Please allow me to staigten out the ones trying top misinform. please
and to the tune of a $38,000,000,000 loss in 2007.
GM took a tax special charge in 2007 to the "tune" of $38,300,000,000. The losses at GMAC also made up a huge loss just like every other lender in the US. GM auto operations are doing much better even though they do have a good ways to go.
GM stock rose significantly after the news came out today.
This post begs the question: Did you really read my post?
I mean common...who are you kidding? Anyone with any automotive engineering background will concur that the NSX was well before its time and much what the C6 has to offer (besides shear speed), was done by Honda 15 years earlier. You cannot fool statistics and documentation pcm4. In fact, the only person you are really fooling is you. I don't like how you take my point and try to switch it around to mean something else.
I am not in denial that the newer ZO6 outperforms the older NSX. That was NEVER my point. My point is much of the design, materials, and technology incorporated by the ZO6 was done prior by the NSX.
Take for example its:
1. Aluminum Unit-Body Construction 2. Cabin-Forward/Long-Tail Design 3. VTEC System 4. Variable Volume Induction System 5. Direct Ignition 6. Titanium Valves and Connecting Rods 7. All-new compact, lightweight, close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission 8. Formula One-inspired SportShift system for automatic transmission models 9. Torque Control Differential and Torque Reactive Differential 10. All-aluminum 4-wheel double-wishbone suspension 11. Four-Channel Anti-Lock Braking; System (ABS) First use in U.S. 12. Traction Control System - Enhances performance over wide range of conditions rather than just low friction surfaces - System can be shut off manually by driver - Drive-by-wire throttle control enhances TCS deceleration stability 13. Electric Power-Assisted Steering First of its kind on American market 14. Drive-By-Wire Electronic Throttle System 15. Aluminum Seat Frame First for a production car - Entire seat frame made of lightweight stamped aluminum - Has one-third fewer parts than steel seat
I mean, yes, the ZO6 is faster, quicker around the track, but it is not engineered to a higher standard. That was my point! And that the NSX is 15 years old than the C6 ZO6 is completely "pathetic" on GM's part.
From an engineering standpoint, horsepower per liter does mean something. It implies efficiency. Efficiency comes via technology. The valve train and induction system in the NSX is hyper years over the push rod design in the Vette. If GM were to utilize VTEC, DOHC and other technology used by Honda, the LS7 would sing to the tune of 700hp without forced induction. But it does NOT! In fact Bob Lutz stated the LS7 was close to its limits and in order for GM to extract more, forced induction was a necessity.
It's over. Future off-topic posts will be removed. There's a perfectly good link in my post leading to half a dozen more appropriate topics.
(Side note: so will personally-directed posts - reading comprehension skills of other members is not one of our Forums topics)
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I have wondered about Consumer Reports and their methods. Brand name does seem to matter to them. :shades: And the reports from owners is like this: owners of certain brands think those are superior brands, so tend to embellish the virtues of what they have bought to show how smart they are. IMHO.
Brand names do matter to Consumer Reports! If the car is import-branded, it gets rated unusually high with positive comments about the qualities of a car where those qualities don't actually exist (superior fit and finish and high-quality in Honda, toyota and BMW products), gets unrealistically optimistic gas mileage figures (Virtually all imports tested by Consumer Reports exceed the EPA's estimate in gas mileage returns; sometimes grossly exceeding them) and unproven recommendations (Toyota products getting recommended before the Toyota product is even released). If the car is domestic-branded, it gets rated unfairly low, with negative comments about flaws with the car where the flaws are fancied rather than real (2008 Ford Taurus has "wide interior panel gaps"; 2008 CTS has a sharp center stack that someone can cut their hand on, etc), gets unrealistically low gas mileage figures in their 'in-home' gas mileage tests (virtually all domestics tested by Consumer Reports meet the EPA's ratings; sometimes scoring even lower MPG returns on their tested domestics), and no unproven recommendations, despite the fact that some domestics are rebadged imports (Pontiac Vibe; Ford Fusion).
About customer satasfaction, it remains true that Honda owners have a traditionally high level of satasfaction with their Honda's. But bear in mind, this is due to political reasons -- Honda owners are usually politically liberal, preferring to buy a car that meets a political agenda where the environment is concerned. No where do we see this more flagrantly than with the Toyota Prius. Although the Prius is a Toyota and not a Honda, it's still an import. And Prius owners love their import! So much so, that the Prius has the highest level of satasfaction than any other car, including the Chevrolet Corvette. Why is that? Could it be the Prius's sexy sheetmetal? It's rip-roaring performance? It's Formula-1 handling? No, no and no. Prius owners love their Prius the same reason why Honda owners love their Honda's: Their car makes a political statement, that's why.
Consumer Reports has a stance on imports and so do I. Personally, I like imports. Specifically, the Acura RL. What's of interest to note, is that the only Acura that's actually an Acura that's not an Accord wearing Groucho Marx noseglasses is also the only one Consumer Reports doesn't like. Why is that? Why is it that the only real sports sedan in Honda's stable that has AWD (not FWD like the TL or other Accord variants), a beautiful cockpit, quiet, luxurious ride (not a noisy, bumpy ride like the Accord TL) and tons of technology that almost sends it into 2008 CTS territory isn't liked by Consumer Reports? I also like the Honda S2000. Except the engine. The engine at it's rev limit doesn't scream, it cries.It pollutes the air with Los Angeles levels of particulates. And while it doesn't necessarily haul [non-permissible content removed], it does suck gas. I like virtually every Lexus product, especially the LS models. Here, Consumer Reports and I agree. The only automobile manufacturer capable of bringing to market a sedan as refined and as technologically advanced as the LS460 would be General Motors. Recent federal fuel laws are crushing GM's dreams of creating a Cadillac 'supersedan', however. I like the almost 'Hummer'-like two-tiered dashboard of the new Toyota Tundra 1/2 ton (but I still like the Silvarado slightly more, if for no other reason than a high-grade, opulent interior).
As for German cars, I can't relly think of any that I particularly like. Chris Bangle of BMW Group did a wonderful job designing the exteriors, but a horrendous job on the cheap, unattractive interiors. I can't see the appeal in any VW model. I can't see the appeal in any Mercedes Benz model, except for the AMG-tuned units that are unusually inexpensive for the levels of performance delivered. Audi is OK, I guess...
But bear in mind, this is due to political reasons -- Honda owners are usually politically liberal, preferring to buy a car that meets a political agenda where the environment is concerned.
"usually" - Show your facts, data, sources to corroborate that statement.
About customer satasfaction, it remains true that Honda owners have a traditionally high level of satasfaction with their Honda's. But bear in mind, this is due to political reasons -- Honda owners are usually politically liberal, preferring to buy a car that meets a political agenda where the environment is concerned. No where do we see this more flagrantly than with the Toyota Prius. Although the Prius is a Toyota and not a Honda, it's still an import. And Prius owners love their import! So much so, that the Prius has the highest level of satasfaction than any other car, including the Chevrolet Corvette. Why is that? Could it be the Prius's sexy sheetmetal? It's rip-roaring performance? It's Formula-1 handling? No, no and no. Prius owners love their Prius the same reason why Honda owners love their Honda's: Their car makes a political statement, that's why.
