Step 1: obtain address of consumer reports
Step 2: write a letter of complaint, explaining to them logically why they are depriving their readers of a full analysis of new vehicles by excluding the Prius.
Step 3: buy a ream of paper and a box of envelopes
Step 4: go to Kinkos and make 500 copies
Step 5: mail ten letters every day for 50 days

OR

Step 1b: Call Toyota and tell them.
Step 2b: Toyota does all of the above for you.

I would recommend patience. Consumer Reports is an excellent organization and will give the 2010 Pruis a fair rating in due time. The recommendation may not be what we want to hear (or maybe it will be), but IMHO it will be fair and based on the same criteria they use to rate all other cars.

I am also very bias toward my Pruis, but I can accept whatever they say and use that information accordingly. They have been a wonderful resource for many many years.

This is true. CR doesn't get special cars to test--they get ones just as you and I do. The cars I saw in March at the pre-release event were not generally available. The Gen IIIs hit the streets when, in May? OP's quotes say they plan to test the '10 Prius for a future issue. Mentions of other "redesigned" cars indicate to me they at least could get one off a lot to test. Be fair!

The road test reports are usually published 3-6 month after the test is completed.

I agree with fair, which is why this is so unfair:

• "COMING SOON Our early take on some new and upcoming models" - pp. 3-5, lists the BMW Z4, Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac SRX, and Chevrolet Equinox. It is missing the 2010 Prius.
• "WHY A VEHICLE IS NOT IN THE RATINGS The following models have been redesigned or extensively freshened since our last test. Most are scheduled to be included in future road-test reports in Consumer Reports. ... BMZ Z4, Buick LaCrosse, Cadillac SRX, Chevrolet Equinox ... 2010 Prius." - pp. 25

I agree with consistency and using the same standard, another aspect of fair, which is why this is an obvious contradiction:

• "Models by Category" - PP. 22, lists the Prius under "SMALL CARS" and "HATCHBACKS."
• The EPA rates the Prius as a "Family Sedan" since the 2004 model.

I also agree with accuracy, which is why combining parts of two Prius models is unfair to the reader:

• "Toyota Prius" - pp. 161, has a photo of the 2010, not identified as a 2010 and the paragraph has six sentences about the 2004-2009 and three somewhat describing the 2010. So lacking anything to report about the 2010, they 'filled space' with the 2009 description and dropped the "ROAD TEST SCORE" for the 2009. Use one or the other and it would be an accurate report but mixing the two, especially with their disclaimers about the 2010 improvements, is inaccurate ... a Franken-prius.
• "Fisker Karam" pp. 73 and "Tesla Roadster" pp. 157 - are both vehicles so new that Consumer reports has no data. Had Consumer Reports reported the 2010 Prius following the same style used for these two cars so there would be both a 2009 and 2010 Prius, both descriptions would be accurate. They are distinct vehicles so keep them apart.
• "COMING SOON" pp. 3-5 - had this section included the 2010 Prius and the 2004-2009 write up been left alone, there would have been no mixing of models. That would have been accurate and fit in the style of the magazine.

Everybody has a bad day and perfect is not going to happen every time. Every now and then Consumer Reports will make a mistake like they did when they made a math error on Prius payback several years ago. I also understand that dealing with model changes is not a trivial problem. But in this case, they handled the Prius model change badly:

1. Listed in an one section four models that they later wrote would not be covered in the vehicle review (does left hand know what right is doing?)
2. Put the Prius in two categories and neither matches the EPA classification
3. Mixed the NHW20 and ZVW30 in one report so the earlier data is lost and the ZVW30 data is ambiguous

Ultimately, Consumer Reports readers are the last editors. We evaluate their work and like a good editor, share our 'mark up' with the reporter or in this case, the editor. It doesn't mean the issue will be recalled but rather to offer instruction, corrective criticism so next year's "NEW CAR PREVIEW 2011" will handle the Chevy Volt and other cars fairly and consistently.

