Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Comments: Consumer Reports/JD Power Rankings

1568101114

Comments

  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    Usually when a new car comes out, many, many automotive journalists will report, "Car X gets 19 MPG city and 23 MPG highway!"
    Reading another review on the same car by a different journalist, we read, "Car X gets 19 city and 23 highway!"
    Read yet another review by yet another journalist, we read the same thing: "Car X gets 19 MPG city and 23 MPG highway!"

    Going to the EPA's website, we see that Car X does in fact get 19 MPG city/23 MPGhighway -- the same, exact numbers that the automotive journalists were getting. Does that mean that the consensus's estimate is in-line with the EPA's estimate of the mileage of Car X? Absolutely not! It just means that the consensus used the EPA's number in their review of the car, that's all. When Car X has been out for a while and enough reviewers tested the mileage of the car on their own, then and only then do we see Car X get higher MPG's than the EPA.

    The EPA is still a wonderful guide for determine the fuel efficiency of a car, however. Since the EPA's new testing drops like 2 MPG's from their 2007 tests, all the tested cars will come out with worse MPG's than other, independent testing. However, all the tested cars are measured the exact, same way. Thus, the EPA is the standard to which all other mileage tests must be judged, and the standard to which we must use to assess a car's fuel efficiency -- even if their numbers will be lower than our own.
    There may be alledged bias in both automotive media and consumer magazines, but we can be sure that the EPA's system is without bias. For this reason and the reason above, the EPA sets the standard. Anyone else see why the EPA may have some kind of bias somewhere? I don't...
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Huston.... we have a problem.

    pmc4 you sound very vindictive. What is your beef with C/R anyway? Who do you work for? I think most informed and intuitive people reading your posts see an agenda behind your arguments.

    '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."'

    Go tell that to Honda and all those who have ever own an S2000. Maybe you could start a class action law suite against the manufacture for fraud? I suggest you do some research on the topic first.

    FACT:

    The S2000 engine is built by a single engineer.

    The S2000 is hand assembled in Japan (the majority of the car, not the entire car, is hand assembled, just like the NSX). In fact, the S2000 and NSX were assembled on the same line at the same factory.

    A few more fun facts:

    -The S2000 gearbox is considered, by many, the best production gearbox ever. One mag even likened the "snick snick" of the shifter to that of the bolt action made by God's own rifle.

    -The engine is hand assembled (yes indeed!), as well as ported and polished and tuned from the factory. The engine has a forged bottom end, including crank, rods, 180,000psi rod bolts, and skirtless race pistons. NO! It is not the same engine going into the TSX.

    The following are engine features (most are exclusive to the S2000):

    -Fiber Reinforced Metal cylinder walls
    -Aluminum ladder-type main bearing support, with cast-iron bearing inserts
    -Lightweight forged skirtless pistons
    -Carburized forged steel rods
    -Cast aluminum oil pan, which bolts to both the engine and transmission (just like on race cars) to help improve rigidity
    -11:1 compression (11.1:1 in the F22C)
    -Lightweight metal injection-molded, sintered-steel rocker arms
    -Low friction roller-bearing cam followers
    -Two-stage cam drive with silent chain and auto-tensioner
    -Hollow camshafts that help reduce weight as well as function as a path for oil for the drivetrain
    -Direct ignition system with platinum spark plugs

    -The engine itself is no longer than the B16 found in earlier civics

    -The S2000 is considered the safest roadster built. Honda reinforced and designed the roll bar and A-pillar using its own 55mph rollover tests, since the US has no rollover test. The S2000 not only completely protects its passengers in a roll over, it also received the maximum award in all other US tests. Honda also did its own rear collision test, another test not standard in the US. In a 45mph rear collision, the damage does not go past the center of the rear wheels.

    -In a rollover, the seat belts stay locked to hold passengers into the seats, and the roll bar and a-pillar will barely crush in order to protect the passenger compartment. (There was an S2000 owner that rolled his car at 70mph, flipped and rolled his car over a dozen times, landed upside down, and walked out unharmed. In fact, the passenger compartment was never compromised.)

    -The S2000 is more rigid than most 4 door sedans, which is a huge feat for a convertible, not including the new Club Racer, which is even more ridged!

    -The high x-bone frame is designed to not only protect, offer a rigid chassis, but also make passengers "feel" like they are in a race car. Hence, the reason some people don't like it, because they feel "cramped".

    -The current skid pad record for a modified production vehicle is 1.19 g's and is held by an S2000.

    -The S2000 holds 1 record at the Bonneville Salt Flats, while the F20C engine holds 3 records.

    -The S2000 engine sits completely behind the front axle, even though it is mounted longitudinally, rather than transversely like most engines.

    "Horsepower-per-liter" is an absolute meaningless statistic".

    I agree. My point was: the engine is a production "automotive marvel" that is "special". Therefore, it is a poor example of bias on C/R's part. Furthermore:

    ""THe S2000 getting 240+ is no big deal....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)."

    Yes, according to the EPA. However, drive the C6 like it was intended at the track and you will NOT get the same mileage. The S will still be in the mid 20's and the C6 will be around 10. If you argue with me on this, you have never driven a Vette at the track. I have a cousin who I race with and he gets half (at best) what I get. No, the real statistic would be something like 744hp or more from the LS3 if it were tuned and "built" to the standards and specifications of the S2000's F20C motor. If I reckon, Bob said that the Corvette design team could not get much more reliable, streetable power out of the LS7 architecture and therefore had to go forced induction with the ZR1. I know some owners with maybe 700hp NA but their wifes will not ride with them and that car would not be marketable for GM. Besides, that's with 7 liters not 6.2, still below the 120/L of the S2000.

    How to explain the S2000's 160 ft/lbs torque, which is about the same torque output as a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier LT?"

    I think you need a lesson on the different ways one can extract speed from an engine. Gearing? Technique? The S2k is a pure driver's car. Obviously you are not one who is…so I see your concern. Buy a Vette.

    I think both engines are a staple. However, much about the LS7 and C6 Z06 Corvette are old news, done by Honda with the New Supercar Experimental program back 20 years ago before they released the NSX. Old news is bad news. Although GM is by far the most advanced, poised to succeed domestic auto manufacturer, they are still redundant compared to Honda. Honda is not about mass production; it is a revolutionary company pushing the bounds of reality without the noose of burgeoning financial and bureaucratic constraints wrapped around GM's neck.