I nearly spit soda out my nose after reading this paragraph. It's not as hilarious as your "manual transmission" comment a few days ago, but it is pretty darn close!!
The real answer to CR's treatment of U.S. automakers is that CR is controlled by aliens from the Andromeda galaxy, who are trying to take over the Earth so that they can mine it for its resources. Preposterous, you say? Not at all. Here is my proof. the Andromedans have been studying Earth using orbiting probes (cloaked from our radar and telescopes) for many years. They realize that the U.S. is the world's most powerful country with the largest economy. Thus their plan is to first bring down the U.S. economy, then take on the world's lesser economies until the nations of the world are weakened and in no condition to counter an attack from the Andromedan fleet. They are attacking the most important industries in the U.S. right now: banking, construction, and of course the automotive industry. You only need to look at today's papers to see the evidence of this strategy being played out. What else could account for it but a coordinated assault from aliens?
As for CR, they were infiltrated many years ago by a few aliens posing as humans. They became members of CR's board and over time steered CR to its present course of bringing down the U.S. auto industry to prepare for invasion. The "cover story" used internally at CR by the aliens is that CR must punish the U.S. automakers for the shoddy quality of their cars, and reward the foreign automakers for their superior quality. Most CR staffers, all flaming liberals as we all know, bought into this ruse. Those few CR staffers who stumbled upon the real plot mysteriously disappeared, without a trace (disintegration beams no doubt).
More proof of the Andromedan infiltration of CR is that they have used their superior, alien technology to further their designs. For example, they have used a small, undectectable device for many years in their road tests. This device senses the brand of car and automatically adjusts the fuel economy up for import cars and down for U.S. cars. It's clear this kind of technology is beyond our science, so it must come from aliens.
So there you have it, the TRUE story about CR. I know I may get zapped by an Andromedan particle weapon for making this post, but I don't care--someone has to do something to stop them, before it's too late for all of us.
One more warning: "Barack" happens to be the most popular first name for Andromedan males! Beware!!
Now I know why I gave up drinking beer with friends and chasing hot women at the local pub tonight to sit in and absorb the witty commentary provided by the CarSpace Automotive Forums. LMAO This is better than any typo!
OK, so we know that Ralph Nader runs Consumer Reports and he does act a little weird. So, you're suggesting that Nader is an Alien? Preposterous! If he were an Alien, however, it would make sense seeing as how the company he runs -- Consumer Reports -- has an anti-American and radical agenda of trying to destroy the stalwarts of American automobile industry (and, following that, any great human enterprise or endeavor as a whole) by publishing grossly misleading MPG figures for import cars... :P
Don't know which of the leaders at CR are aliens, but Ralph Nader has no involvement in running CR, so whether or not he's an alien is a moot point to this discussion, as is Ralph Nader in general.
I really don't think that suggesting CR is controlled by aliens is any more preposterous than other theories stated here recently, such as:
This organisation is deliberately attacking and is bent on destroying the American auto industry because of some board members who has a grudge about a misplaced gas tank on a Ford truck that was made in like 1974.
Yes, I think the alien invasion theory is every bit as reasonable as that one. Mulder and Scully would back me up on that I'm sure.
is their vehicle owner satisfaction percentage, which basically tracks how many people in percentage of total owners are actually happy and fully satisfied with their vehicles.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
OK, we know the following facts: 1. Ralph Nader has always had a grudge toward the American automobile industry. Like his sucessful bid to prevent Al Gore from being the President in 2000, his grudge is not a real grudge, but a means to make him wealthy (he knew that if the Republican Party paid him enough money to run for President in 2000, that the 4% of the votes that went to him were votes that would have gone to Al Gore. Thus, he ran for President because of greed, knowing full well that his running would have witheld the presidency to Al Gore. Does this man stop at anything for fame, greed and power? Is there no shame in his game?). Insolong as Nader can fool the various consumer activist groups, he can ride his slightly psychotic wave of fame and greed. Even if it means wrongfully denying the Right Man the presidency. 2. Consumer Reports begged Nader to join Consumer Reports Board after Nader published Unsafe at any Speed. Nader accepted the offer extended to him.
Therefore, we already have two facts illustrating a motive why Consumer Reports would be against the American automotive industry.
We have more facts. 3. It's a well-known fact that domestic manufacturers rule the gas-guzzling V8 truck segment. It's also a well-known fact that the import nameplates do not. Since gas-guzzlers are indifferent to the environment, and since Consumer Reports are political/environmental activists (Consumer Reports begging Ralph Nader to join their Board proves this -- we have one political activist group begging another political activist to run the former's company), we already have a motive why Consumer Reports would be against the domestic manufacturer, due to the domestic manufacturer's unrelenting sales of gas-guzzling trucks.
Therefore, I am not too far off the mark in suggesting that Consumer Reports fraudulently misrepresents mileage figures for the import and domestic cars they test -- I'm not too far off the mark in showing that this misrepresentation is due soley because of high truck sales for the domestics and low truck sales and a general absense of gas-guzzling trucks for the imports.
It's a free country, and any Consumer Union can misrepresent products they test even if it borders on the illegal, but to do so just to push a political agenda is a real bummer for the consumer, because many consumers may believe Consumer Report's fraudulent claims, thus making the consumer less likely to buy the domestic product. The only winner in all this is Consumer Reports, since they sucessfully draw people away from the "greedy capitalist pigs polluting the atmosphere" at General Motors. The consumer loses, because the domestic product really is the better product.
Backy, do you have any explination that can explain why Consumer Reports fraudulently misrepresents MPG figures? Or why Consumer Reports makes false claims about the domestic cars' poor quality, and false claims about the imports' high quality? My only explination is shown above in this message body.
"Yes, I think the alien invasion theory is every bit as reasonable as that one. Mulder and Scully would back me up on that I'm sure."
I don't think so. Mulder and Scully have more important things to do...
"is their vehicle owner satisfaction percentage, which basically tracks how many people in percentage of total owners are actually happy and fully satisfied with their vehicles."
Backy, do you have any explanation that can explain why Consumer Reports fraudulently misrepresents MPG figures? Or why Consumer Reports makes false claims about the domestic cars' poor quality, and false claims about the imports' high quality?
Um, no, I don't. Why would I have explanations for unproven accusations like that?
Do you know when Unsafe at Any Speed was published? Do you know when Ralph Nader left CU's board? Any idea? Do you know anything about the history and direction of CU after Nader left? It appears you don't have a clue.
Also, do you know that non-U.S. manufacturers make gas-guzzling, V8 trucks and SUVs? (Hint: Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, Kia...) So supposing CU has some kind of vendetta against companies that make V8 trucks (another assertion to which you've provided no proof), why would they spare the likes of Toyota and Nissan?
And you still haven't answered the #1 question, which I posed a long time ago and you conveniently ignored: if CU is in fact, as you suggest, fraudulently misrepresenting fuel economy figures for the import and domestic cars they test, why do their test results show some cars from U.S. automakers exceeding the EPA numbers, and some cars from foreign automakers doing worse than the EPA numbers? Do you actually have any proof of this accusation, or is it just like all of your other accusations here: personal opinions based on what you think about CU and the people who run it, or have run it a long time ago?
