Consumer Report responds to criticism of their review

I've always liked Consumer Reports - I still do. I'm perplexed: Did they only use ECO mode? Are they huge, hulking NFL lineman or skyscraper tall NBA players? Are they NASCAR drivers?

The only conclusion I can draw is that I've somehow ended up with a Prius C 2 +. Must be a secret prototype as it is nothing like the car described by CR.

Acceleration is fine, ride is about equal to our Fit, handling is good (better than my two Prizms) and I no longer hobble out of my driver's seat with excruciating back pain as I did with the Prizms. Oh - did I mention I don't bump my head getting in like with the Insight? I really wanted to like the Insight - but something about the door/roofline and/or the seat made it impossible for me to get in and out without risk of injury.

Shhhh!!! Don't tell anyone but they accidently sold me a future concept car disguised as a C 2.

 

We are long time CR subscribers. Even so they have always been sort of reluctant Prius supporters. Even when the regular Gen-2 Prius had good ratings, every CR issue we got an economics lesson about how the extra $5000 for the hybrid made no sense with gaso at $2/gal (of course higher gaso prices finally squashed that argument). Now EV's seem to be getting good support from CR when I was expecting some equal dose of the reluctance Prius got. For example, the EPA 100 MPGe is sort of misleading and inaccurate but CR has apparently bought into the hype and supports it. Maybe it's just me I do not know.

 

I'm a subscribber of CR since several years, and their articles are good overall, but cars reviews really sucks.

 

I find their childish response ridiculous for what I thought was a neutral, test based publication. I drive my Prius C everyday and KNOW that it is a wonderful car, fits my needs/wants to a T (which are admittedly function over form). The car is solid and performs significantly higher than the EPA ratings if you drive lightly and take the time to understand how you can control the hybrid system's modes to your advantage. Driving it like a regular car should come in right around the EPA ratings. An outfit that doesn't test a mileage car the way it should be used is destined to miss the point of the car's designed function.

CR obviously has an agenda to undercut/smear the Prius C. That is plain as day when I consider their snyde, negative tone compared to my excellent experience driving the car each day.

 

I think it was said earlier -- CR pans the Yaris, and for the same reasons pans the Prius C.
<<shrug>> I like both cars a lot, although I own neither.

CR does not say it outright, but they weight fuel economy lower than fit and finish, and noise and vibration. C owners have other priorities.

 

I am a long time subscriber to CR. I also found the response arrogant, flippant , and childish. If the "tester" wants to make comparisons to other cars in the class, why did he fail to mention that the C gets about 15 miles per gallon more then the others...and thats with their methodology. We all know the c gets much better mileage then the 43 overall .

The c was built to be an inexpensive high mileage suburban vehicle. It gets high marks in both those fields.

 

43 mpg is laughable. Does ANYONE here only get 43 mpg?

Try doing some research, CR.

 

CR has a grueling test, if not all then most vehicles get nailed with sub EPA results. 43 is about as good as it gets for them.

The number only has meaning compared to CR testing of other cars.

 

Prius c is a great car, if you compare it to Yaris or a corolla. However, it falls on its face when compared to Prius hatch. It is significantly smaller, less power and almost the same fuel economy of the older 2010. Price can be a factor for some but extra 2-3k is not a lot over a period of 10 years. Prius hatch is also likely to make up the higher cost with a higher resale value.

 

Isn't that like, lying, though? It should tell them something that NOBODY is getting those mpg numbers. That's deceptive, even under the guise of "we're riding it as hard as we can."

The ONLY reason to get this car, rather than something else less expensive, is because you can get excellent (50+) mpg driving it like a regular car, OR you can get RIDICULOUS (60-65) mpg if you're trying to. If you go out of your way to destroy the mpg, you're completely missing the point of the car. They had the nerve to tell us we're missing the point?

CR- you can't treat all cars the same! They are made for different purposes and demographics. Racers don't drive a Geo Metro. Commuters don't drive semis. Contractors don't use a Porsche to haul their stuff around. You have to take the purpose of the car into account, and drive it toward that purpose, or you're being deceptive.

 

Lying ? No
They put all their cars through the same test. You have to compare apples to apples.

I think CR could have done better here, by asking themselves if the car has a demographic rather than assume that everybody cares more about the look of the plastic than fuel economy.

 

Meanwhile, StreetInsider.com notes that Toyota's stock is trading higher despite the poor review from Consumer Reports, and gives it a Buy recommendation.

I left a comment there.

 

As Prius owners, we value efficiency higher than Consumer Reports (CR) values their metrics. Would the Prius c have faired better if the Scion had been the model hybridized instead of the Yaris?

This is what CR wrote about the 2013 Scion FR-S:

These guys aren't going to be happy unless the car is a 'pocket rocket' that can be thrown about the track. Think "Top Gear" attitudes and the CR review begins to make a lot of sense. Going back to the CR defense of their Prius c review, they didn't like:

• slow acceleration
• not nimble handling
• busy ride
• loud
• driving position

Acceleration leads to inertial energy losses and is the enemy of high mileage. There appears to be an undocumented requirement that a car must be under 10 seconds to 60 mph and it is 'pass/fail', no shades of gray.

