. The LS3 generates twice the horsepower, over twice the overall power, propells a car that weighs over 100 pounds more, and gets roughly the same mileage as the S2000, according to the EPA (Corvette: 16/27, S2000: 18/24).
THe S2000 getting 240+ is no big deal. How to explain the S2000's 160 ft/lbs torque, which is about the same torque output as a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier LT? You'd have a difficult time explaining that, indeed.
(but as a general rule, I like the S2000, so don't misinterpret this)
As for "Honda outperforming the EPA year after year," just about every car is beating the EPA year after year!
I don't care if it's Consumer Reports, Edmunds, ConsumerGuide or the large automotive media companies -- they all will report higher MPG's than the EPA, whether the tested car is a Honda or not.
My problem from the outset was that Consumer Reports was generating overly optimistic MPG numbers on some import cars that did not agree with "the consensus" (Edmunds, Consumer Guide and large automotive media journalists). The Honda S2000 was just one car out of a number of cars that Consumer Reports reported overly favorable MPG numbers on -- overly favorable numbers that were not reflected in the domestic cars' MPG numbers by C/R.
March issue of CR ranks CTS 3rd behind G35 and TL. There were some "buts".
To support my assertion that Consumer Reports has an anti-domestic bias.