And, how does CU benefit from destroying the U.S. auto industry? Can you explain that one?
I just wish that you'd admit that you've been pulling our collective legs all along, so we can maybe discuss something that has some basis in reality.
That must be why CR is touting the rise of the American automobile again, and pointing out the problems with Toyota and other imports. Anyone truly familiar with the CR publication would not make the many factual mistakes shown in the pmc4 post.
I have been reading CR and many other auto publishers for 50 years now. Much of that time was also spent in the auto repair business where CR's car owners observations were seen, and repaired daily. I also witnessed the once fine American auto industry turn itself into junk as the imports ran circles around us. The tide may be turning again, but time is short.
You've been "in the business for 50 years now" and have seen many repairs... Please keep in mind that I do not dispute Consumer Report's reliability surveys; I'm confident enough that they're accurate enough to rely upon. But I haven't been discussing reliability over these past few weeks, now have I? I've been discussing misrepresentations made by Consumer Reports regarding their rating discrepancies between import cars and domestic cars.
And the tide isn't turning, as you suggest. If it were turning, the 2008 Cadillac CTS would rank above a Honda Accord variant and the Buick Lucerne V8 would rank above the Toyota Avalon. That, in addition to around ten other domestic vehicles that rightly belong higher on the list than where they currently stand, and about 15 import vehicles that should be substantially lower.
Why are you asking me Q's about the history of Nader and Consumer Reports? Then cap it off with "You apparently haven't a clue, do you?" Why?
"Um, no, I don't. Why would I have explanations for unproven accusations like that?"
OK, here's a more specific "accusation" : Consumer Reports tests both the Buick Enclave and the Toyota Highlander three Months ago. By Consumer Report's own admission, their MPG result on the domestic was equal to and lower than the EPA's result. The MPG result on the import was equal and higher than the EPA's result. Why the discrepancy? By Consumer Report's own admission, the import had vague steering, compromises in fit and finish, handling that was marginal, at best and they reported road noise in the import. The domestic had "predictable, secure handling", almost no interior noise whatsoever, no significant defects in workmanship and steering that was "well-weighted, with excellent on-center feel." The imported Highlander, however, currently rates as #1, and the domestic Enclave rates as #6. Why the discrepancy?
This is just one example of about 20 examples I posted previously but feel compelled to resurrect them, since I now have to provide the specific instances of Consumer Report's fraudulence so that you may provide us specific responses as to how I may be misinterpreting what I'm reading in Consumer Reports.
I am submitting my first example here, and we all eagerly await your explination why Consumer Reports rated the domestic lower in this instance and why the MPG numbers deviate so significantly in the domestic in this instance. Why the discrepancies?
By Consumer Report's own admission, their MPG result on the domestic was equal to and lower than the EPA's result. The MPG result on the import was equal and higher than the EPA's result. Why the discrepancy?
Because they are two different vehicles.
You're right, Mulder and Scully have better things to do. So do I, other than pointing out painfully obvious (to the rest of the world) facts like that.
Also, it is impossible that CR reported "almost no interior noise whatsoever" in the Enclave. CR would never make a statement like that, nor would any professional automotive review, because it cannot be true using today's automotive technology. Just as CR never said, but you told us they said, that the edges on the CTS' center console are so sharp that they can cut someone's hand. I know that isn't true because I read the CTS review in CR just yesterday--no mention of cutting someone's hand with the center console.
By continuing to toss out mistruths like these as if they were fact, you discredit any shred of credibility (infintisimal though it may be) you might otherwise have. You come across only as someone who has a grudge against CR because it doesn't view the automotive world the same way you do, so you will stoop at nothing to hurl baseless accusations at them to "prove" to the world that you are right and CR is wrong, because they have the unmitigated gall to rank a "taxicab" (your term) like the BMW 3 Series over your beloved CTS. Well, you'd better start coming up with your smear campaign for C/D too, because they also ranked that "taxicab" over the CTS. Have you checked to see if Ralph Nader ever held any leadership position in C/D, even as far back as 30+ years ago (as he did with CU)? You never know, maybe he was responsible for turning C/D against the U.S. auto industry too! Better go research that so you can educate all of us on that insidious plot. We'll wait. No rush. Next year sometime is fine for a report.
hypnosis44: I have been reading CR and many other auto publishers for 50 years now. Much of that time was also spent in the auto repair business where CR's car owners observations were seen, and repaired daily.
Just out of curiosity, since you have firsthand experience, how do the domestic three (GM, Ford and Chrysler) now rank against each other in reliability and build quality, and is one (or more) of them really closing the gap with the best of the foreign nameplates?
And - again out of curiosity, as it has no real bearing on the present discussion - how did they rank relative to each other during the 1960s, and then during the 1970s?
(Associated Press) "Consumer Reports, American Red Cross, AARP, Nature Conservancy, and US Chamber of Commerce are the Most Trusted of 16 Beltway Groups. Moveon.org, American Enterprise Institute, the ACLU, NRA and AFL-CIO are the Least Trusted
Among all adults who are familiar with them, Consumer Reports, The American Red Cross, AARP, the Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are the most trusted among 16 large organizations that influence politics and business in Washington. Moveon.org, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the ACLU, the NRA and the AFL-CIO are the least trusted. However, even these organizations are trusted "a great deal" or "a fair amount" by 45 percent or more of all adults." (PMC shudders profusely...)
In fact, CR was the organization named in the poll that is MOST trusted, by 91% of respondees. (The shuddering increases to near fever-pitch??)
"This survey focused on 16 organizations that have considerable influence on public policy, business and are frequently covered by the media."
The funny thing about the poll is, Consumer Reports isn't an organization! The organization behind Consumer Reports is Consumers Union. Probably so few people realize that, they had to use "Consumer Reports" in the poll or the recognition factor would have been much lower.
I asked you why Consumer Reports came up with MPG figures that were higher on the import and lower on the domestic, relative to the EPA's MPG figures for those two cars. You said, "Because they're two different vehicles." That answer is about as scientific as the Intelligent Design theory saying a giant cow made the Universe with an enormous magic wand. Correct and nearly as breif would be, "Because they're two different vehicles. The first vehicle is an import. With Consumer Reports testing methodology imports usually score higher relative to the EPA and the other vehicle is a domestic and domestics usually score lower than the EPA in Consumer Reports testing." From that perspective (a very good one, I might add), we can thus try to find out why Consumer Reports scores imports higher and domestics lower relative to the EPA.
Backy says, "Also, it is impossible that CR reported "almost no interior noise whatsoever" in the Enclave. CR would never make a statement like that, nor would any professional automotive review..."
The professional automotive review says, "The noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) levels are so low as to be astounding — there is virtually no tire noise from the Michelins. Driving the CX, I was able to pick up some slight tread noise, but in both models, the cabin is quiet and calm, the only sound of note is the healthy rumble of the 3.6 when the throttle is opened wide." And here's the source: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=5369
Yes, Backy, I shuddered to think that 91% of the respondents actually believe Consumer Reports is trustworthy! I can understand why -- their reliability surveys really are unbiased -- but if people actually knew the truth and did their homework that I'm doing, then they would shudder, too. I mean, 91%! I'm telling you! There are a lot of dumb people in this country! Over 70% of the voters actually approved of the job GWB was doing in 2004 and now a whopping 91% of these people actually think Consumer Reports is trustworthy! The stupidity in this country is utterly breathtaking (but takes my breath away in a bad way not a good way)!!! (PMC shutters once again...)
