Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Exactly right. One potential cause of the "bias" in the mpg results is the hard work domestic companies put in to optimize their cars for the EPA test. They get maximum mpgs in the EPA test, but other tests (such as CR's) not following the EPA regimin won't show as high an mpg result. Do I remember correctly a number of years ago GM getting into some hot water over this?
No, there was no hot water for GM. You are remembering incorrectly.
RE: the "magic road." CR's city tests are done on their own test track -- they have quite a bit of space with 327 acres. I think the highway tests are done on real roads, by driving at a constant speed. The overall mileage used to be done on a road loop, mostly if not completely off premises. I'm not sure how it's done now. (I don't read magazines all that much anymore -- the Internet is where I go now.)
My experience with my own cars has been that CU's city mileage is very low, but as I said before, that's not a bad thing. It provides a worst-case scenario, as borne out by mickeyrom's comments.
I'm really not buying your assertion that CU sandbags domestic cars' mpg ratings. If they really wanted to sandbag, it would be a lot easier to do (and hide from the public) by downrating subjective attributes like ride, normal handling, steering feel, and seating comfort.
What no one has mentioned is my earlier comment that GM vehicles tended to get the highest recommendations in most groups of cars tested by CR in the 70s and 80s, certainly in the large and midsize classes where there was little or no Asian competition. Maybe Andre, who is so knowledgeable about cars of these decades, can back me up. So was CR biased in favor of GM back then? I hardly think so.
Plus one thing I've notice is how much more "enthusiastic" and positive the reviewers and editors are now compared to the "good old days." Go pick up an old copy of CR from 30, 40, or 50 years ago (from a university library for instance) and see how dismissive they were of cars back then, because of poor workmanship and the resulting prevalence of what they called "sample defects." Some Chrysler products in the 70s had more than 40 such defects per car -- that is, things gone wrong.
Plus they tended to focus on basic 4-door sedans, oftentimes saying the base 6-cylinder (or 4-cylinder for smaller cars) was good enough for most people. They dissed higher performance engines at nearly every opportunity and strongly advised against the flashier hardtops and convertibles of the day. (Wagons got a pass though, if you needed more space.) They seldom tested anything more expensive than a Cadillac DeVille, and even then, such tests were rare, as practical consumers had no need for such extravagance.
Take this knee-slapper: As it currently stands, Consumer Reports is also deferring the mention of the 2008 CTS's crashworthiness...
Did it ever occur to you that the IIHS press release on the CTS's crash test results came out on January 9, too late to appear in a print publication like CR? You can rest assured the results will be available for the April auto issue however.
Patrick Bedard of C&D made an interesting comment in this regard: Drive like the EPA does and you will get the same numbers!
RE: Post # 369
PMC RESPONDS:
You said it would be hard for C/R to keep this deceit from the public, yet I showed over and over how fraudulent Consumer Reports actually is. For example, I showed many instances where import MPG figures are artifically raised, and the domestics are artificially lowered. The only way C/R can keep their fraud under wraps is to use the same excuse you do: by saying, "We test our cars on our own track, so there's no wonder our numbers wouldn't agree with anyoe elses." That way, they can legally excuse themselves from errant MPG numbers.
I can counter by showing that relative to the EPA, Consumer Reports tested import cars have a higher MPG figure, and that the domestics have a lower MPG figure. Again, their test results on imports and domestics both are relative to the EPA's results. Their imports are higher than the EPA's, and their domestics are the same or lower than the EPA's [in most instances]. I supplied numerical evidence to this fact.
Re-read this most important sentence, because in there resides my assertion that C/R is import-biased.
As for a disgruntled employee reporting fraud at Consumer Reports, how do expect this employee to uncover that fraud? He can talk until he's blue in the face, but his words will go unheeded by just about every consumer activist group. That is, of course, until he comes to Edmunds and proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Consumer Reports is fudging MPG figures by posting the errant MPG figures on this message board. In other words, he'd be reporting C/R's fraud the same way I am.
ME: Then can you please explain why Consumer Reports got higher highway and combined MPG's from the import Highlander relative to the EPA, but got lower highway and combined MPG's from the domestic Enclave relative to the EPA's?
Again, it seems as if their "Magic Road" favors import MPG's somehow.