    So, please do not insult S2000 owners for wanting a car that is technologically superior to anything close to its price point. It's not about having the fastest car for us. It's about having a whole lot more. And please, do not insult yourself by not agreeing with "the consensus" on the S2000's automotive ingenuity. That would not be good.

    So, without further ado, let’s get back to the mundane topic at hand.
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    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.

    I will bet anything I got against your 62 Vette that won't happen :D .
  • cccompsoncccompson Member Posts: 2,382
    I don't know, Joel. I gave Ford a second chance in buying an '06 Mustang because quality had supposedly improved.

    Let's see -

    Almost got broadsided because of a defective fuel pump.

    Can't leave the radio on when the car's turned off or the battery will drain.

    Can't leave the security system engaged for a significant amount of time or the battery will drain.

    Can't drive it in the rain for fear the passenger footwell will flood (not a big issue because it doesn't get driven in inclement weather anyway).

    It sometimes won't take fuel unless I turn the pump handle ninety degrees to the filler opening.

    These all involve very basic automotive functions and Ford didn't/couldn't get them right. No wonder they no longer use the slogan "Quality is Job 1."

    It's unlikely that I'll ever buy another Ford product.
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    Then you wouldn't mind if I used your 06 Mustang to bet against the 62 Vette? :D

    Show me a company that has never had a service problem with anything they have sold.

    You can't find one. People like talking about problems with domestics because it is accepted practice from days gone by. They won't mention a problem with there import because it will make them look wrong after all the bragging people do.

    Every Mustang built in 06 does not have the problem your particular car has. I would guess that it is all covered under warranty with the exception of the after market alarm system on it.

    Honda, Toyota, Nissan and all the rest have a service department for more then oil changes and tire rotations.
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    This post is a good example showing why I may appear "vindictive" towards the Honda S2000: It shows the consumer utterly swept away at dialogue and "one-liners" promoted by the automotive media propaganda "machine" (sorry guys for sounding like a paranoid schitzophrenic).
    Propaganda machines notwithstanding, I read a "review" (advertisement) for the S2000 that approximately read, "Getting behind the wheel of the fantastic S2000 is a truly life-changing event. What was expected to be another Civic transported this little, economical car and transformed it into a Formula-1 screamer with the tip of the throttle. Steering is telepathic; quality of the interior materials rivals cars costing around $100,000. The suspension components seem bolted directly to your arm and leg joints and the engine -- derived straight from the pits of an F-1 racer involved in Honda's racing program -- sings a sonorous song; a melody comparable to a Brahms fifth symphony performed by the London Philharmonic."

    Your "The shifter itself is from God's Own Shotgun" verifies that there are a substantial pool of consumers who are ready to accept this flabby literary drivel as a bona-fide automotive review.
    Reading Top Gear's recent review of the S2000 shifter reveals that it has a rubbery vague quality (but Top Gear does, like myself, like the car overall).

    THe F20C is just an outdated 4-cylinder that has since been displaced by better engines from GM (Ecotech turbo DI), BMW and Audi. Like the ancient 6-cylinder that powered the Acura NSX, the F20C suffers from old technology. It's time for Honda to come out with something new that can take on its global competitors.

    QUOTE: "-The engine is hand assembled (yes indeed!), as well as ported and polished and tuned from the factory. The engine has a forged bottom end, including crank, rods, 180,000psi rod bolts, and skirtless race pistons. NO! It is not the same engine going into the TSX.
    The following are engine features (most are exclusive to the S2000):
    -Fiber Reinforced Metal cylinder walls
    -Aluminum ladder-type main bearing support, with cast-iron bearing inserts
    -Lightweight forged skirtless pistons
    -Carburized forged steel rods
    -Cast aluminum oil pan, which bolts to both the engine and transmission (just like on race cars) to help improve rigidity
    -11:1 compression (11.1:1 in the F22C)
    -Lightweight metal injection-molded, sintered-steel rocker arms
    -Low friction roller-bearing cam followers
    -Two-stage cam drive with silent chain and auto-tensioner
    -Hollow camshafts that help reduce weight as well as function as a path for oil for the drivetrain
    -Direct ignition system with platinum spark plugs"


    Again, you elaborate on my assertion that the F20C is nothing more than a garden vareity 4-cylinder engine with stronger components (as you illustrated, stronger components here and there), improved intake plumbing (bearings for rollers; hollow camshafts and other 1980's-era technical achievements) and a re-programmed chip.
    Since then, competitors like General Motors surpassed the F20C with direct injection, jet-spray piston cooling, exaust valves that are sodium-filled, dual-scroll turbocharger, variable-pressure fuel rail, etc. These technical achievements are in addition to the 1980's stuff that we see in the F20C.

    QUOTE: "As for the rest of the S2000, blah-blah-blah. Two paragraphs of well-known blah."

    The chassis in the S2000 is good.
    I like the S2000 overall, but you have been duped into believing the literature that some of these automotive "journalists" have been spewing fourth ("The throw bearing in the S2000's transmission is so smooth and engages with such verve that one wonders if the bearing is coated with several layers of fine Chinese silk," and other literary garbage). I veiw that journalism the same way Siskel and Ebert view a 'B'-grade horror flick you'd expect to find on TV at 2:00 AM: It's just junk. Literary fluff. Worthless, wordy, verbose vestigeal appendages.
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Hey guys,

    This is an article by Dan Loper on why Ford is doomed. It has some valid points coming from a brand marketing perspective going beyond the quality issue. What do you think?

    link title
  • cccompsoncccompson Member Posts: 2,382
    LOL, it's a factory anti-theft system! Our Hondas haven't been problem free but they haven't come close to causing a crash, can be locked without thought, don't leak, and take fuel without incident.

    I've bought 2 Fords new - a '94 E Series that Ford bought back as a lemon and now this Mustang.

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    There won't be a third time.
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Well, pmc4, I drive an S2k and I have to concur with a majority of the "propaganda". ....But, that is my opinion and the opinion of most S2k owners that use it for its intended purpose. Sure, all marketing is embellished to a certain extent; however, the S2k really does live up to its reputation.

    The technology that you mentioned that the S2k lacks, some of which it does have, is not necessary to accomplish what it does. So, to that extent, it is a moot point.