And yes, Consumer Reports is an organisation. What do you think the .org stands for?
I'm not sure why you decided to provide yet another example where you have mis-stated the facts to further your agenda, but there you go. Read the quote you provided (I'm assuming it's accurate) and tell us where it says anything about "almost no interior noise whatsoever." I see something specific about tire noise being very low (except in the CX--which is a type of Enclave, right?--where there is slight tread noise--which is different from no noise whatsoever), and talk of the cabin being quiet and calm (but not "almost no noise whatsoever"), and then some talk of the sound, actually a "healthy rumble" (the direct opposite of "no noise whatsoever") of the engine.
I'm sorry you can't fathom that two different vehicles, which are engineered by two different companies, have two totally different powertrains, etc., could have different fuel economy characteristics.
Correct and nearly as breif [sic] would be, "Because they're two different vehicles. The first vehicle is an import. With Consumer Reports testing methodology imports usually score higher relative to the EPA and the other vehicle is a domestic and domestics usually score lower than the EPA in Consumer Reports testing."
You have provided no evidence, in all of your posts on this topic, to back this statement up. All you have provided is a few examples where CR reported lower-than EPA fuel economy on a car from a U.S. automaker and higher-than-EPA fuel economy on a car from a foreign automaker. If you'll recall, I provided some examples that were the opposite. To prove your statement, what you need to do is demonstrate that USUALLY--meaning commonly or habitually--your assertion is true. A few examples doesn't cut it. I can toss out a few examples, too.
And yes, Consumer Reports is an organisation. What do you think the .org stands for?
Here's what .org stands for:
A top level domain denoting an abbreviation for non-profit institutions and organizations although anyone may register a .ORG domain name. www.domainhandbook.com/glossn-z.html
Or how about this, from p. 94 in Consumer Reports magazine's April 2007 issue:
About CU: Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, accepts no corporate support, free samples, or advertising. ...
Also, as you may know, there are no regulations about what an organization puts in front of ".org". So maybe Consumers Union decided to put its most well-known "brand name" on its Web site.
The devil is in the details rather than the media-related summary.
CR (CU for purists) is trusted a great deal by 45% and a fair amount by 46%. AARP is trusted a great deal by 29% and a fair amount by 54%. Looking at the numbers that way makes the CR look a lot better. I was worried in the inital value that many people are still flim-flammed by AARP's PR efforts. They're in business for the money. CR has a much better public image, whether you feel they do or don't, based on the actual usable numbers.
I can't believe I'm reading this. I'm further baffled why you haven't been banned from using this forum, since the Moderators here have promised increased policing of this forum if personal insults start flying (eg, "It appears you don't have a clue.") Wait, I do believe I'm reading this, since you must be an employee, directly or indirectly, with Consumer Reports. Are you? If you weren't, you would have stopped posting here long ago like everyone else. If you aren't an employee, is there a reason you continue to post? The reason I ask is because of comments like this from you:
"Also, it is impossible that CR reported "almost no interior noise whatsoever" in the Enclave. CR would never make a statement like that, nor would any professional automotive review, because it cannot be true using today's automotive technology."
Then, when I countered that nonsense with this,:
"The professional automotive review says, "The noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) levels are so low as to be astounding — there is virtually no tire noise from the Michelins. Driving the CX, I was able to pick up some slight tread noise, but in both models, the cabin is quiet and calm, the only sound of note is the healthy rumble of the 3.6 when the throttle is opened wide." And here's the source: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=5369"
Which is Road and Track effectively saying the Enclave has almost no interior noise whatsoever. In response, you post this:
"Read the quote you provided and tell us where it says anything about "almost no interior noise whatsoever." I see something specific about tire noise being very low (except in the CX--which is a type of Enclave, right?--where there is slight tread noise--which is different from no noise whatsoever), and talk of the cabin being quiet and calm (but not "almost no noise whatsoever"), and then some talk of the sound, actually a "healthy rumble" (the direct opposite of "no noise whatsoever") of the engine [at wide open throttle]."
I said that Consumer Reports remarked on the quietness in the Enclave by paraphrasing their rating as saying the "Enclave has almost no noise level whatsoever" (this is further substantiated by Consumer Reports giving the Buick Enclave a bright-red Doughnut for interior noise levels). You claimed that what I was saying was "misrepresenting of any professional automotive journalist." I then posted a link from Road and Track where they effectively say the Enclave has almost no noise whatsoever, and again you claim I'm misreading the Road and Track review somehow.
I ask a reader reading this: I said that Consumer Reports and Road and Track are effectively saying the Buick Enclave has almost no interior noise whatsoever. You may not have the CR review here, but you do have the Road and Track review. Would you agree with me that Road and Track is effectively saying the Enclave has almost no interior noise? CR gave the Enclave a bright-red Donughnut. Would you also agree that CR is effectively telling us the same thing?
Backy, this conduct of posting messages that confuse or otherwise bore readers is leading me to believe that you're an employee of Consumer Reports. Are you, Backy? Just wondering. The reason why I ask is this conduct of yours seems planned to the extent that these debates are driving other participants from this specific message board. If this is so, the next question is naturally this: Why would you want to deliberately convolute a message board just to drive readership and participation away, especially when that message board is presenting clear evidence of import bias at Consumer Reports?
I have no answer other than you are an employee of Consumer Reports or a related organisation. Are you, Backy? You aren't obligated to answer this question.
Note to Moderators: I'm asking Backy a legitimate question. A Private Message feature is not available.
I shuddered to think that 91% of the respondents actually believe Consumer Reports is trustworthy!
I'm telling you! There are a lot of dumb people in this country! Over 70% of the voters actually approved of the job GWB was doing in 2004 and now a whopping 91% of these people actually think Consumer Reports is trustworthy!
People following/not following CR info have been rewarded/burned. I have used CR for many years and have found to be reliable. When I have not heeded their advice, I have paid the price. And, GWB and his admin has kept this country safe in spite of leakers giving away secrets to enemies.
Want to look for stupidity, look at Obamamania. No track record of noteworthy accomplishments except voting "present" 120 times yet sheepiles blindly cheer, have hopes of getting handouts from govt.
And playing it safe with Consumer Report's reliability surveys is what has misled millions of people into believing that this company has integrity. Think about it. By recommending a car that a survey participant had few problems with, they distannce themselves from liabilities associated with their highly biased "ratings". In other words, "Consumer Reports recommended the car and they were right. I had no problems with this car whatsoever. For this personal reason, I trust Consumer Reports." But who, exactly, are you trusting? Who was it that recommended the car you purchased in the first place? The thoughtless person would say, "Consumer Reports, because that's where I read about the car in." But it wasn't Consumer Reports who really recommended the car to you in the first place, now was it? Of course it wasn't. It was the survey participant who sent his survey result in to Consumer Reports that recommended the car for you. Consumer Reporrts was just the medium that that survey participant's recommendation was printed in, that's all.