ME: ...But if a UFO fanatic comes to the internet with a webcam showing him next to Alien, then we'd probably believe him. We have proof now.
You didn't address my question -- why fudge mpg values when it would be easier to fudge subjective characteristics, such as ride, seat comfort, "normal" handling, and steering feel?
You're "proofs" are nothing more than your own strong opinions.
the evidence people were "more forgiving" of flaws? It's just your opinion, IMO.
Why don't you provide evidence that it doesn't happen? In posts on Edmunds someone quoted a research piece that pointed it out.
That's my opinion as well and is based on my observations. I am allowed to have an opinion.
*********
*********
*********
>210delay says:
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.
Errrr, being on the board is pretty direct, isn't it?
Consumer Report's OWN website
States that Nader joined the board on slide #19 or 20.
I was right. :sick:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't agree that people are more forgiving of flaws in "preferred brands" as you put it. Those people loudly complaining about their Toyota or Honda transmissions on these boards are hardly "forgiving," no different from those upset by their GM cracking plastic intake manifolds on the 3.8 L V6.
Also take a look at this new kid on the block and see if the hallowed brands get preferential treatment:
true delta
How you say?
There are 9 Toyotas with enough data to be listed. There are 13 Hondas. There are even 5 Hyundais!!!! There are 9 Mazdas.
However there is not a Pontiac in the bunch. Only 2 Chevies!!!!! Only 2 GMC's!!! Not one Cadillac!!!! Two Saturns. One Buick (numbers may be off slightly).
And the GM models represent at least 25% of the market. Mazda is just a blip in volume. Chevrolet outsells Toyota.
How can this be???
Because it is data from a self selected group of consumers. Does this sound familiar? JD Power sends out surveys to everyone in a scientificly controlled format. CR is guess what, the same as this survey. a self selected group of consumers
Thanks for the link 210, it really puts some light on the subject.
The problem some people have is what is called a convenience survey. It's like checking on what a community would like to see in the way of, oh let's say a new high school, for a community. So to survey them you stand at the local Kroger's store entrance for 8-hours from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and have people fill out a well-worded questionnaire. (Questionnaires aren't all well-worded.) Then you take that as representative of the community's want list for the new high school to be built.
Do we think we'll get a good representation of what the local people want?:
We're getting only surveys of people free to go shopping for food at 8 to 5p.m.
We're getting only those who happen to shop at Kroger's instead of Meijer, Walmart, and others.
We're typically getting more women's opinions than men's.
We're getting women's opinions who are not working women.
We're getting women's opinions who more likely are parents of young kids.
We're getting older people's opinions, often retired and antitax in this area--unless it's social security tax to give them money and benefits or human services taxes.
And we're getting only the opinion of those who agree to fill out the survey. That skews the information even if we're using some algorithm such as asking every tenth adult person who enters the store--which gives a false air of random survey to the process.
This process parallels the CR survey. Perhaps someone would suggest using the local public library for the city to do a survey. Same kind of problems pop up as at Kroger's with some differences
Long ago I was asked to talk to a survey taker at Lowes. They were interested in how golf played in my life. They wanted to know how I viewed sponsoring golf. We can discuss how relevant that info would be: I was a Lowes customer. I was in a Lowes on Sunday, a typical golf on TV day.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But, on TrueDelta for whatever reason, buyers of import brands are more likely to report their experiences than owners of domestic brands. (I'm one of the respondents, reporting on my '04 and '05 Camrys -- not enough data for these to show on the cite yet.) I haven't bothered to sign up for my 1998 Nissan Frontier, because it's pretty clear there will never be enough respondents for a vehicle that old that sold in relatively small numbers.
My advice to domestic car owners is to make yourself heard on TrueDelta -- keep trying imidazol and ask your LeSabre-owning friends! It's quite easy to fill out their survey online -- minimal questions (and only quarterly odometer readings if your car doesn't need repair work, as opposed to normal maintenance).
With regard to JD Power, I've read on these boards that some recipients are so frustrated by the sheer length and detail of their survey that they just toss it. So I wonder what percentage of recipients actually turn in their surveys. More importantly, what percentage fills out ALL of the questions, or worse, just "wings it" toward the end (checking off boxes randomly)? BTW, I've never been selected by JD Power to reply about any of my new car purchases, so I have no knowledge of what the survey asks.