    Again, old technology or not, at its price point, it is still an engineering marvel -- even by today's standards. That is the consensus by a majority of respected automotive enthusiast publications. If not, show me a car that will do what the S2k does at a lesser price point and still retain all the instinctive attributes (resale, convertible, build quality, Honda's customer service record and attention to detail, fun to drive factor, etc, etc).

    Now, this is getting silly. The point of your statement was the S2k is an example of bias on C/R's part. I am here to say it is not. As an owner and member of Sk2 forums, I testify that it can receive the mileage rating posted by C/R -- not driving 80mph but at decent highway speed and tooling around town. At 80mph, most get 28-29mpg in the right climate after proper breakin. C/R is not a performance mag and its car reviews are inline with the customers who read them. Those who look to buy a car via C/R's recommendation are most likely not going to drive hard.

    Why C/R's rating is higher than the rest may also have something to do with a more lean burn tune in that particular vehicle. The point is there are enough owners getting close to C/R's rating to except it and move on.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    This CNN piece, which reads like a paid advertisement for Ford, is full of painfully blind marketing theories that miss the elephant in the room which is this--as people improve their standard of living they become more "sophisticated" (read: snobbish) and sophisticated people don't shop at Wal-Mart and they don't drive Fords.

    Assumes that the US is suddenly made up of people who are more sophisticated. Wow, this guy lives in lala land. Perhaps he has become more sophisticated in his mind but the US still has the same salt of the earth people living here. Some rise up and become "snobbish" but most keep living the dream and survive. But he does have a good point on a brand. They come and go. Look at Sears, Meijers and others. They have a good run and then become passe.

    I find it hard to take Ford seriously as a maker of cars. First of all, American car companies seem to have an attitude of wanting me to buy their cars simply because they're made in the USA. I would love to buy US made cars, but I can't afford to buy a car that breaks down a lot just because it's made in the US. Plus they're ugly cars. If you're going to sell me a car, don't make me feel guilty about buying a foreign car, make me feel good about buying an American car, and not just because it's American, but because it's reliable, gets good mileage, and looks decent enough. Or if it's not reliable and gets horrible mileage, at least make it look good. But Ford and other US companies are notorious for turning out cars that don't look good and therefore don't sell well, with the occasional exception.

    This is what all the domestic makers have to market against. The guy probably does not know that Ford has, per Consumer Reports and JD Power, improved their quality significantly as to be a meaningless statistic. As has GM. So the question is whether Ford has the time to change the mindsets of some of the American people. They already have a huge market (3rd in sales) but they need to turn around the downward slope and make it at least flat. 3rd place in the US market is a damn good place to be. Personnaly I am not sure they can make it. The cost of doing business is still too high for Ford and they have at least 3 years of work ahead of them to turn around their business model as GM has done. GM changed their model 3 years ago and with the current US recession it will be two years before they are very profitable again. That is 5 years. And Ford has just started down the path of thinking global.

    It doesn't look likely to me right now, but you must bear in mind I may not know what I'm talking about. He has some things right but overall what does this guy do in real life? His comment below shows how much he really does not know.

    Ford will eventually stop making cars altogether and be known exclusively as a truck and van company.

    I think his biggest error is that he thinks/believes that most people think like him. Big mistake. Who is this guy anyway? It's not really his real name!! More like a self proclaimed marketing guru. In fact he seems to have a real issue because Harvard keeps rejecting him from their school.
  • jlawrence01jlawrence01 Member Posts: 1,757
    Do realize that:

    1) The article is nearly two years old.
    2) The article is from CNN.
  • joel0622joel0622 Member Posts: 3,299
    Thats good news, it was covered under warranty also then, and you don't have to worry about them telling you that an aftermarket alarm caused your electrical problems.

    As far as the problems go, that is not going to make me say, "Oh OK since one 3 almost 4 model year old car has problems then Ford has huge across the board quality issues."

    You got a bad one and I am sorry for it. It happens with all models. Give me 30 minutes on google and I will fill this thread with Honda owners with problems much bigger then yours. It does not make them all bad. it just means that a machine made by man will have problems and not every one is the same.

    Do I blame you for not buying another one? No. There are certain brands of things I refuse to buy also. Some on past performance and some on principal.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    Read the current issue of CR and their review of the CTS. Also very good things to say about the Malibu. I just hope you have the guts to apologize and stop spouting out inaccurate statements. Based on your past post i doubt you have that kind of decency.
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    I read a post earlier that said C/R compares the CTS against the Acura TL and Infiniti G35 in March. I maintained that the CTS -- the only car by any manufacturer within the past 15 years to earn Motor Trend's Car of the Year, Car and Driver's 10-Best, IIHS's safest car award, P/M's COTY, two consecutive Eyes on Design awards (Chris Bangle was one of the Judges) and C-net's TCOTY awards... All at the same time! I further maintained that if Consumer Reports rates the 2008 CTS lower than its import competitors at a time when Motor Trend, Car and Driver and the Institute for Highway Safety is giving the 2008 CTS the industry's most prestigious awards, then there must be obvious import bias there at Consumer Reports. I said if Consumer Reports weere to do this, then we'd have bona-fide, documented import bias from Consumer Reports right there in our hands.

    In the March issue, Consumer Reports tested the 2008 CTS against two imports. The 2008 CTS came in last place.
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Thanks Vette for your input. I can see your points clearly and this guy's generalizations call to question his authority. I respect your counter perspective; however, I think Ford is in worse shape now than when the article was written. I really do hope they come out shinning...for I tend to root for the under dog. Nevertheless, Ford's image as a mid-size car/small car manufacturer has lost its relevance in my mind and of many in my generation, unfortunately. I could get myself to purchase a Ford truck (if need be) and if I really felt the quality was "job one" but not a car. No way. This guy's point regarding brand imaging is spot on IMO.

    Anyone else?
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    I am not sure how to argue this one with you pmc4, but it looks like you have a valid point "here". On the other hand, CR is geared towards making long term quality assessments where the others are (more or less) geared towards performance and aesthetic assessments if I stand correct. If the integrity of such product was in question, which I am sure it is...as it has been in relation to the others, that would weigh unfavorably on the outcome.

    Anyone else?

    Until GM has consistently (year after year) proven a top quality product can be counted on by the consumer, I would be hesitant to award first place. Just a hunch, but if it were my reputation on the line, I would most certainly error on the side of caution much like CR appears to do. One must consider the publication's audience and what it intends to accomplish. Many people rely heavily on CR for their quality and integrity assessments more than anything else for purchases (at least I do and many I know). Hence, it would be reckless on CR's part to not proceed with caution. Prudence usually pays and literally in this case.