And I think this is the crux of the Consumer Report's dillema -- they are taking truly unbiased, objective data from survey participants who have no personal interest or connection with Consumer Reports and mixing this data in with their own highly import-biased data to generate a Recommendation. Not good, because consumers confuse the two -- the unbiased reliability survey and very biased ratings.
CR reports the facts as they are in all of their glory. They don't embellish or alter the truth, and they give it to you straight. Some might say they give it to you dry.
They have no bias one way or another, except to well performing vehicles that don't cost too much and present great value. Good cars score well. Bad cars score poorly. It's quite simple really!
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
This was copied from Post 9901 in Mid-Sized Sedans 2.0:
(start) I noticed a while back that there is something fishy woth J.D. Power ratings. In my estimation the initial quality of their rankings is worthy of about 1 dot, and not worth the time (wasted) it takes to bother looking at them.
I think this is an offensive and unfair statement that borders on defamation of the organization’s integrity and character. Perhaps you have not perused the J.D. Power questionnaire. If you did you would not have made this malicious remark. It is a well constructed and nuanced instrument that captures almost every aspect of the ownership experience. (end)
Offensive? Malicious? It was a personal opinion that the JD Power rankings are not of much value to that individual. How is that offensive or malicious?
I think there's some curious results in the latest JD Power IQS ratings also, for example, the fact that the Fusion had the highest possible score for overall quality (5) while the Milan, basically the same car as the Fusion but with some trim differences, and built side by side in the same factory, got only a 3. Can you explain how JD Power's "well constructed and nuanced instrument" could lead to that kind of conclusion? Or how the Legacy and Outlook, two variants of the same car, built on the same assembly line, could get different quality scores?
Do you realize that the IQS asks for the opinion of the respondees on the "design quality" of the cars? For example: some people may really hate the faux aluminum dash trim on the Milan. Does that mean the Milan is not a quality car? I think it is important to recognize the JD Power IQS for what it is and what it is not. And it is NOT an objective measure of the quality of a car. IMO, it is more like the "satisfaction indexes" that other companies produce. Useful data for automakers and maybe for some car buyers, but not a good measure of vehicle quality.
Do you realize that the IQS asks for the opinion of the respondees on the "design quality" of the cars? For example: some people may really hate the faux aluminum dash trim on the Milan.
Yes, a lot of the stuff in that survey are things that one can form their own opinion on by going to see and test drive the car.
Rather than "well constructed and nuanced", we saw it as loo long and silly to bother filling out when we got their survey in 2005.
To be a worthless and useless Advertising agency, and that's all they are, an advertising agency.
They ranked the Dodge Neon as average to good over many years, and we all know that was one of the worst vehicle ever conceived, most poorly built, with lower quality parts than India and China have ever produced even in 99 cent toys.
'21 BMW X3 M40i, '15 Audi S4, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
Comments
and to the tune of a $38,000,000,000 loss in 2007.
GM took a tax special charge in 2007 to the "tune" of $38,300,000,000. The losses at GMAC also made up a huge loss just like every other lender in the US. GM auto operations are doing much better even though they do have a good ways to go.
GM stock rose significantly after the news came out today.
thanks for the allowance of a little leeway.
I mean common...who are you kidding? Anyone with any automotive engineering background will concur that the NSX was well before its time and much what the C6 has to offer (besides shear speed), was done by Honda 15 years earlier. You cannot fool statistics and documentation pcm4. In fact, the only person you are really fooling is you. I don't like how you take my point and try to switch it around to mean something else.
I am not in denial that the newer ZO6 outperforms the older NSX. That was NEVER my point. My point is much of the design, materials, and technology incorporated by the ZO6 was done prior by the NSX.
Take for example its:
1. Aluminum Unit-Body Construction
2. Cabin-Forward/Long-Tail Design
3. VTEC System
4. Variable Volume Induction System
5. Direct Ignition
6. Titanium Valves and Connecting Rods
7. All-new compact, lightweight, close-ratio 6-speed manual transmission
8. Formula One-inspired SportShift system for automatic transmission models
9. Torque Control Differential and Torque Reactive Differential
10. All-aluminum 4-wheel double-wishbone suspension
11. Four-Channel Anti-Lock Braking; System (ABS) First use in U.S.
12. Traction Control System
- Enhances performance over wide range of conditions rather than just low friction surfaces
- System can be shut off manually by driver
- Drive-by-wire throttle control enhances TCS deceleration stability
13. Electric Power-Assisted Steering First of its kind on American market
14. Drive-By-Wire Electronic Throttle System
15. Aluminum Seat Frame First for a production car
- Entire seat frame made of lightweight stamped aluminum
- Has one-third fewer parts than steel seat
I mean, yes, the ZO6 is faster, quicker around the track, but it is not engineered to a higher standard. That was my point! And that the NSX is 15 years old than the C6 ZO6 is completely "pathetic" on GM's part.
From an engineering standpoint, horsepower per liter does mean something. It implies efficiency. Efficiency comes via technology. The valve train and induction system in the NSX is hyper years over the push rod design in the Vette. If GM were to utilize VTEC, DOHC and other technology used by Honda, the LS7 would sing to the tune of 700hp without forced induction. But it does NOT! In fact Bob Lutz stated the LS7 was close to its limits and in order for GM to extract more, forced induction was a necessity.
Stop and read post before replying.
It's over. Future off-topic posts will be removed. There's a perfectly good link in my post leading to half a dozen more appropriate topics.
(Side note: so will personally-directed posts - reading comprehension skills of other members is not one of our Forums topics)
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
LMAO. Now mother earth has tapeworms! Gotta love those typos!
If the car is domestic-branded, it gets rated unfairly low, with negative comments about flaws with the car where the flaws are fancied rather than real (2008 Ford Taurus has "wide interior panel gaps"; 2008 CTS has a sharp center stack that someone can cut their hand on, etc), gets unrealistically low gas mileage figures in their 'in-home' gas mileage tests (virtually all domestics tested by Consumer Reports meet the EPA's ratings; sometimes scoring even lower MPG returns on their tested domestics), and no unproven recommendations, despite the fact that some domestics are rebadged imports (Pontiac Vibe; Ford Fusion).
About customer satasfaction, it remains true that Honda owners have a traditionally high level of satasfaction with their Honda's. But bear in mind, this is due to political reasons -- Honda owners are usually politically liberal, preferring to buy a car that meets a political agenda where the environment is concerned. No where do we see this more flagrantly than with the Toyota Prius. Although the Prius is a Toyota and not a Honda, it's still an import. And Prius owners love their import! So much so, that the Prius has the highest level of satasfaction than any other car, including the Chevrolet Corvette. Why is that? Could it be the Prius's sexy sheetmetal? It's rip-roaring performance? It's Formula-1 handling? No, no and no. Prius owners love their Prius the same reason why Honda owners love their Honda's: Their car makes a political statement, that's why.