I was sure he had a connection from my memory or I wouldn't have posted. I don't just post opinions or facts for the fun. I sometimes might be wrong (at least my wife thinks so :confuse: ).
>hallowed brands get preferential
You're right that it seems to represent more the people complaining about reliability and problems just like on other elective posting sites like Edmunds. It's been a few weeks since I got a prerelease email to take a look at the data collected but I recall one car model having some negatives there where it usually did not get bad PR from many before.
But every time there's a large angry posting about problems with (any brand) on Edmunds, people point out that it's only a few who are complaining and there are a whole lot of cars out there. I wonder if there are those who are too busy to participate who are satisfied, if there are those who don't know they have problems--they don't realize it's not normal for a car to do something or other, perhaps the service guy said "they all do that" or "it's not a problem."
The demographics of who posts on Edmunds has the same discussions as the convenience survey at Kroger's in my earlier post would have. How meaningful the posts are is up to the reader and car buyer. Where there's smoke there's fire, as far as problems. It's just how much of a blaze there is or are these smoldering ashes and the problem is gone.
It takes a more random surveying technique such as JDPowers does to elicit the information about a car. And I"m sure car makers who buy JD Power's results get full information about the incoming data--not just a listing of numbers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The 2008 Cadillac CTS finished third in Consumer Reports' ranking of
upscale sport sedans announced Monday night.
The Lansing-made CTS received a rating of excellent to vault past the BMW
328i and the redesigned Mercedes-Benz C300, which were rated very good in
the magazine's March issue.
The Infiniti G35 and Acura TL still lead the class of 12 sport sedans
Consumer Reports rated at its auto test center in East Haddam, Conn.
Separately, Consumer Reports tested two trim lines of the new Chevrolet
Malibu, the four-cylinder LT and the V6-powered LTZ, and now ranks the
sedan among the best in its class, just below the Nissan Altima, Honda
Accord and Toyota Camry.
So the reality is the CTS was 3rd of 7 among the tested cars in that particular issue, and 3rd of 12 of all "sports sedans" that have current test results.
However, when a CR (or former CR) employee comes here and provides us wiith FACTS (instead of OPINIONS based on an presumed bias, and based on looking at a few sample data points and ignoring all data from CR that is contrary to the opinions) that show that CR has intentionally falsified test results to foster some hidden agenda of theirs, I will look at those posts.
As someone else stated well, your credibility is zero.
If I recall correctly, in the 1960s Consumer Reports liked the Chrysler offerings in the intermediate and compact classes, and the full-size Fords in the full-size class.
Well into the mid-1970s, the magazine viewed the four-door Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart with the slant six and Torqueflight as the ideal family car, which was certainly a logical choice, as the cars were reliable, easily repaired, roomy, reasonably efficient and offered decent (but not blazing) performance. That sounds suspiciously like a modern-day Camry or Corolla, come to think about it...
Yes, those cars weren't as exciting as, say, a Camaro Z-28 or Hemi-equipped Road Runner, but the simple fact is that most people at that time did not want a Camaro Z-28 or Mopar muscle car. (Too many modern articles and television shows gloss over the fact that muscle car and pony car sales dropped dramatically after 1970, even before the Arab Oil Embargo. That is why so many of those cars are so rare today - they weren't too popular when new.)
In the 1970s, Consumer Reports increasingly rated the GM offerings over their domestic competition, especially in the intermediate and full-size classes. When GM downsized its big cars in 1977, the magazine had nothing but praise for them. So any connection to Ralph Nader aside, it's not as though the magazine has displayed a blind hatred for anything wearing the GM badge.
Up until the early 1970s, Consumer Reports was the main voice complaining about the slipping quality of American (and, truth be known, European) vehicles. They didn't test specially prepared vehicles on loan from the manufacturers (read Jim Wangers' excellent book, Glory Years: When Horsepower and Passion Ruled Detroit, for details on how this worked - GM in general, and Pontiac in particular, did this better than any other manufacturer) that were not quite representative of what Joe and Jane Consumer could expect to receive.