    If what GM is doing is beyond cosmetic and performance and is designing and building true quality beyond any other, I hope GM can continue in this direction for the sake of all those who depend on the company's success, either directly or indirectly because this is what it will take to win SOME of its lost patrons back...this and exceptional customer service before and AFTER the sale. :)
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    >Until GM has consistently (year after year) proven a top quality product can be counted on by the consumer

    I've said all along through the years on Edmunds that I've had good experiences with GM cars through the last 2.5 decades. And people who bought the Honda, Toyota, Datsuns of the 80s econoboxes and were satisfied with the product as a cheap-to-buy and cheap-to-run car,grew older and the vehicles became larger and more mainstream stayed satisfied with them. Indeed they were more forgiving of flaws than the people would have been with US brand vehicles. Even CR showed the same bias.

    Now in the last many years we have Honda's transmission problems and driving noise and vibrations through varius vehicles in the line, we have the sludging of Toyota's models (and other brands), and CR is forgiving of those flaws as long as the manufacturer is picking up the repair in some cases> Then we have the more recent Lexus/Avalon/Camry model drivetrain shifting/flare/lag transmission problems, and it took many years for CR to even decide there might be a problem. And finally they remove the Camry from their automatic preapproved car list?

    Perhaps someone can go back to the CR issues of the 80s where they were against GM because GM was just too big and too involved with the military industrial complex. Would that have been when Ralph Nader was part of CR? Some people know nothing of the past CR and their history. That would be an interesting reading project...

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Until GM has consistently (year after year) proven a top quality product can be counted on by the consumer, I would be hesitant to award first place.

    Per JD Power, Cadillac has been near the top in long term reliability (3 years) for quite a few years now. Not sure why CR does not find similar data but very strange.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    CR rankings based on road tests are not supposed to take reliability (which is what I assume you mean by "long term quality" into account at all. The reliability only determines whether they recommend a vehicle that has scored well on the road test.

    Their rankings would be affected by the quality of materials and assembly of the vehicle as well as utility, comfort, etc. If they ranked other cars above the CTS, then they are saying the other cars are, in their opinion, better overall vehicles (without any cosideration of anticipated reliability)...they are absolutely not saying: "the CTS is a better overall car, but we think it will break too much, so we are giving it a lower score".
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    Then I guess there is something to this CR issue.

    I read a post earlier that said C/R compares the CTS against the Acura TL and Infiniti G35 in March. I maintained that the CTS -- the only car by any manufacturer within the past 15 years to earn Motor Trend's Car of the Year, Car and Driver's 10-Best, IIHS's safest car award, P/M's COTY, two consecutive Eyes on Design awards (Chris Bangle was one of the Judges) and C-net's TCOTY awards... All at the same time! I further maintained that if Consumer Reports rates the 2008 CTS lower than its import competitors at a time when Motor Trend, Car and Driver and the Institute for Highway Safety is giving the 2008 CTS the industry's most prestigious awards, then there must be obvious import bias there at Consumer Reports. I said if Consumer Reports weere to do this, then we'd have bona-fide, documented import bias from Consumer Reports right there in our hands.

    In the March issue, Consumer Reports tested the 2008 CTS against two imports. The 2008 CTS came in last place.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Some points:

    * COTY awards don't always compare the winner against the strongest competition in its class. They look at all the "new or improved" cars available at the time of the judging and look at which of those, overall, is deemed the "best" or "most significant" or whatever the criteria are. So just because a car wins a COTY award doesn't mean it is the "best" car in its class.

    * C/D put the CTS on its 10Best list for 2008, but also rated it behind two imports in a head-to-head comparo that was published in the same issue as the 10Best awards. One of these imports was the G35, which CR also ranked ahead of the CTS. (The other was the BMW 328i, also a C/D 10Best selection; the Acura TL was not included in this comparo.) C/D also named the Malibu one of their 10Best. But soon after, they ranked the Accord (also a 10Best) and Altima (NOT a 10Best winner) ahead of the Malibu in a head-to-head comparo. Does this mean C/D is biased towards American cars? Or maybe it means that in a given head-to-head comparison of cars with specific content levels, they just preferred some cars more than others.

    * The IIHS Top Safety Pick "award" says nothing about how a car drives. It only reflects the results of the IIHS' crash tests and the availability of electronic stability control on the car. A wide range of vehicles are IIHS Top Safety Picks, including the Hyundai Entourage. Does that mean that the Entourage is an exceptional mini-van, one of the best in its class? No. It means only that it scored well on the IIHS crash tests and has standard ESC.

    So, CR didn't rate the CTS above two strong competitors in their driving tests. Neither did C/D. Saying that CR is biased towards American cars because it didn't rank a particular car first in its class--a very competitive class with many exceptional offerings--means that C/D is obviously biased against American cars also. And that any other professional automotive reviewing body that doesn't rank the CTS first in any comparison is biased against American cars. That's quite a leap, IMO. Kind of like, "You didn't come to the same conclusion as some other people, including me, have come to, so you are obviously biased! :cry:"
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    Backy, Backy, Backy. Backy comes "back", folks! Welcome Back, Backy! We missed you. :D