Personally, I like imports. Specifically, the Acura RL. What's of interest to note, is that the only Acura that's actually an Acura that's not an Accord wearing Groucho Marx noseglasses is also the only one Consumer Reports doesn't like. Why is that? Why is it that the only real sports sedan in Honda's stable that has AWD (not FWD like the TL or other Accord variants), a beautiful cockpit, quiet, luxurious ride (not a noisy, bumpy ride like the Accord TL) and tons of technology that almost sends it into 2008 CTS territory isn't liked by Consumer Reports?
I also like the Honda S2000. Except the engine. The engine at it's rev limit doesn't scream, it cries.It pollutes the air with Los Angeles levels of particulates. And while it doesn't necessarily haul [non-permissible content removed], it does suck gas.
I like virtually every Lexus product, especially the LS models. Here, Consumer Reports and I agree. The only automobile manufacturer capable of bringing to market a sedan as refined and as technologically advanced as the LS460 would be General Motors. Recent federal fuel laws are crushing GM's dreams of creating a Cadillac 'supersedan', however.
I like the almost 'Hummer'-like two-tiered dashboard of the new Toyota Tundra 1/2 ton (but I still like the Silvarado slightly more, if for no other reason than a high-grade, opulent interior).
As for German cars, I can't relly think of any that I particularly like. Chris Bangle of BMW Group did a wonderful job designing the exteriors, but a horrendous job on the cheap, unattractive interiors. I can't see the appeal in any VW model. I can't see the appeal in any Mercedes Benz model, except for the AMG-tuned units that are unusually inexpensive for the levels of performance delivered. Audi is OK, I guess...
"usually" - Show your facts, data, sources to corroborate that statement.
Sheesh
I nearly spit soda out my nose after reading this paragraph. It's not as hilarious as your "manual transmission" comment a few days ago, but it is pretty darn close!!
As for CR, they were infiltrated many years ago by a few aliens posing as humans. They became members of CR's board and over time steered CR to its present course of bringing down the U.S. auto industry to prepare for invasion. The "cover story" used internally at CR by the aliens is that CR must punish the U.S. automakers for the shoddy quality of their cars, and reward the foreign automakers for their superior quality. Most CR staffers, all flaming liberals as we all know, bought into this ruse. Those few CR staffers who stumbled upon the real plot mysteriously disappeared, without a trace (disintegration beams no doubt).
More proof of the Andromedan infiltration of CR is that they have used their superior, alien technology to further their designs. For example, they have used a small, undectectable device for many years in their road tests. This device senses the brand of car and automatically adjusts the fuel economy up for import cars and down for U.S. cars. It's clear this kind of technology is beyond our science, so it must come from aliens.
So there you have it, the TRUE story about CR. I know I may get zapped by an Andromedan particle weapon for making this post, but I don't care--someone has to do something to stop them, before it's too late for all of us.
One more warning: "Barack" happens to be the most popular first name for Andromedan males! Beware!!
Preposterous!
If he were an Alien, however, it would make sense seeing as how the company he runs -- Consumer Reports -- has an anti-American and radical agenda of trying to destroy the stalwarts of American automobile industry (and, following that, any great human enterprise or endeavor as a whole) by publishing grossly misleading MPG figures for import cars...
:P
I really don't think that suggesting CR is controlled by aliens is any more preposterous than other theories stated here recently, such as:
This organisation is deliberately attacking and is bent on destroying the American auto industry because of some board members who has a grudge about a misplaced gas tank on a Ford truck that was made in like 1974.
Yes, I think the alien invasion theory is every bit as reasonable as that one. Mulder and Scully would back me up on that I'm sure.
So what you are saying is that Hillary is from outer space? I knew it!
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1. Ralph Nader has always had a grudge toward the American automobile industry. Like his sucessful bid to prevent Al Gore from being the President in 2000, his grudge is not a real grudge, but a means to make him wealthy (he knew that if the Republican Party paid him enough money to run for President in 2000, that the 4% of the votes that went to him were votes that would have gone to Al Gore. Thus, he ran for President because of greed, knowing full well that his running would have witheld the presidency to Al Gore. Does this man stop at anything for fame, greed and power? Is there no shame in his game?).
Insolong as Nader can fool the various consumer activist groups, he can ride his slightly psychotic wave of fame and greed. Even if it means wrongfully denying the Right Man the presidency.
2. Consumer Reports begged Nader to join Consumer Reports Board after Nader published Unsafe at any Speed. Nader accepted the offer extended to him.
Therefore, we already have two facts illustrating a motive why Consumer Reports would be against the American automotive industry.
We have more facts.
3. It's a well-known fact that domestic manufacturers rule the gas-guzzling V8 truck segment. It's also a well-known fact that the import nameplates do not.
Since gas-guzzlers are indifferent to the environment, and since Consumer Reports are political/environmental activists (Consumer Reports begging Ralph Nader to join their Board proves this -- we have one political activist group begging another political activist to run the former's company), we already have a motive why Consumer Reports would be against the domestic manufacturer, due to the domestic manufacturer's unrelenting sales of gas-guzzling trucks.
Therefore, I am not too far off the mark in suggesting that Consumer Reports fraudulently misrepresents mileage figures for the import and domestic cars they test -- I'm not too far off the mark in showing that this misrepresentation is due soley because of high truck sales for the domestics and low truck sales and a general absense of gas-guzzling trucks for the imports.
It's a free country, and any Consumer Union can misrepresent products they test even if it borders on the illegal, but to do so just to push a political agenda is a real bummer for the consumer, because many consumers may believe Consumer Report's fraudulent claims, thus making the consumer less likely to buy the domestic product.
The only winner in all this is Consumer Reports, since they sucessfully draw people away from the "greedy capitalist pigs polluting the atmosphere" at General Motors. The consumer loses, because the domestic product really is the better product.
Backy, do you have any explination that can explain why Consumer Reports fraudulently misrepresents MPG figures? Or why Consumer Reports makes false claims about the domestic cars' poor quality, and false claims about the imports' high quality? My only explination is shown above in this message body.
"Yes, I think the alien invasion theory is every bit as reasonable as that one. Mulder and Scully would back me up on that I'm sure."
I don't think so. Mulder and Scully have more important things to do...
Is this a statement or a question?
Um, no, I don't. Why would I have explanations for unproven accusations like that?
Do you know when Unsafe at Any Speed was published? Do you know when Ralph Nader left CU's board? Any idea? Do you know anything about the history and direction of CU after Nader left? It appears you don't have a clue.
Also, do you know that non-U.S. manufacturers make gas-guzzling, V8 trucks and SUVs? (Hint: Toyota, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, Kia...) So supposing CU has some kind of vendetta against companies that make V8 trucks (another assertion to which you've provided no proof), why would they spare the likes of Toyota and Nissan?
And you still haven't answered the #1 question, which I posed a long time ago and you conveniently ignored: if CU is in fact, as you suggest, fraudulently misrepresenting fuel economy figures for the import and domestic cars they test, why do their test results show some cars from U.S. automakers exceeding the EPA numbers, and some cars from foreign automakers doing worse than the EPA numbers? Do you actually have any proof of this accusation, or is it just like all of your other accusations here: personal opinions based on what you think about CU and the people who run it, or have run it a long time ago?
And, how does CU benefit from destroying the U.S. auto industry? Can you explain that one?
