Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
To try and convince themselves that CR is biased and that GM really didn't make crappy cars for years.
If you lie to yourself enough, and then you lie to others enough, eventually you'll believe it yourself, and forget that you made it up in the first place.
Sorry couldn't resist...
I have no idea about it, myself, just know that I didn't care for Prizms or Corollas.
'90's Corollas were worse than average? Who'da thunk it? That was Toyota's "Golden Age" according to many here.
Back when Corollas were in high demand, I even remember CR recommending that readers consider buying Prisms instead as they were essentially the same car and could be obtained at lower prices.
To argue a bias that doesn't really exist.
Name a source (month, year), shouldn't be hard if it's true.
If you register you can read up to 2 articles for free per day on-line. That's what I do.
Unlike many here I have no agenda.
Just playing fact checker since so many (on both sides, for sure) spit out bogus information.
Do they rank the Prizm and Corolla differently as the claim said? No. Corolla also rated poorly from 91-93. Problem spots included exhaust, brakes, and ignition. The Geo had those same issues, too, as one would expect.
Oddly enough I liked the Geo better. Styling was better, and it cost a little less, so it offered better value.
These were economy cars back then and there's no escaping cars built to a cost. I doubt those exhausts were high grade SS, and rust doesn't discriminate between domestic vs. import name plates. :lemon:
As for bias in reviews, check this out, from Consumer Guide:
1998-02 Prizm Review
1998-02 Corolla Review
Clearly biased, as the Corolla scored higher than the Prizm! :P
Actually they were very close, but the Prizm scored one point higher in fuel economy, while the Corolla scored one point higher in steering/braking/handling. Something as simple as different quality tires could make that difference. The Corolla still scored one point higher overall because it got a 5 for value, while the Prizm got a 4. And, I can agree with that. I'm sure a Corolla will easily have more resale value, simply because of the nameplate.
Maybe I just have an Asian phobia! Of course, this is discussing a California-built car, but we can't let facts get in the way of a good obsessive whine.
Consumer Reports is owned by Consumers Union, and they do produce a Buying Guide, and of course CR and other magazines.
Consumer Guide is a totally different company, owned by Publications International Ltd. They are actually competitors.
I really miss the print edition of Consumer Guide. I used to buy one every model year, since 1991. The last one I have is 2008 and then they stopped printing it. I was soooo bummed!
What I liked it how they laid out the information for each model. They would say things like "GT Model adds:" and then list all the additional equipment, plus retail and invoice prices, all in one spot.
CR does not list invoice prices; they have a service you pay for to get that information.
Not if they used a different electrical system.
Different warranty, dealers to service them, etc.
Overall results were similar, remember.
I think the biggest problem is that people simply misunderstand the way CR calculates their reliability data. Cars have gotten so good for the most part these days that there's really a fine line between "much better than average", "better than average", "average", and "worse than average".
In fact, I think in recent years, they started calling "worse than average" "fair" instead.
All too often, someone will buy a car, and it turns out to be a great car, and then when they see CR gave it a so-so or bad rating, they get mad. What they don't realize is that while THEIR particular car may have been great, there might have been enough bad examples of the other several hundred thousand or so to skew the averages a bit south.
And sometimes CR will give a car a bad rating simply because everybody else did better. In their reliability tables, the colored circles for each category such as engine, cooling, paint, interior, rust, etc correlate to what percent of respondents who had problems. But the overall reliability rating at the bottom has nothing to do with percentages. It shows how the car stacked up compared to everything else that year.
If your car happened to be very good, but every other car was absolutely flawless, then your car is still going to get a black mark.
Perhaps earlier models were not built as bulletproof and as similarly.
I can vouch from firsthand experience that the two cars were basically identical twins.
That being said, differences in braking could come from Chevy forgetting to put brake pads on some new vehicles, as has been known to happen :P.
You must have never run into a scam artist or fraudulent person in your lifetime; your lucky.
Some humans just simply like to lie. Sort of like all the executives at GM that said GM would never go bankrupt right up until the very end when Obama had to kick a lot of them to the curb to make any changes happen.
Here's an idea, call for 5 auto insurance quotes from "online brokerages" that check with multiple so-called companies. Chances are you'll run into at least one fraudulent scam artist by doing that; insurance agents are worse than car salesman!