    Anyway, you suggest that Motor Trend's COTY award is for "most improved vehicle." If this is so, and since the 2008 CTS just won the COTY, then can you please tell us why the last-generation CTS was a contender for COTY in 2002?
    Furthermore, from Motor Trend:
    Superiority? The CTS's winning ways go far beyond its fetching facade. Significance? Not only is the CTS the star of a new GM revival (including such standouts as the 2008 Chevy Malibu and Buick Enclave, to name just two), it's a true world car -- tested from the Nurburgring to China and sold across the globe (40,000 to 50,000 annually in the U.S., another 20,000 or so worldwide; Cadillac will also build right-hand-drive versions). Value? Base price is just $32,990, including a 263-horse VVT V-6 (a 304-horse direction-injection version is optional), eight-speaker Bose audio, 17-inch wheels, and dual-zone climate control. In comparison, you'll pay over $33,000 for a base BMW 3 Series sedan with just 230 horses and north of $45K for the more comparably sized BMW 528i.
    Read on to see how Cadillac -- winner of the first Motor Trend Car of the Year award nearly six decades ago -- earned the Golden Calipers for 2008. While you're at it, start practicing using the words "General Motors" and "celebrated" in the same sentence. The buzz began as soon as the first few editors returned from their driving stints in the new CTS. "Wow! That thing is really sweet." "Tons of cornering stick, but the ride doesn't beat you up." "Good power, smooth and responsive automatic that holds the right gear when you're hustling. And I love the steering." "That's got to be the best nav system I've ever used." "Hey, is it my turn to drive the CTS yet?" But if we knew we had a contender on our hands from the get-go, the more we drove this canny new Caddy, the more its magic cast a spell on us...For one thing, the CTS makes you look good. Great, actually. There wasn't one editor in our hard-to-please crew who didn't have good things to say about the car's starch-creased tailoring. Several of us think it's the most striking and original sedan we've seen in years. Better still, unlike the previous CTS, the 2008 edition carries its edgy exterior theme and penchant for beauty right into the cockpit. In comparison, the Mercedes C350 cabin looks bleak and severe; the Honda Accord's dash seems fussy -- and not as well made. Cadillac's interior team has balanced form, function, and panache as deftly as we've seen it done -- in some ways (that brilliantly simple yet powerful nav/info system) better than anyone. More important, pushing the car hard is a joy. The engine gets a little raspy in its uppermost octaves, but it's gutty enough to make the 3960-pound CTS feel far lighter than it is. The variable-effort steering is on the heavy side (a good thing) but communicative; the chassis impressively neutral, the brakes potent and durable. All those laps around the Nurburgring have formed key strands in the CTS's DNA.
    It's when you're off the boil, though, that the CTS impresses the most. This Cadillac even gets the really tough stuff right-namely, the little things. The materials and controls make your fingertips happy. Your eyes notice the absence of jarring cockpit cut-lines, the tight, even fit of exterior panels. Your ears detect no annoying rattles, and but a hush of wind and road noise. Your backside senses the structure's solidity, the ride's well-damped support. Your smile...broadens.


    Absolutely nothing in here sounds like "2008's most improved car." What it does sound like, is that out of the entire automobile industry, Cadillac makes the best all-around sports sedan, period.
    And about your desperate attempt at bringing up that CTS v. BMW v. G35 comparison test by Car and Driver, you forgot to mention the last paragraph that read,
    "The CTS is a big, relatively heavy car, but its size does pay dividends. Thanks to the 191.6-inch overall length and 113.4-inch wheelbase, the Cadillac boasts the largest trunk of the group and the most spacious and comfortable rear seat. If Cadillac were to fix the rudeness in this [Aisin 5-speed manual transmission mated to the world's most advanced V6 engine] and slice off a few hundred pounds from its curb weight, the CTS might finally overthrow the 3-series [in our tests of stick-shift sport sedans]."
    Can you please tell us why you brought up a comparison test that involved manual transmissions, knowing full well that manual transmission cars in this class make up less than 10% of overall sales?
    Can you also please tell us why you conveniently ignore the fact that BMW uses GM's Hydramatic 6-speed automatics in both the 3-Series and 5-Series BMW's? Obviously, since the 2008 Cadillac CTS won Car and Driver's 10-Best award and the BMW 3-Series automatic did not, we can only surmise that with Car and Driver, the Cadillac is better than the BMW with the automatic transmission.
  • tagmantagman Member Posts: 8,441
    Anyway, you suggest that Motor Trend's COTY award is for "most improved vehicle."

    Not exactly. I did not intepret that from Backy's post. And it would not be correct anyway.

    At this point, let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that your latest argument regarding CR does or does not have merit. I will reserve comment on that for now. Your statement, however, is not reflective of what the MT COTY stands for. So...

    To be eligible for the MT COTY award, a car must be a new model introduced in a given model year, or given a fundamental redesign for that year ("freshenings" are ineligble for the award). All vehicles are given the same battery of tests: standard car tests such as skid-pad ratings, acceleration and quarter-mile times, and evaluations of the interiors are combined with a track run conducted by SCCA-licensed testers and taking the cars out on normal roads to test their drivability under normal conditions and fuel economy.

    As a result, pre-existing [superior] vehicles could easily be overlooked, as they would not even qualify as contenders.

    Certainly there are other awards that are more inclusive... however they typically also have their own unique parameters and criteria that ulitimately exclude other vehicles, one or more of which could certainly be superior to the "winner".

    Hope that is clearer.

    TagMan
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Thanks for the clarification of the MT COTY award.

    The other important element of the MT COTY award that bears mentioning is that it is very much a measure of a vehicle's significance to the market. So a strong offering from GM in a very competitive market could be deemed more significant by MT's editors than, say, a strong offering from Honda ("Ho-hum, another excellent car from Honda!"). Last year, the Camry won the MT COTY award, and MT said of that criterion with respect to the Camry: " And as to that third Car of the Year criterion, significance, there's simply no contest."

    Another fact pertinent to this discussion is that neither the G35 nor Acura TL were eligible for the 2008 MT COTY, or other COTY awards this year. (The G35 was eligible for the MT COTY award last year and was a finalist.) So the CTS didn't have to compete against those cars this year.
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Well, JD Power accepts advertising contributions right?
  • humblecoderhumblecoder Member Posts: 125
    In the March issue, Consumer Reports tested the 2008 CTS against two imports. The 2008 CTS came in last place.

    I don't have a horse in this race, so to speak, but you might want to retract that statement, since it is untrue. Of the four cars tested in the March issue, the CTS came in FIRST place. It beat out the BMW 328i, Mercedes C300, and Saab 9-3, which were also tested.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't actually read the article and just "heard" it from somewhere. Next time, please at least read the publication before you bash it. Otherwise, you just look silly.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Interesting! So CR ranks the 2008 CTS ahead of the BMW 328i, while C/D ranks the 328i ahead of the CTS based on head-to-head testing. But it's CR that is supposedly biased against American cars. A head-scratcher...
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    Car and Driver tested the manual CTS and manual BMW. (The manual G35 was also compared). As I said before, the manual BMW beat the manual CTS because the manual transmission in the CTS is a POS (it's an aisin unit, and Aisin is a Japanese transmission firm. I really do wish Japan could make decent manuals so the CTS could have beaten the BMW in this Comparo...).

    When Car and Driver went to award their 10-Best this year, they picked the 2008 automatic CTS over the 2008 automatic BMW 3-Series because the 2008 automatic CTS is the better car.