I just wish that you'd admit that you've been pulling our collective legs all along, so we can maybe discuss something that has some basis in reality.
I have been reading CR and many other auto publishers for 50 years now. Much of that time was also spent in the auto repair business where CR's car owners observations were seen, and repaired daily. I also witnessed the once fine American auto industry turn itself into junk as the imports ran circles around us. The tide may be turning again, but time is short.
I've been discussing misrepresentations made by Consumer Reports regarding their rating discrepancies between import cars and domestic cars.
And the tide isn't turning, as you suggest. If it were turning, the 2008 Cadillac CTS would rank above a Honda Accord variant and the Buick Lucerne V8 would rank above the Toyota Avalon. That, in addition to around ten other domestic vehicles that rightly belong higher on the list than where they currently stand, and about 15 import vehicles that should be substantially lower.
Why?
"Um, no, I don't. Why would I have explanations for unproven accusations like that?"
OK, here's a more specific "accusation" :
Consumer Reports tests both the Buick Enclave and the Toyota Highlander three Months ago. By Consumer Report's own admission, their MPG result on the domestic was equal to and lower than the EPA's result. The MPG result on the import was equal and higher than the EPA's result.
Why the discrepancy?
By Consumer Report's own admission, the import had vague steering, compromises in fit and finish, handling that was marginal, at best and they reported road noise in the import. The domestic had "predictable, secure handling", almost no interior noise whatsoever, no significant defects in workmanship and steering that was "well-weighted, with excellent on-center feel." The imported Highlander, however, currently rates as #1, and the domestic Enclave rates as #6.
Why the discrepancy?
This is just one example of about 20 examples I posted previously but feel compelled to resurrect them, since I now have to provide the specific instances of Consumer Report's fraudulence so that you may provide us specific responses as to how I may be misinterpreting what I'm reading in Consumer Reports.
I am submitting my first example here, and we all eagerly await your explination why Consumer Reports rated the domestic lower in this instance and why the MPG numbers deviate so significantly in the domestic in this instance.
Why the discrepancies?
Because they are two different vehicles.
You're right, Mulder and Scully have better things to do. So do I, other than pointing out painfully obvious (to the rest of the world) facts like that.
Also, it is impossible that CR reported "almost no interior noise whatsoever" in the Enclave. CR would never make a statement like that, nor would any professional automotive review, because it cannot be true using today's automotive technology. Just as CR never said, but you told us they said, that the edges on the CTS' center console are so sharp that they can cut someone's hand. I know that isn't true because I read the CTS review in CR just yesterday--no mention of cutting someone's hand with the center console.
By continuing to toss out mistruths like these as if they were fact, you discredit any shred of credibility (infintisimal though it may be) you might otherwise have. You come across only as someone who has a grudge against CR because it doesn't view the automotive world the same way you do, so you will stoop at nothing to hurl baseless accusations at them to "prove" to the world that you are right and CR is wrong, because they have the unmitigated gall to rank a "taxicab" (your term) like the BMW 3 Series over your beloved CTS. Well, you'd better start coming up with your smear campaign for C/D too, because they also ranked that "taxicab" over the CTS. Have you checked to see if Ralph Nader ever held any leadership position in C/D, even as far back as 30+ years ago (as he did with CU)? You never know, maybe he was responsible for turning C/D against the U.S. auto industry too! Better go research that so you can educate all of us on that insidious plot. We'll wait. No rush. Next year sometime is fine for a report.
Just out of curiosity, since you have firsthand experience, how do the domestic three (GM, Ford and Chrysler) now rank against each other in reliability and build quality, and is one (or more) of them really closing the gap with the best of the foreign nameplates?
And - again out of curiosity, as it has no real bearing on the present discussion - how did they rank relative to each other during the 1960s, and then during the 1970s?
Among all adults who are familiar with them, Consumer Reports, The American Red Cross, AARP, the Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are the most trusted among 16 large organizations that influence politics and business in Washington. Moveon.org, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the ACLU, the NRA and the AFL-CIO are the least trusted. However, even these organizations are trusted "a great deal" or "a fair amount" by 45 percent or more of all adults."
(PMC shudders profusely...)
.
"This survey focused on 16 organizations that have considerable influence on public policy, business and are frequently covered by the media."
The funny thing about the poll is, Consumer Reports isn't an organization! The organization behind Consumer Reports is Consumers Union. Probably so few people realize that, they had to use "Consumer Reports" in the poll or the recognition factor would have been much lower.
For details on the poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=843
Correct and nearly as breif would be, "Because they're two different vehicles. The first vehicle is an import. With Consumer Reports testing methodology imports usually score higher relative to the EPA and the other vehicle is a domestic and domestics usually score lower than the EPA in Consumer Reports testing."
From that perspective (a very good one, I might add), we can thus try to find out why Consumer Reports scores imports higher and domestics lower relative to the EPA.
Backy says, "Also, it is impossible that CR reported "almost no interior noise whatsoever" in the Enclave. CR would never make a statement like that, nor would any professional automotive review..."
The professional automotive review says, "The noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) levels are so low as to be astounding — there is virtually no tire noise from the Michelins. Driving the CX, I was able to pick up some slight tread noise, but in both models, the cabin is quiet and calm, the only sound of note is the healthy rumble of the 3.6 when the throttle is opened wide."
And here's the source:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=5369
I'm telling you! There are a lot of dumb people in this country! Over 70% of the voters actually approved of the job GWB was doing in 2004 and now a whopping 91% of these people actually think Consumer Reports is trustworthy! The stupidity in this country is utterly breathtaking (but takes my breath away in a bad way not a good way)!!!
(PMC shutters once again...)
And yes, Consumer Reports is an organisation. What do you think the .org stands for?
I'm sorry you can't fathom that two different vehicles, which are engineered by two different companies, have two totally different powertrains, etc., could have different fuel economy characteristics.
Correct and nearly as breif [sic] would be, "Because they're two different vehicles. The first vehicle is an import. With Consumer Reports testing methodology imports usually score higher relative to the EPA and the other vehicle is a domestic and domestics usually score lower than the EPA in Consumer Reports testing."
You have provided no evidence, in all of your posts on this topic, to back this statement up. All you have provided is a few examples where CR reported lower-than EPA fuel economy on a car from a U.S. automaker and higher-than-EPA fuel economy on a car from a foreign automaker. If you'll recall, I provided some examples that were the opposite. To prove your statement, what you need to do is demonstrate that USUALLY--meaning commonly or habitually--your assertion is true. A few examples doesn't cut it. I can toss out a few examples, too.
Here's what .org stands for:
A top level domain denoting an abbreviation for non-profit institutions and organizations although anyone may register a .ORG domain name.
www.domainhandbook.com/glossn-z.html
Or how about this, from p. 94 in Consumer Reports magazine's April 2007 issue:
About CU: Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, accepts no corporate support, free samples, or advertising. ...
Also, as you may know, there are no regulations about what an organization puts in front of ".org". So maybe Consumers Union decided to put its most well-known "brand name" on its Web site.
CR (CU for purists) is trusted a great deal by 45% and a fair amount by 46%.
AARP is trusted a great deal by 29% and a fair amount by 54%.