I never said it did. And I mean that "bias" post mainly in jest, as the cars scored virtually identically. 42 versus 43.
Is consumer Digest still around? I remember reading their test of the 1975 domestic compacts and of the Dodge Dart they said it felt more like a well-preserved 1965 car than a brand new model, but as bad as cars were getting, that was actually a good thing!
Wasn't CR in on the Audi unintended acceleration mess, too?
I won't deny insurance groups can be shady, the business is a bit of a racket.
Perhaps they had a large share and position in GM, F, and C stocks?
Perhaps they were on the payroll of one of those manufacturers getting bonuses for spreading rumors about CR biases that don't really exist.
CR has always erred on the side of safety and caution when it comes to safety issues. I wasn't old enough during the Audi fiasco to remember what CR did about it, but if I recall correctly, it was a "fixed/staged" 60 Minutes story that started the hoopla! Probably 60 Minutes' darkest moment.
Geo was interesting but GM was right to abandon it. The idea is to draw in young buyers, but someone who bought a Storm wasn't exactly thinking Lumina when it was time to trade.
Nummi was successful but now GM relies on what used to be Daewoo to design and often build their small cars (Spark, Sonic, Encore).
I was careful not to shoot the messenger and my response was not an attack in any way, just wanted to clarify so everyone understood. :shades:
HowStuffWorks is a good site and they seem to have merged with Consumer Guide, but I still miss the print edition.
I was amazed at the number of comments I read on various forums citing that ordeal as a precedent for the UA issues Toyota went through recently, using it to support their claims that UA had been covered up before by other manufacturers, and that was exactly what Toyota was doing at that moment.
I find it discouraging that, at the same time we have more information readily available at our fingertips than ever before in recorded history, so many are unwilling to spend an extra few seconds to investigate their position before finding out if they even have a basis for that position.
Let's be careful, that's how rumors get started. It wasn't even CR (edit: 60 Minutes, thank you)
CR took 8 Toyotas off their Recommended list, too. So where's the bias?
When the Lexus GS drifted, CR put a huge "Do Not Buy" stamp on it.
Then they test a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which "hopped and skidded sideways", their words, and they call Jeep before writing the final article on that model. Chrysler was given access to their test track, re-tuned the stability control (same fix as Toyota).
Chrysler was emerging from bankruptcy but for certain they got preferential treatment over Toyota.
CR was not the only one to complain about Jeep's handling, the Grand Cherokee also failed the famous moose avoidance test:
Note that the Lexus GX skidded, but didn't lift wheels, so the Jeep's result is far worse. Teknikensvarld was bold enough to conclude:
Don't buy Jeep Grand Cherokee, for you and your family's safety
So, clearly, CR bias was against Toyota.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pswOGMx8Tzo
Funny thing is that's a pretty cool drift. Tires never leave the ground.
It also did not blow out 6 tires like the Jeep did. (actually 7, but Teknikensvarld "only" got 6 on film)
Even the most biased Jeep lover in the world has to admit the Jeep's result is far, far more dangerous.
Where's there's smoke?
"The phenomenon of sudden acceleration has drawn the attention of scientists around the world. Immediately following the Audi 5000 investigation in the US, several studies by various government agencies have tried but failed to resolve the cause of sudden acceleration. The only study to pinpoint a specific defect within the vehicle, "Risk Assessment of Cruise Control," by Mats Gunnerhed, was conducted by the Swedish Defense Research Establishment of the Department of Information Technology. Issued in May of 1988, it concluded that within certain types of cruise control systems "there is a single-point-fault mode that leads to sudden acceleration at high power."
If you don't like the Center for Auto Safety summary, you could probably find some source links.
You mean Lexus GX, right? I don't know if a GS has ever drifted, unless the hooligan son of the bland middle aged CPA primary driver snuck it out at night, once upon a time.
Did CR ever opine about the Toyota acceleration issues?
I don't know why "Driver error" is such a taboo.
"Regarding the 60Minutes "staged" Audi "investigation"...
Makes no difference whether or not something exists, if one has to change and control the conditions of the test to get the desired results, it isn't science, or even junk science.
It's dishonesty.
CR seems to be grouped in whenever people complain about the automotive media, so I have to wonder.