    What's needed to be mentioned is that Car and Driver, in the same test, complained that teh G35 had a vibrating shifter, vibrating center console, and a vibrating interior in general. They did not make this complaint in the G35 equipped with the automatic transmission.

    What's also in need of mention is that General Motors supplies automatic transmissions across the entire BMW lineup. That means if you buy, say, a BMW 545i automatic, you're buying a car with a GM automatic transmission.
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    Humblecoder, can you please tell us why, in the latest iteration of Consumer Reports, that their testers never once mentioned the following:

    2008 CTS has class-leading frontal and offset crash test results.
    2008 CTS has the best NAV system in its class by far (read C/D's, M/T's and R/T's review of the CTS on this matter).
    2008 CTS has the first dual-depth front airbag
    2008 CTS has by far the best audio system in it's class.

    They do, however, mention the safety part of the equation every time they rate a Japanese import (especially the Honda Accord).
    They did mention the import Acura RL's real-time traffic data system when it was introduced two years ago.
    They do (more or less always) mention the Mark Levinson audio system in higher-end import Lexus cars.

    Is there a reason why these things were deliberately left out in their review of the domestic 2008 CTS?
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    OK, so I came back from the library. Here's what I found:
    Consumer Reports tests the Toyota Highlander and Buick Enclave in January. Here are the highlights (Backy, you can 'back' me up on this, if you have the January issue on hand):

    The Toyota Highlander had the following faults:
    Poor, artificial steering feel
    Sloppy avoidance maneuver
    (very) cramped 3rd-row seating
    Panel gaps and spotty assembly
    Elevated levels of road noise
    Consumer Reports MPG for the import car: 13/26 with 18 MPG combined.
    EPA MPG for the import: 17/23 with 19 MPG combined.

    What Consumer Reports said about the Enclave:
    Handling is more responsive than even some sedans
    Quick steering with decent response
    Avoidance maneuver is secure and predictable
    Enclave's 3rd-row seat is as roomy as on some minivans
    The Enclave had the following faults, which reads more like acts of despiration on Consumer Report's part:
    Transmission is reluctant to downshift. (Their excuse is that they were testing an Enclave with old transmission computer software. Why, I wonder, did they test a model with old software when new software was avaliable?)
    Transmission improved after installing updated computer software
    "Flash-to-Pass" feature a "serious omission"
    Consumer Reports MPG for the domestic nameplate: 10/24, with 15 MPG combined.
    EPA's MPG for the domestic? 16/24, with a combined of 19 MPG.

    Once again, we return to Consumer Reports MPG bias, a-la Honda S2000 style. Consumer Reports rates the import unusually high, nearly meeting the EPA in "combined MPG" at 18 and exceeding the highway estimate.
    Consumer Reports again rates the domestic unfairly low, with a ghastly 10 MPG city and an equally pathetic 15 MPG combined, while the EPA gives the domestic 16 MPG city and a whopping 19 MPG combined!
    Why do we have a much lower "combined" and a breakeven "highway" for the domestic, yet a much higher "combined" and a much higher "highway" MPG for the import?

    What's even more mind-boggling is they rate the import first-place, with 81 points!
    Where does the domestic Enclave sit? A far lower 6th place.

    Consumer Reports bust #5 coming soon, folks!
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    I can't believe after staying away from this topic for weeks, that you're saying the same thing over and over. And a "whopping 19 mpg combined!" doesn't make the cut in my book, LOL!

    The EPA and CR run different mileage tests. CR does theirs on the road, not on a dynamometer like the EPA. The city test by CR is very tough, which is why cars have very low mpg values, as your example shows for both vehicles. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion, as it indicates to a consumer probably a worst-case scenario. No surprise to me that the Enclave is "ghastly" under CR's city conditions due to its high curb weight.

    The highway mpg by CR is conducted while cruising at a constant speed. It used to be 55 mph, but I'd guess it's done at a higher speed now. The EPA test, by contrast, simulates varying speeds but no idling (the "old" (pre-2008) highway test was run at an average speed of 48 mph, moderate acceleration, no a/c use, and a maximum speed of 60 mph). Now, as I understand it, the test is still done the same way, but additional tests are run at higher speed, more vigorous acceleration, with the a/c on.

    So...different tests yield different results -- what a concept!
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    ...people who bought the Honda, Toyota, Datsuns of the 80s econoboxes and were satisfied with the product as a cheap-to-buy and cheap-to-run car,grew older and the vehicles became larger and more mainstream stayed satisfied with them. Indeed they were more forgiving of flaws than the people would have been with US brand vehicles.

    Here you go again; where's the evidence people were "more forgiving" of flaws? It's just your opinion, IMO. If MY car breaks, I'm mad; I don't care whose nameplate is on it. My loyalty will last only if the car does likewise -- there are now plenty of choices out there.

    My one former and two current Camrys have been extremely reliable. The former one was part of the so-called sludgemaster group, but mine never had the sludge problem, even after 111K miles.

    My 1998 Nissan Frontier soldiers on with almost zero problems. It leaks a little oil now from the pan gasket and the headliner is starting to sag. Other than that I've replaced the battery once, tires once, and a few bulbs and wiper blades, besides normal fluid and filter replacement. Everything still works fine, and it looks like new after washing.

    My only GM car, a '77 Impala purchased used at 8 years and just over 100K miles was also reasonable for the 3 1/2 years I owned it (and a good looker too). But the '90 Mercury Sable I purchased new had numerous and expensive problems once the car hit the 65K mile mark, including a failed transmission and repeated a/c woes. Ironically, that Sable arguably had the best styling of any car I've owned over the past 30+ years.

    Ralph Nader affiliated with CR? I don't think he ever had a direct relationship; rather he founded the Center for Auto Safety in Washington DC, which primarily investigates consumer-reported auto defects. It's run by Clarence Ditlow, who has been its head since around 1976. You may also be thinking of Joan Claybrook, a Nader protege, who headed NHTSA during the Carter presidency, and has been a longstanding member of Consumer Unions' board of directors.