The "handling" is easily an electric power steering that takes out road feedback. One of the Prius hacks from the Australian magazine "Auto Speed" was to add resistors to dampen the torque steering sensors in the NHW10. Less power steering leads to closer coupling of the driver's input to the car response and improves the driver's willingness to come 'closer to the edge.' But low rolling resistance tires, another efficiency requirement, are not very responsive to aggressive steering valued by CR.

A "busy" ride can be something as simple as an alignment problem. Both of our Prius needed an early alignment and periodic recheck. But it can also be steering geometry, caster, that reduces straight-line stability. With our 2003 Prius, we found mounting the largest diameter tires improved straight-line stability. The car stopped being so willing to head out of its lane.

As for "loud" and "driving position," I've noticed cars that I don't like to drive are also "loud" and have "driving position" issues. Like a 'date from H*ll,' we more easily notice these faults if we're unhappy.

CR acknowledges the "fantastic fuel economy" but not to compromise on acceleration and handling even if these are at odds with fuel economy. Give them a Scion FR-S and they are entertained for hours.

Bob Wilson

 

Even the title to the followup article is combative and "in your face". I think the PC isn't for everyone by any means, but it certainly isn't "not a good car". That declaration is just so belligerent and closed minded, I am surprised their editors let it print.

 

You've given me an idea. I've grown alienated from Consumer Reports but continue to subscribe for my wife. But they also send other fund raising letters. Next time, I'll print some of their anti-Prius reports and send a cover note,

"You don't value fuel economy (see attached.)"

Bob Wilson

 

Another long-time CR subscriber, (25+ years). It was a CR report on the 10-yr-old Prius in an article over a year ago that showed how durable the Prius was. It convinced me to buy a Gen III.

Just because you don't happen to agree with the latest CR article on the C, doesn't mean CR's evaluation criteria is flawed. Face it, you'd be so happy if CR printed an article that agreed with you. Every automobile review by any magazine will have some flaws in it, but I'll stick with CR's attempt to be as unbiased as possible.

 

It has to do with 'values' and apparently CR gives no weight to fuel economy. Worse, as I pointed out in an earlier post, they lumped the 5-seat, midsize hybrids with the 4-seat, subcompact Volt which means they don't care about what a vehicle can carry. They simply have different values than I do.

I suspect there are problems with the Prius c similar to what we found with both of our Prius. The "dead" electronic steering and steering geometry caster are high on my list. But as long as I have real costs to own and operate our cars, I'll continue to rate my metrics above theirs and my wallet will follow.

Bob Wilson

 

hello. i have narrowed my new car search down to three vehicles, the c being one of them. i never use cr for reviews for anything. years ago they used to rant on and on about how stupid it was to have air conditioning as an option in cars. i laughed then and laugh now at cr reviews. 37 mpg city ? come on. there is a guy at work who worships cr reviews, so some do take them seriously.

the car review process is slowly changing (not nearly quick enough) in all car publications though. anyone with an ounce of common sense knows if they are looking at a honda fit/prius c they are getting a small vehicle with very good mileage and are ok with the trade off of a less powerful engine, smaller interior, interior materials that aren't on par with a mercedes or bmw that cost twice as much. the prius is very reliable and maintenance costs are much less than the bmw/mercedes. so they should be reviewed more in comparison to their respective class (some are doing this-some not)

what met my needs 8 years ago was an all wheel drive honda element, goofy looking for sure but it was exactly what i needed and honda quality sold me. one o2 sensor is the only thing i had to replace other than regular maintenance. i expect the same will be true if i get a c. obviously there is a wealth of free information on the web. i weed out the best reviews and the worst reviews and make up my mind from there. enjoy your c and the outstanding mpg

 

Consumer Reports long term reliability ratings, assembled from subscriber surveys, are invaluable. But you always have to take their road test reviews with a grain of salt. They have a single standard by which all cars are judged. There's no consideration of the size of the car, the price of the car, the fact that it was designed for primarily city driving and to get high MPG, or its intended market segment. If a Corolla doesn't ride as well as a 535i, it gets downgraded for that feature.

It's probably better that they are consistent like that. At least you know where they stand, and you know you have to read lots of road tests and owner reports to get the full picture, and decide if the low points CR doesn't like, which are usually valid, are outweighed by the high point for your particular driving needs.

I do have to take issue with their city driving test for MPGs. It is absolutely brutal. It might simulate mid town Manhattan at rush hour, but it doesn't even come close to what the typical non highway driving experience is for most of us. Even though they said their tested C's 37 MPG in the city was "steller" and the best they have ever tested, all us owners know that numbers 15, 20, and even 30 MPG higher are possible.

 

I just wrote a "letter to the editor" at consumer reports outlining what I thought were some of the reviewers mistakes in reviewing the C.
You can have your voice heard by going to the following link and sending them a memo..

consumerreports.org/lettertoeditor