Is the magazine "biased"? Yes, because EVERY publication worth its salt is biased, because bias means that it approaches a vehicle with a definite set of criteria as to what constitutes a "good" vehicle. Car and Driver is biased, so are Motor Trend, Road & Track and even Edmunds.com, because they all have definite criteria, based on a combination of measurements and the personal preferences of the reviewers, as to what constitutes a good vehicle, and what makes one vehicle better than another.
This does not mean that the magazine is biased in favor of certain vehicles or manufacturers. That type of bias occurs, if, say, the Malibu scores higher than a Camry in the tests and proves to be more reliable, yet the magazine still ranks the Camry higher. That kind of bias IS unfair, but so far, I see no evidence of this in the magazine's rankings.
If anything, as domestic vehicles have improved, the magazine has taken notice of these improvements. The real problem is that, when it comes to passenger cars, both GM and Ford have been "phoning it in" for far too long, and the magazine isn't the only one that has noticed this...instead of stoning the messenger for imaginary bias, a more productive route would be to ask the management of GM and Ford why they have treated their passenger cars as the red-headed stepchildren for almost 20 years.
As for the magazine's reliability ratings - I'm sure that there are problems with the survey, but, as the saying goes, "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."
And I never see the complainers offering anything better or more accurate...the usual response is, "My domestic vehicle ran perfectly for 100,000 miles, so the survey results obviously aren't accuate" (which suggests a need to learn the difference between anecdotes and data, however flawed), or "There are 100 posts on a threads about a problem with a foreign nameplate" (never mind that surveys repeatedly show that buyers of foreign nameplates are more internet savvy and more likely to research their vehicles on the internet than domestic buyers, and thus more likely to post on sites such as this).
Interestingly, every independent mechanic I talk to rates Honda and Toyota as number one in reliability, with Ford and GM in second place, followed by the Europeans and Chrysler. They also say that Ford and GM have improved dramatically over the past decade.
The magazine is ONE source, and a valuable one, but I don't buy vehicles solely based on what Consumer Reports says. There is plenty of GOOD information out there. In an ideal world, Consumer Reports would be one source of information, along with sites such as this and maybe an enthusiast magazine or two, but most people don't have enough time (or the interest) to consult all of these sources, so one source will have to do.
Actually, it was 1st among the 4 tested cars in March issue, and 3rd of 12 of all cars in the category that had been tested overall. Close though
Yep, you nailed it! That was a great post.
Notice the cheap finish where the glovebox meets up with the door panel on the passenger side. This is the car that Consumer Reports claimed had "Exemplary fit and finish." Notice the grand canyon that runs down the top of the crooked glove box. Notice the grand canyon where the driver door meets up with the dash. The sloppy upholstery on the seats. The cheap materials used throughout. The mis-matched colors (the light tan A pillar with dark grey upper vynal for the dash cowl, lighter grey below and shinier-hard, flimsy plastic that frames the controls).
Compare this car to the Ford Fusion, for example, where Consumer Reports alledges, "The Fusion has wide interior panel gaps here and there, a mis-matched panel, and occasional cheapness." Below is the Fusioin for comparison's sake:
Notice the well-aligned glovebox. Tasteful use of color coordination. Tight fits all around (although what's not shown is a wide gap where the passenger door meets the dash cowl, but still looks well-aligned). High-grade materials all around (except the radio/AC displays). Well-tailored upholstery.
You will see the same story with every Fusion you pull from the internet, regardless of origin.
I got this off the internet on Page 1. All other images of the Accords' interiors show the same exact sloppy assembly quality, so the image I'm posting is not exclusive.
PMC:
Suppose a former C/R employee comes here showing current C/R mileage test results that are higher than EPA test results for imports, yet lower results than the EPA for the domestic. Would you believe this former employee, if he were to say that C/R's numbers favor imports for this reason?
Yes or no?
.
An excellent post, grbeck. But you fail to mention the criteria for said bias.
Car and Driver is biased toward sportier cars. Motor Trend is biased towards abstract concepts like "penache." Edmund's is biased towards utility and practicality. Road and Track is biased towards handling in their tested cars. Popular Mechanics is biased towards technology in their tested cars.
Consumer Reports is biased towards cars that are import-branded just because they're not American. Not good.
.
I will quote CR.."Chevrolet Malibu is among the top family sedans"
"Caddilac gives it's German rivals a wake up call"
They have the Caddy CTS #3 among Sports Sedans and the Malibu #5 among the Sedans $20,000-$25,000.