    Although CR was definitely more militant against the car in the 70s compared to today (I remember their recommendation around 1972 that the average American with a "small family" would be prudent to buy a Dodge Dart or Plymouth Valiant six as their sole source of transportation), they were hardly down on GM during the that decade and the one to follow. More often than not in the large and midsize car segments, a GM product would normally receive the best rating, as I recall. Of course, most Asian imports did not compete in those size categories then. Also, pickups and SUVs were rarely tested back then, understandably so.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Just chiming in here to note that the Cadillac CTS is only one of 36 Top Safety Picks. As backy stated, this is all about crashworthiness and stability control -- it's an honor indeed, but even in the large luxury segment, as defined by IIHS, the CTS isn't alone.

    As for the Motor Trend Car of the Year, does anybody take this seriously anymore? I say this even as a Camry owner (2007 model won this award).
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    I cannot fathon how CR got 10 city. I do 100% city with maybe a 5 mile trip on the expressway once every couple weeks. I drive my kids and pick them up every day in a 3.5 mile trip. Car barely warms up. Yet I get 16 mpg. I am no longer a bat out of hell driver but I do not take my time.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    62vette: I would not get all worked up over the city mpg. So much is dependent on the driver, weather, the particular course. The thing I like about CR is their estimates tend to be more realistic then the pre-2008 EPA standards. Also they don't focus on how fast you can take a corner or how quickly you can get to 60 mph. While it can be discouraging to read this, I think your personal mpg is more important.
  • mickeyrommickeyrom Member Posts: 936
    I have a 2006.5 KIA Optima with an I4 engine and I only get around 14 MPG during very short drives in town.CR estimates real world MPG on that car at 15...that is remarkably close,so I trust them on most issues.
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    You said that the EPA and C/R "run different mileage tests, with one testing on the dyno and the other testing on the road."

    Does this "Magic Road" that Consumer Reports does their tests on always make import cars use less fuel and domestics use more fuel in relation to the EPA estimates?

    Lol the following:

    Consumer Reports MPG city/highway/combined for the import vehicle:
    Import sub-compact: 30/45/40
    Import sedan: 31/42/39
    Import truck: 23/25/24
    Consumer Reports MPG city/highway/combined for the domestic vehicle:
    Domestic sub-compact: 18/25/23
    Domestic sedan: 14/18/16
    Domestic truck: 8/10/9

    EPA's MPG city/highway/combined for the import vehicle:
    Import sub-compact: 18/25/23
    Import sedan: 14/18/16
    Import truck: 8/10/9
    EPA's MPG city/highway/combined for the domestic vehicle:
    Domestic sub-compact: 18/25/23
    Domestic sedan: 14/18/16
    Domestic truck: 8/10/9

    It's the "magic road", I tell ya, IT'S THE MAGIC ROAD!
    THROW A JAPANESE IMPORT ON IT AND WATCH IT DO MAGICAL THINGS THAT NO OTHER TESTING METHODOLOGY CAN DUPLICATE!!!
    muHAhaha...
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    And in case you didn't get it, just look, lol, at C/R's take on the import in relation to the EPA's. Get it now?
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    I know exactly how Consumer Reports got 10 MPG. First, they got 13 MPG, just like everyone else. Then, they subtracted 3 MPG because they were testing a domestic nameplete. Then, they published that result.

    ...Just that simple, folks!...

    .
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    "62vette: I would not get all worked up over the city mpg. So much is dependent on the driver, weather, the particular course. The thing I like about CR is their estimates tend to be more realistic then the pre-2008 EPA standards. Also they don't focus on how fast you can take a corner or how quickly you can get to 60 mph. While it can be discouraging to read this, I think your personal mpg is more important."

    LOL!!!
    Too funny!

    .
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    PMC, I can't believe after staying away from this topic for weeks, that you're saying the same thing over and over. And a "whopping 19 mpg combined!" doesn't make the cut in my book, LOL!

    But I'm not saying the same thing over and over.
    When you were here last, I proved that Consumer Reports illegally botched the MPG results on the Honda S2000 they tested.

    But, while you were gone, I also showed that Consumer Reports:
    Rates the import Mazda6 higher than the domestic Ford Fusion, even though the Mazda6 gets worse reliability and costs more, and yet they're the same car.
    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 proved that Consumer Reports grossly exagerates the MPG figures of many imports. Consumer Reports also exagerrates the MPG figures of many domestics, but in a negative way. In Consumer Reports testing, imports usually score above the EPA estimate, while the domestic usually scores below the EPA estimate. My "C/R Bust #4" with the Highlander and Enclave further underscores this unethical (if not illegal) practice by Consumer Reports.
    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.
    I have shown that 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. The Buick Enclave would beat the Toyota Highlander. 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.
    I showed that Consumer Reports does not mention the crucial features that set the 2008 CTS apart from their import competition, yet Consumer Reports always mentions the crucial features that separate the imports from their competition.