Edit: CR removed 8 Toyotas from their recommended list while NHTSA investigated. They mostly stayed on the side lines but they did make recommendations on what to do if a throttle gets stuck in general.
Brazilionnaire - I wish. I do own some land, a little less after we donated property for a preschool to be built for low income kids.
The school has my grandmother's name. :shades:
* Suzuki Samurai
* Isuzu Tropper and Acura SLX
* Lexus GX
* Fisker Karma (it died on them)
And Jeep got the free pass. So much for hating domestics. Fisker is Danish, IIRC, though his company is technically US based.
Audi ain't domestic anyway.
Or if somebody was a Blind Follower of a brand, and a publication was actually honest about a brand that was consistently poor in reliability and other factors, then said Blind Follower would likely try to discredit such publication, as it would conflict with the Blind Follower's desire to deny any negative facts associated with the worshipped brand. Just sayin'.
I don't know why people think that there can never be design build problems.
Today's example from the Detroit Free Press:
Feds probe Taurus, Sable for stuck throttles.
Wild goose chase. It's just driver error like the toyotas. :P
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That's what I was saying, just more politely. :shades:
And of course millions of customers must be wrong, and the die-hard Blind Followers must be correct! The worshipped brand IS outstanding!
Now, if you'll excuse my, my tongue was so far in my cheek there I think I need a visit to the emergency room. :shades:
I'm OK with design build issues potentially causing a stuck accelerator which potentially causes unintended sudden acceleration. However, when people are asked "Why didn't you just put it in neutral?," they inevitably answer with some bogus made up story along the lines of "I did, and God wouldn't let the car stop with the brakes or go into neutral."
I just wish more Americans would just fess up, take responsibility, and admit they "didn't think of that," and are therefore fully liable for the foul up for lack of due diligence which could have averted 100% of the issue by shifting into neutral or turning off the ignition.
The Vega was guilty of many things, and I read everything possible on them then and through the years, and fires and leaks weren't two of them.
Someone is confusing the Pinto and Vega. Were you there when they were still everywhere on the streets? I was.
The engines would burn oil and overheat, not uncommonly.
It's best to post an opinion as an opinion, and to check more than one source before posting something as hard fact.
You may now reconsider your statements about your opinions and my facts.
Would that apply to traffic tickets and receipts as well?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The Cruze was recalled for a fire hazard, for example. Few fires occurred, but the recall was to make sure it didn't become a big problem. When they are built for seven model years (as the Vega was), in thirty-five years will you think it's logical to say "Cruzes are known for catching on fire?".
Common-sense, man.
The other problem is that an unwillingness to recognize problems exist leads to an unwillingness to fix the problems that one refuses to recognize. Which is what got GM (and others) into such a big hole. Again, if you don't like it, sorry but that's life.
Having had a Vega clone (Astre), I feel pretty "up" on the issues with that model.
Engines burned through oil, overheated and failed, and the bodies instantly turned to rust, especially on the earlier models, but fire hazard?
Don't recall that. The "exploding into flames" cup was won by the Ford Pinto, in minor rear-end collisions, due to Ford's decision to save something like $12-14 a car by relocating the fuel tank after the initial design was accepted.
What do you mean they don't even use that format. They would give short reviews from their tests comparing similar cars, but would find something about the cars of brands they don't like to be deficient. The same quality in the brand they do like would be mitigated in how it was presented in the test summary of the car. One example comes to mind of a coupe with large C pillar and it had poor visibility out the rear. Then the Accord coupe in the same article had the same large C pillar and there was no problem with visibility. DUH.
I just checked today at the library for the latest issue of consumer reports and they had a multi-car evaluation with short summaries of Ford Escape, Acura ILX, Buick Verano, Panamera, Karma, and Infinity JX.
They're still doing the same kind of multiple car comparisons/evaluations.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I always liked the styling, choice of bodystyles, and interior when you opted for the Custom Interior and GT package.
The Chevette that year started at the identical price for the hatchback as the Vega hatchback ($2,895), and I'd have much rather had that year's Vega.
I still don't care for the looks--I like the GMC better. But CR said it wasn't as reliable as an Equinox (LMAO).
Same powertrain, built at same plant by same people, same platform, some different sheetmetal.
As has been said here a zillion times, that most likely had to be sample error, which of course will happen, but CR never mentions that as a possibility.