Seems fair to me.Maybe it's the constant whinning about the alleged pro-Japanese lean of CR ,they rated the KIA Optima #3 and they are not a Japanese product.Ford Fusion comes in 9th.
Lack of "Popularity" was not the reason. Starting in about year 1971, government smog and emission standards became increasingly tougher year after year reducing HP output and subsequent offerings of high-perf cars by mfrs. Believe that 1975 was about time that standards required catalytic converters on cars. Think that Honda might have been only mfr that did not use converters because of their advanced engine technology. CR probably covered these facts adequately in publications at that time.
The magazine has been under increasing criticism the last few years about their bias. That has prompted some change in their overall evaluations. But the bias still showed in their subtle choice of wording in their reviews of cars to affect the reader's opinion of a vehicle they like less and improve the image of the vehicles which they prefer. It's much like posts here which try to imply that others don't judge CR to be fair simply because CR didn't give preference to the poster's preferred car brand.
The embarrassment CR has had through the years with Avalon downgrade after giving it a thumbs-up early "just because" and the current Camry devaluation when it was a wunderkar early on "just because" should have given it enough embarrassment. There are other stories about the reversals CR has had to make after bad testing methods and lawsuits. The mea culpas haven't dampened the fervor of some for CR's testing results as gospel. Others of us are more analytical.
CR on Wiki--scroll down to lawsuits, but read the whole thing
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I think grbeck summed up the situation nicely in his last post.
BTW, what current truck gets EPA 8/10/9 mpg in city/hwy/combined as you asserted a few posts back (#392)? Heavy duty pickups aren't required to have mpg ratings on their window stickers.
My guess is you made all of those numbers up in that post; you never answered my question as to which makes and models they represented.
I think I'm going to emulate backy and no longer respond to you. "Pride goeth before the fall."
Reading subtle nuances into some of CR's comments is silly IMO; it's the overall rating and recommendation that counts. Their reviews are dry as it is; removing the supposedly slanted comments would only make the prose more boring.
Again see grbeck's post. I'll check Wiki later. Remember that Wiki, while quite useful, is only as accurate as the individuals who post there; it's no Britannica. The description of my own employer had one nasty paragraph in Wiki that was inserted by a disgruntled former employee (which has since been removed).
I'm sure that those improved rankings are just because the magazine wants to cover its bias in favor of imports, and have nothing to do with Ford's implementation of rigorous quality improvement procedures and the company's revamping of production processess in response to customer complaints that were reflected in the survey results.
Notice that you are relying on photos to make a case. Notice that publicity shots do not necessarily reflect what customers buy on the showroom floor. Notice that Consumer Reports gives a rating after reviewing a car purchased at a dealership that is representative of what the average customer can expect to receive.
Catalytic converters were phased in by manufacturers for the 1975 model year, although there were a few holdouts. I remember reading that, in addition to Honda, some Chrysler V-8s (I think it was the 440) and AMC engines did not initially need the converters.
And you are exactly right on that. I was referring to the information about various "errors" CR had made that got them in hot water in the way of lawsuits and other ways it came back. I do not take Wiki as total gospel.
>Camry V6 was recently downrated this year because of persistent transmission problems
And that's right. I think of it as just the Camry, but the 4-cyl are a big part of the sales.
There's a program that shows what's been edited on Wiki and the previous parts. I believe it also shows the IP address for the source of the edits/posts. I believe someone had posted the program links somewhere in relation at edits on Wiki about a politician starting an early run for a high political office. If I find the program I'll post a link.
>Reading subtle nuances into some of CR's comments is
I think I understand what you mean about the text being less useful. But I believe that's where the personal preferences or the corporate preference (I believe that's less likely _now_) come in. I believe I mentioned their complaining about the rear C pillar blocking view on an Avenger (Charger by Chrysler?) but the 08 Accord has a large C pillar, as do many cars, and the photo of the Avenger accented the C pillar which the Accord photo played it down. I will see if I can grab that copy at the library or online.
