Is Consumer Reports Becoming Biased With Another All Japanese Top Picks For 2007?

biasED
and a question mark

and there are few american cars, because as a general rule american cars aren't very fuel efficient, not exceptionally safe, don't handle well and have interiors crafted from straw.
For example, the Mazda MX-5 wins over a Solstice because it's more reliable, probably safer and more fuel efficient.

Dude! That's such a crude way of looking at it! I'll give you that not ever model that comes out of Detroit is world class, but you can really sit here and say that NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN CAR is fuel efficient/safe/nice enought to be included on the top pick list?? I think the Saturn Aura for one..is better than half of those cars they recommended. And where is the data that proves that the Mazda (owned by Ford) is more reliable/safer than the Sky? We as American have to at least recongize that our own industry has improved and support it. I feel that CR really turns a blind eye to the domestics...because..they're domestic.

I agree Paul, I agree. CR and Americans in general are way too eager to dismiss domestics without even looking at them. Sure we made absolute garbage from 1973-1990's, but the state of the US auto industry has VASTLY improved.

pity then that the Aura isn't an American car - it's a rebadged Opel.

And no, I don't think there is such a thing as a nice, reliable, well crafted, safe, fuel efficient American car.

Rupert, there are some American cars that are worthy alternatives to the Japanese. It's just that Japanese cars are also "in" or in "fashion" amongst a certain crowd and it's these people who'll recommend them no matter what.

I agree that most American cars are second tier, but there are some that are able to meet the Japanese competition in some regards.

Paul, Ford is the majority shareholder of Mazda, but Mazda isn't a Ford subsidiary. The Mazda Miata is made in Japan, as are the RX-8, CX-7, CX-9, and Mazda3. The only American made Mazda products are the Mazda6 and Tribute. That's why people tend to like the Miata, Mazda3, etc.

You obviously never owned a Saturn. Let alone a Sky or Aura. Sky's have been recalled countless times for tranny and rear differential problems. And the Auras have had a plethora of tranny issues. And yes, I've driven and owned Saturns in the past.

And the Sky/Solstice is a Vauxhall(sp). Dang European platforms.

Caddy????(no CTS) Corvette?? There are a few we must admit.

Don't forget, CR gets its "facts" from people who respond to them. The people who respond:

A) Yuppie know-it-all bullshitters who love their Japanese cars

B) People pissed off with European and American cars.

People who love their Euro/US cars usually don't give a rats ass about CR.

People who have problems with their Asian cars (and they DO exist) are usually too embarrassed to say anything about it. When your "all-reliable, perfect" Honda Accord needs a whole new tranny at 100,000km, you feel like you've been had.

Its one thing when you are buying a digital camera, TV, blender, etc. Their doesn't seem to be fan-clubs for Canon digital cameras like there is for each car company.

If you want someone to rate cars, you don't want the average joe telling you what to buy. You want an expert. Go to a real magazine where real "car people" rate cars.

New transmission after roughly 60,000 Miles? Must have been a lemon.

actually, on the 2001-2003 accords (roughly that time period), there were transmission problems. Honda acknoledged it, but didn't fix it. Their official excuse was that it wasnt covered under warranty because the car was built in Canada.

Well Neutral,Honda acknowledged the tranny problems in
some v6 4 spds 99 to 01 vehicles.Honda extended their
warranty to 100000 miles.At 87000 miles my my were dard shifting,i took it to Plaza honda,they called the manufacturer,they send their specialist to check the transmission out,they gave me a nice CRV to drive free of charge while i'm waiting for them to fix my car .They called me four days after to tell that my vehicle was ready and they apologyze for the inconvenience.Not only Honda cars are reliable,but they stand behind their products,they won't let their customers stand dry.GM offer 100000 miles warranty,put your ears to the ground,dealing with GM is like talking the wall

Consumer Reports is the last place I would look to find information when buying a car or anything for that matter.

Yeah those damn liberal greenies!

CR gives you a good idea for what's going on but they're not enthusiast.

First of all, Ford does not OWN Mazda. The have a controlling interest (30% stake last I knew). Mazda engineers and manufacters it's own automobiles. The Tribute/B Series are Ford clones that should be dropped from the line up. Please get your facts straight.

Secondly, I dont go by consumer reports either. I like to find out the facts straight from the owner's themselves. A great place to do that is from enthusiast websites & forums. Nearly every car has one, and they all have a "problems" thread.

Land Rover has always been at the bottom of the ranks. I went straight to the forums on this, and sure enough, the new LR3 gave owners endless problems. In fact many owners of the freelander want to start a class action lawsuit against LR. This was to my disapointment.

Getting to the point:
Not all LR's have problems, but the majority of them do. Just the same, most of Honda's, Toyotas, etc. are reliable, but not all of them are. When a Toyota or Lexus does have problems, people usually make a big deal about it because of the notion that they are so perfect. When a Euro or American make has issues, not only is it considered common, but because the (Euro) makes are so "prestigous" it is seen as acceptable for owning that make.

All of this can be linked back to the infamous 80's when GM, Ford and Chrysler cut costs to see profits, ultimately killing quality.

I have a unbiased view on all cars, so dont think my post sways one way or the others...comments/criticism is welcome on my post...

good post M35MT

Wouldn't controlling interest be at least 51%?

Yes of course . CR is biased. After all who wants to believe an independent agency that diligently inspects the products in question and refuses advertisements from the manufacturers to avoid a conflict of interest. Especially if they dont buy into your little pet notions of what a car should be ..
Better to leave it to the Car magazines who survive on manufacturer press junkets and advertising . I mean what better then a magazine that screams the Pontiac Solstice is awesome .. then craps on it 2 months later. Me, personally prefer C&D, cause nothing inspires me more then a bunch of fat donut eating drivers who want to race drivers and think driving a german car is the uber shtich !!
K , my donut calls ..