Bob Wilson

I was curious about the absence of 2010 data, only three weak sentences, when I came across the June 2009 issue, "The diesels are coming" pp. 60. Suddenly I'm getting this feeling that the Consumer Reports editors are planning to go diesel or give it try.

Right now, I'm wondering if Consumer Reports will wait until after the next car owner survey to report their 2010 review. Although they report having bought a 2010, I'm losing interest in their review. I've already filled out a J.D.Powers survey and as for the Consumer Reports review, it will at best be a day late and a dollar short.

Bob Wilson

I hope they get it straightened out.

CR:
Grade F . . . They fail to reconcile why the 2010 flys off the shelf, in light of their failure revelation. Kinda makes one wonder what THEY know ... compared to the hundreds of thousands of others.
:evil:

.

A bit off subject, I know, but reminds me of a few years back when CR did a report on bicycles. One of the "metrics" they used to rate them was 'pedaling ease.' Um, "pedaling ease?" Puh-leeze. Might as well say the bicycle had an engine with insufficient power. (In that case, it probably did). You can bet they heard a raft of it from readers of Bicycling magazine among others.

To their credit, they do their best to try to evaluate things in a methodological way, with an eye toward an approach similar to what a layperson would do. I appreciate this, especially when they call manufacturers out on weak claims, a recent example being a number of French-door style refrigerators that only lived up to their energy-star ratings when you didn't use the icemaker. But sometimes they go a bit too far in trying to be 'average'--like when they cannot get any more than 44mpg out of a Prius, when virtually anyone who spends more than a day with one does much better.

Don't count on it. I learned a long time ago that Consumer Reports is a jack of all trades but master of none. If you really pay attention you will find out that every time they review something that you have expertise in you will find serious flaws in their reviews. Sometimes the reviews are so bad it is laughable.
In my case it was early computer reviews, digital camera and photo printer reviews that made me realize something is seriously wrong. Sometimes they totally miss features and functions. Sometimes they downplay important features and elevate minor ones. Sometimes they are just flat out incorrect.
I urge you to read some CR reviews on products with which you are very familiar. You will probably never look to them for advice again.

Waaaay back when they called the Bose 901 speakers the best on the market i knew they were plum full of chit and never belived a word of theres since then.

They have also been known for a long time as having an anti American car bias. While this may have changed in the past two years they have such a long history of not even liking good American cars.

Probably the biggest error they made consistently was comparing cars based on list price ignoring the real world prices. This was a huge disadvantage to American cars that were heavily discounted while Japanese cars were not. I remember when I bought my 2002 Caravan that I got $5000 off the price being compared to Sienna which in the real world was simply not discounted. You could argue that the Sienna was a better vehicle and didn't need the discount.... Probably true. But with the discount the choice was quite clear to me.

CR doesn't rely on car advertising like some magazines and other media outlets, so they are more objective than most.

But I suspect the priority right now is to boost the car industry. They are behind the 8 ball with millions of unsold dinosaurs in their inventory. With gas at $2.50, they have to be sold now. So maybe hybrids will have to wait a bit. Not everybody is smart enough out there to be thinking ahead.

Just had to throw a thanks for that Bose 901 review-review

It was a pet food review that got me questioning their methods. They only looked at the price and percent fat, protein, fiber etc. of the label. Didn't bother reading further down to the ingredients. Under that rigorous system, I could make a CR top pick dog food out used motor oil, sawdust, and ammonia.

I your first sentence you claim CU is objective and in the very next say you suspect they have an agenda to promote the auto industry. In any event I didn't contest their objectivity. It's their competency I question.

They will be doing a full report on the 2010 prius in an upcoming issue.

One thing that is useful in their magazine is the frequency of repair history on automobiles. I find this to be fairly accurate. However, I do agree with what most people have expressed in this thread. If you are very familiar with a product and then you read their review, it can cause a few chuckles. Lots of people think their word is greater than the Almighty. I tend to doubt that. I've read their car reviews for years and sometimes it seems a 70 year old man is writing some of the copy. Nothing wrong with that except, well. Forget it. I'm going to get myself in trouble here.