Having written letters of reference and buried the info in the nuances and in what is not said in the letters, I look at the statements CR makes in their reviews analytically. You are saying I'm analyzing them too much.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Avenger has narrow side windows, a low roofline and a small back window compared to the Accord (or the Malibu, for that matter - which gives the Malibu a nice, airy interior and a better view out the back). All of which can accentuate the width of the C-pillar, especially from the driver's seat.
I can't shake the feeling that someone has a huge toungue in his cheek about all of this, but then I think, "No, he really believes all this stuff!" Simply amazing.
1975 was first year, not last, for catlytic converters.
CTS, BMW 328i, MB C300, Saab 9-3
CR on Wiki--scroll down to lawsuits, but read the whole thing
Well, I read the Wikipedia article in its entirety, and I see no smoking gun. Yes, they botched a few test projects over the years, most notably the child car seat testing about a year ago, but in all cases, they 'fessed up and made, where possible, the necessary revisions.
As for the lawsuits, CU never lost one for product disparagement, although in the Suzuki Samurai rollover case, the 2 parties did agree to settle (agreeing to disagree, basically) with no money changing hands. The vehicle though was notorious for real-world rollover crashes, right up there with the infamous Jeep CJ and Ford Bronco II, not in raw numbers because sales success was brief, but rather in terms of frequency with respect to the numbers on the road. The Trooper also exhibited a tendency to roll in their handling tests, and despite assertions to the contrary by the Wiki author, other SUVs were tested in a comparable manner.
About that Sharper Image Ionic Breeze Quadra, anyone with half a brain would realize this expensive little number couldn't possibly purify a room -- it's basically just a cylinder with no fans that somehow magically clears the air of all manner of nasty substances. (I saw the ads on the late-night news repeatedly.) How could the product rate other than a Poor?
Then there's Bose -- talk about a frivolous lawsuit!
I'm not all bent out of shape because the latest Camry came in 5th out of 7 in a test of midsize sedans by Car and Driver. It went down because of the usual criticism -- distinctly unsporty handling.
CR has had to change, downgrade, and upgrade different ratings on a few cars over the years. However, with decades of history and track record, noting a few changes and modifications doesn't mean that CR's system is flawed or inaccurate. It might show that CR is not perfect, but it also shows they are pretty close to perfect when all you can point out is a few models from a couple of years here and there throughout the entire century!
"Caddilac gives it's German rivals a wake up call"
They have the Caddy CTS #3 among Sports Sedans and the Malibu #5 among the Sedans $20,000-$25,000."
First off, Kia is an import and #3, so Consumer Reports is keeping in-line in ensuring imports (whether Japanese or other) are higher on their ratings.
Secondly, the 2008 Cadillac CTS should have been rated #1. Instead, the Acura TL which is just an obsolete Honda Accord wearing Groucho Marx noseglasses beats the 2008 CTS.
Let me get this straight: A front wheel Accord with an old V6 engine from the 1990's and a clunky 5-speed transmission beats the illustrious CTS? A car with sloppy craftsmanship (see illustration below), high levels of road noise and handling characteristics that define the family sedan market beats the car that won M/T's COTY, Car and Driver's 10-Best, P/M's COTY, and about four other industry awards? A car with the industry's most advanced direct-injection VVT V6 and a transmission that's so good it's used across BMW's entire line of cars equipped with the 3,300 V6 (BMW uses GM's Hydramatic auto transmissions in every one of their V6 cars)? A car with among the lowest noise levels at WOT and at 70 MPH cruise? A car with a sound system that easily beats most home entertainment systems in sound quality?
YEP!
Why?
Because the higher-rated car is an import, that's why.
This is the interior of the car that beat the 2008 CTS. Notice the near identical layout to the Honda Accord. Likewise, notice the cheap assembly quality that carries over from the Accord; specifically, the Grand Canyon that runs over the top of the hastily-assembled glovebox. Notice the leather on the driver's seat surface -- it's poorly stitched. Unacceptable in a car in the entry-level segment.
YOU THINK CONSUMER REPORTS WAS KIND TO THE 2008 CTS? I THINK THAT, ONCE AGAIN, IT SHOWS THEIR ALLEGIENCE TO THE IMPORT BY HAVING THE CTS RATE LOWER THAN SUCH A SUB-PAR AUTOMOBILE!!!
I simply posted these arbitrary numbers to show how C/R rates MPG's! Didn't I make this clear in my follow-on post? (post #393)