    You've got like 16 pages of message board posts of mine that illustrate clearly import bias at Consumer Reports. I don't have the time or space to post them here again, so please do your homework.
  • pmc4pmc4 Member Posts: 198
    Consumer Reports has a "Three-Pronged Approach" to advance their anti-domestic agenda. The Three Prongs are Deceive, Defer and Denounce:
    Deceive. When advancing their agenda, Consumer Reports will deceive the automobile consumer by arbitrarily selecting MPG numbers for their mileage test results, then publish them. As a general rule, higher mileage numbers are attributed to cars that are import-branded, and lower numbers are attributed to domestic nameplates. We know this, because there is no way any testing method can generate higher-than-EPA numbers for import nameplates and lower-than-EPA for domestic nameplates. Roads don't care where the car is made; with roads, all cars are created equal.
    To further deceive the automobile consumer, Consumer Reports will rely on flat-out lies. They will say that the import is quieter than the domestic. That it's more 'refined sounding'. That the import has better fit and finish.
    Defer. When advancing an agenda that's built on deception, sooner or later, that deception is going to come out. For example, Conumer Reports for years has been saying that both the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry have had, "Levels of fit and finish that rival sedans costing three times as much." But when Honda Accord owners started to complain to C/R saying, "My Accord, while it's a great car, doesn't seem to have the 'fit and finish' that you guys claim it to have." Consumer Reports, knowing that more and more consumers are on to their deception, publish a deferred criticism of both the 2006 Accord and 2006 Camry in those issues, claiming, "While the Accord and Camry are overall well-assembled, we did note ill-fitting panels and glove boxes in both tested cars (do you guys remember those issues?)."
    Furthermore, Consumer Reports is only now beginning to admit to their deferred criticism on the BMW 3-Series by saying in this month's issue, "The BMW 328i generally has excellent fit and finish, but we noticed some flimsy cupholders. Also, there are some flimsy plastic trim pieces that don't belong in a car of this class..."
    Now that BMW owners are writing in wondering why Consumer Reports never mentions the car's interior cheapness, Consumer Reports tries to cover their buttocks by telling the truth about this fraud on wheels. The BMW 3-Series has always had cheap, flimsy cupholders and cheap interior plastics. Why is it taking Consumer Reports this long to mention them? And why is Consumer Reports still not mentioning the 328i's cheap, fake leatherette seating surfaces that feel as if they were made with the same material they make footballs out of? Why not mention that gear shifter that wobbles and rocks in it's housing as if it's connected to the shift linkage with a cotter pin? The gray interior paint that frames the dashboard dials that tries to look like aluminum? They mentioned the flimsy cupholders, but fail to mention the guides the cupholders run on feel as if they're lubricated with greasy sand? The thin plastic that frames the center stack that looks as if you can burn a cigarette hole thru it?
    As it currently stands, Consumer Reports is also deferring the mention of the 2008 CTS's crashworthiness. Also, the car's sound system and 40 GB nav. They are also deferring the fact that the 2008 CTS is the quietest car in its class and among the quietest cars in the world. In a few issues, however, these facts about the CTS are bound to make their way out.
    Denounce. When there is a bona-fide flaw in the domestic car Consumer Reports tests, then they denounce the car as a whole in their effort to push their agenda. Usually a combination of the first Two Prongs (Deceive and Defer), Denounce is the strategy whereby the domestic car is rejected because of an insignificant flaw. For example, the Saturn Aura is Denounced (in near-last place) below the Honda Accord/Toyota Camry, because the base engine is a pushrod V6 (the same car with an I4 -- the Chevy Malibu -- ranks closer to those imports). They will use deceit (claim the Aura gets 20 MPG when in fact it gets 22 MPG), etc. The Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky are Denounced (in near-last place) because interior ergonomics are compromised.
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    >Denounce. When there is a bona-fide flaw in the domestic car Consumer Reports tests, then they denounce the car as a whole in their effort to push their agenda. Usually a combination of the first Two Prongs (Deceive and Defer), Denounce is the strategy whereby the domestic car is rejected because of an insignificant flaw. For example, the Saturn Aura is Denounced (in near-last place) below the Honda Accord/Toyota Camry, because the base engine is a pushrod V6 (the same car with an I4 -- the Chevy Malibu -- ranks closer to those imports).

    I agree with their always being able to find something they don't like or deficient or something to use to denounce the whole car. They occasionally will list flaws on preferred brands but those are just individual test sample quirks. As for OHV motors, 98% of drivers don't care what structure a motor has as long as it gets them from A to B.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • humblecoderhumblecoder Member Posts: 125
    Humblecoder, can you please tell us why, in the latest iteration of Consumer Reports, that their testers never once mentioned the following:

    [Stuff about the CTS removed for brevity]


    pmc4, please don't change the subject. You stated in a previous post that the CTS finished last among the other cars tested in the issue. That is false, and there really isn't any rebating that. It finished first among the cars tested this month, and any reader interested in the truth can verify that.

    This make you look like a hypocrite. On the one hand, you are taking CR to task for being purposefully biased against domesitcs (which may or may not be true... I honestly don't know). On the other hand, you are making statements which are indisputably false in order to further your own arguments. That reduces your credibility to zero in my eyes.

    Personally, I am willing to keep an open mind on the overall question of CR's bias. I do find their numerical rating system somewhat confounding, so there is plenty of ammunition that you can use against CR if you are a conspiracy theorist. Yet you stoop to posting an out and out falsehood that is so easily disproven, and you refuse to acknowledge it. Even if the rest of what you have to say has the ring of truth, I really can't take the rest of what you say seriously, since you obviously can't get such a simple fact correct.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    There's a line from Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5 that fits pretty well here also, but you've said it less obtusely than the Bard did.
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Once again, I am sure this video will feed his imagination for inquiry. His penchant for researching all kinds of "stuff" should fuel his interest here as well:

    link title

    Yes, there are bigger and more important injustices in the world.
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    LOL ;)
  • speedjerkspeedjerk Member Posts: 20
    Thank you Jeff. I'm glad you clarified it.
  • 62vetteefp62vetteefp Member Posts: 6,043
    I have no idea why you would post that video on this site. It should be removed as it has nothing to do with the subject. So much dribble.

    PC whatever stated that if CR did not give the CTS a #1 then it for sure showed it's bias. Per the discussion CTS did get #1 so pretty much end of discussion.

    However everyone has bias, and therefore every media, since it is made up of people, has its bias. C&D bias's there beliefs toward vehicles that have crisper handling and therefore a more rougher ride. That is why Accord gets number 1 in mid size testing and Camry comes somewhere hear the bottom. Is Accord a better car than Camry? If you look at sales both Camry and Accord sell about the same. They both have similar features, and reliability in the public perception and quantitative is similar. So C&D is showing their bias. They like the Accord for what it is and dislike the Camry for what it is. Both are great cars. They do what they were engineered to do. Just different markets.

    You see this in every media write up. Even Consumer Reports has their bias but it is that the cars they like are the ones they like. American cars did not used to be designed to what CR liked and the reliability assured that they were not to be recommended. Now that reliability is so much better they will give more recommended buys to domestic products. The domestic products are also changing the ride and handling more toward the asian and european style and it is about time. Of course there are still buyers that would love to have the old Buick ride back but it is gone. Today the Buicks are at one end of the spectrum with ride and handling more like the Camry and Lexus, and Cadillac is at the other end of the spectrum with the CTS which handles/rides more like a BMW. Who would of ever thunk??
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Every human is biased in some way. So opinions of cars from humans are biased. But that's not the issue here. The assertion leveled against CR is that they intentionally adjust their test results to favor brands that they like, specifically, they adjust test results to favor import cars over cars from companies based in the U.S. That is a very serious charge, and I haven't yet seen any evidence to support it. Also consider how hard it would be for an organization to keep this kind of deceit from the general public. All it would take is for one employee (or former employee) or board member to bring the issue to the press. It would require complicity from many people, over a long period of time, to pull off. And making the deceit public would destroy the organization, especially one like CR. So the risk, and penalty, are simply too high for any organization like CR to even think about rigging test results, or reporting false test results to further a secret agenda.
Sign In or Register to comment.