You have issues, You must be a japan-o-phile. Get a life.

...

Consumer Reports is one of the least biased publications on the market.

Sure. CR called the Hummer H2 "unreliable" because the dumbasses who bought one complained about poor fuel economy.

What kind of idiot buys a Hummer H2 and expects good fuel economy?

This should give you an idea of what kind of idiots fill out CR surveys. My car according to CR is unreliable and is not recommended. I've had zero problems with it. And it's now a year and half old.

CR to me equals bullsh*t at its finest.

When a German mag shows preference to a German car, there is no bias. When an American mag shows preference to a Japanese car, there is bias. Get a grip, Audispies, I mean Autospies.

look in the mirror.

no1listensanyway - yes, you are correct, ford just holds a high stake in Mazda (30% as of late 2005).

Back on topic-

Interestingly enough, when GM directly cloned buick models from chevy's years ago (there was practically no difference) The chevy's recieved horrible reviews yet the Buick's were on top...maybe because the driver's are die-hard GM fan's approaching death and rarely drive their cars? That is why it's not always accurate

Take the Infiniti G and M, attractive, well built, xlnt dealer and service network, both are well equip,xlnt engines,at home on a mountain road or dinner at a top resort.
What did you want CR to do ignore all of the above and give props to Detroit for what continues to be poor wormanship dealers network, ho hum granny cars some still with BENCH SEATS? that only look at home in some FLA retirement community, get real people?

Take the Infiniti G and M, attractive, well built, xlnt dealer and service network, both are well equip,xlnt engines,at home on a mountain road or dinner at a top resort.
What did you want CR to do ignore all of the above and give props to Detroit for what continues to be poor wormanship dealers network, ho hum granny cars some still with BENCH SEATS? that only look at home in some FLA retirement community, get real people?

That's like saying Sports Illustrated is biased for only using attractive women in their swimsuit issue.

Consumer Reports has their criteria for what cars they recommend just as SI picks girls that look good on the beach.

Some people aren't bothered by a car being not as reliable as another just as some people prefer to date fat chicks.

Why scream "bias" just because your criteria differs from that of a magazine?

sorry but i don't buy cars for the same reasons that i buy toaster ovens.

cr actually does testing with cars, they had a story about it from another car site.

yup. CR is best known for their reliability surveys and ratings, which are acknowledged as the Gold Standard of reliability ratings.

less well known, is that they also do COMPREHENSIVE ROAD TESTS, with cars they BUY anonymously. NOT brief tests on cars BORROWED from the car companies, as all the enthusiast rags do. (how many "ringers" get tested and raved over?)

they also employ AUTO ENGINEERS to do the tests. while the reports tend to be less gee-whizzy than the enthusiast press write-ups, they ARE fair and objective.

I was once an American car nut and after much research I have been converted to prefer Japanese vehicles better.The big three could just do so much better! Especially in fuel economy and safety and braking performance.

Consumer Reports is a good source for reliability history of a vehicle.

I don't find them bias at all.

Just like any standardized, there is bias. I gladly drive a car CR has given lots of solid black dots to and rated as noisy, rotten ride, mean back seat and hopelessly unreliable. To me, there is more to life than some gutless personality-free Honda or Toyota. One isn't necessarily better than the other. It's all about priorities. Their criteria are biased towards Honda and Toyota. Why does that matter as long as people understand what their ratings involve? Aside from the fact that my car's ride and noise aren't bad at all? Another truth is that the differing reliability ratings given by CR to cars with different names, built on the same assembly lines with the exact same drivetrains show just how faulty their system is.

the different ratings for clones tend to very minor, and are mainly due to BODY INTEGRITY. fully understandable, as they have different bodies.

well, i had owned a car with a lot of black marks too. (2000 focus).

i had a few problems, but NOT SO MANY that it detracted from the ownership experience.

since all cars have improved over the years, a "full black" mark is not so damning as it used to be. it basically means that FIVE PERCENT or more of the survey respondents reported problems. it used to be more than FIFTEEN percent.

so even under the old standard, you could've had a row of black marks, but still be among the "lucky" owners (up to 85%) who did NOT have a problem.

hondas and toyotas get high ratings because the lucky (read SMART consumers) are more in the range of 98 - 99% of owners. red dots indicate LESS THAN ONE PERCENT reported problems. (2% under the old standard.)

and yeah, those cars ARE boring. if your idea of excitement is frequent visits to the dealer or repair shop! ;)

Last year this is how CR rated the Matrix/Vibe, but now they claim to be unbiased? At least on these two.Mp2dtw Do you drive a dodge?

the world according to toyota (lexus) fans:

if a publication gives a bad review of one of their cars it's TOTALLY BIASED.

if a publication gives a good review of one of their cars it's a message from christ/allah/budda/diety of your choice.

in reality it's what matters to you. if reliability is your PRIMARY purchase reason for a car (just like for a dishwasher) consumer reports is for you.

...

Rupert:

"biasED
and a question mark

and there are few american cars, because as a general rule american cars aren't very fuel efficient, not exceptionally safe, don't handle well and have interiors crafted from straw.
For example, the Mazda MX-5 wins over a Solstice because it's more reliable, probably safer and more fuel efficient."


glad to see you have a realistic, objective view of CR, Rupert.
now, how do you feel about their consistent DOWNRATING of most euro brands for reliability issues, despite generally GOOD RATINGS on the road test results?

They are kinda biased. Some cars, I read an article about this, are never considered just because of their manufacture brand. Even though Japanese make good and reliable cars, they should consider the technology and safety of German cars also.