Looking at the numbers that way makes the CR look a lot better. I was worried in the inital value that many people are still flim-flammed by AARP's PR efforts. They're in business for the money. CR has a much better public image, whether you feel they do or don't, based on the actual usable numbers.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Wait, I do believe I'm reading this, since you must be an employee, directly or indirectly, with Consumer Reports. Are you? If you weren't, you would have stopped posting here long ago like everyone else. If you aren't an employee, is there a reason you continue to post? The reason I ask is because of comments like this from you:
"Also, it is impossible that CR reported "almost no interior noise whatsoever" in the Enclave. CR would never make a statement like that, nor would any professional automotive review, because it cannot be true using today's automotive technology."
Then, when I countered that nonsense with this,:
"The professional automotive review says, "The noise/vibration/harshness (NVH) levels are so low as to be astounding — there is virtually no tire noise from the Michelins. Driving the CX, I was able to pick up some slight tread noise, but in both models, the cabin is quiet and calm, the only sound of note is the healthy rumble of the 3.6 when the throttle is opened wide."
And here's the source:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=34&article_id=5369"
Which is Road and Track effectively saying the Enclave has almost no interior noise whatsoever. In response, you post this:
"Read the quote you provided and tell us where it says anything about "almost no interior noise whatsoever." I see something specific about tire noise being very low (except in the CX--which is a type of Enclave, right?--where there is slight tread noise--which is different from no noise whatsoever), and talk of the cabin being quiet and calm (but not "almost no noise whatsoever"), and then some talk of the sound, actually a "healthy rumble" (the direct opposite of "no noise whatsoever") of the engine [at wide open throttle]."
I said that Consumer Reports remarked on the quietness in the Enclave by paraphrasing their rating as saying the "Enclave has almost no noise level whatsoever" (this is further substantiated by Consumer Reports giving the Buick Enclave a bright-red Doughnut for interior noise levels).
You claimed that what I was saying was "misrepresenting of any professional automotive journalist."
I then posted a link from Road and Track where they effectively say the Enclave has almost no noise whatsoever, and again you claim I'm misreading the Road and Track review somehow.
I ask a reader reading this: I said that Consumer Reports and Road and Track are effectively saying the Buick Enclave has almost no interior noise whatsoever. You may not have the CR review here, but you do have the Road and Track review. Would you agree with me that Road and Track is effectively saying the Enclave has almost no interior noise? CR gave the Enclave a bright-red Donughnut. Would you also agree that CR is effectively telling us the same thing?
Backy, this conduct of posting messages that confuse or otherwise bore readers is leading me to believe that you're an employee of Consumer Reports. Are you, Backy? Just wondering. The reason why I ask is this conduct of yours seems planned to the extent that these debates are driving other participants from this specific message board.
If this is so, the next question is naturally this: Why would you want to deliberately convolute a message board just to drive readership and participation away, especially when that message board is presenting clear evidence of import bias at Consumer Reports?
I have no answer other than you are an employee of Consumer Reports or a related organisation. Are you, Backy? You aren't obligated to answer this question.
Note to Moderators: I'm asking Backy a legitimate question. A Private Message feature is not available.
Are you an employee of GM perchance?
You are right about one thing, though: I should have stopped posting here long ago like everyone else.
Bye. Have fun, go crazy.
So, who is driving participation away? :confuse:
I don't think confrontation is the kind of discourse we're looking for here. Let's move on.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I'm telling you! There are a lot of dumb people in this country!
Over 70% of the voters actually approved of the job GWB was doing in 2004 and now a whopping 91% of these people actually think Consumer Reports is trustworthy!
People following/not following CR info have been rewarded/burned. I have used CR for many years and have found to be reliable. When I have not heeded their advice, I have paid the price. And, GWB and his admin has kept this country safe in spite of leakers giving away secrets to enemies.
Want to look for stupidity, look at Obamamania. No track record of noteworthy accomplishments except voting "present" 120 times yet sheepiles blindly cheer, have hopes of getting handouts from govt.
I concur! If you want to talk politics you can always go to Politics.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Think about it. By recommending a car that a survey participant had few problems with, they distannce themselves from liabilities associated with their highly biased "ratings". In other words, "Consumer Reports recommended the car and they were right. I had no problems with this car whatsoever. For this personal reason, I trust Consumer Reports."
But who, exactly, are you trusting? Who was it that recommended the car you purchased in the first place? The thoughtless person would say, "Consumer Reports, because that's where I read about the car in." But it wasn't Consumer Reports who really recommended the car to you in the first place, now was it? Of course it wasn't. It was the survey participant who sent his survey result in to Consumer Reports that recommended the car for you. Consumer Reporrts was just the medium that that survey participant's recommendation was printed in, that's all.
And I think this is the crux of the Consumer Report's dillema -- they are taking truly unbiased, objective data from survey participants who have no personal interest or connection with Consumer Reports and mixing this data in with their own highly import-biased data to generate a Recommendation. Not good, because consumers confuse the two -- the unbiased reliability survey and very biased ratings.
They have no bias one way or another, except to well performing vehicles that don't cost too much and present great value. Good cars score well. Bad cars score poorly. It's quite simple really!
(start)
I noticed a while back that there is something fishy woth J.D. Power ratings. In my estimation the initial quality of their rankings is worthy of about 1 dot, and not worth the time (wasted) it takes to bother looking at them.
I think this is an offensive and unfair statement that borders on defamation of the organization’s integrity and character. Perhaps you have not perused the J.D. Power questionnaire. If you did you would not have made this malicious remark. It is a well constructed and nuanced instrument that captures almost every aspect of the ownership experience.
(end)
Offensive? Malicious? It was a personal opinion that the JD Power rankings are not of much value to that individual. How is that offensive or malicious?
I think there's some curious results in the latest JD Power IQS ratings also, for example, the fact that the Fusion had the highest possible score for overall quality (5) while the Milan, basically the same car as the Fusion but with some trim differences, and built side by side in the same factory, got only a 3. Can you explain how JD Power's "well constructed and nuanced instrument" could lead to that kind of conclusion? Or how the Legacy and Outlook, two variants of the same car, built on the same assembly line, could get different quality scores?
Do you realize that the IQS asks for the opinion of the respondees on the "design quality" of the cars? For example: some people may really hate the faux aluminum dash trim on the Milan. Does that mean the Milan is not a quality car? I think it is important to recognize the JD Power IQS for what it is and what it is not. And it is NOT an objective measure of the quality of a car. IMO, it is more like the "satisfaction indexes" that other companies produce. Useful data for automakers and maybe for some car buyers, but not a good measure of vehicle quality.
Yes, a lot of the stuff in that survey are things that one can form their own opinion on by going to see and test drive the car.
Rather than "well constructed and nuanced", we saw it as loo long and silly to bother filling out when we got their survey in 2005.
We did, however, appreciate the money they kept sending with their surveys!
They ranked the Dodge Neon as average to good over many years, and we all know that was one of the worst vehicle ever conceived, most poorly built, with lower quality parts than India and China have ever produced even in 99 cent toys.
I have several friends that owned Neons, and they gave good service, for a cheap car. They put many miles on them. Try that with a 99 cent toy!