Consumer Reports twists the knife

Im referring to the Porsche 356 series sold at the time of the Corvair. Both cars had rear engine stability problems. In 1965 the Corvair was greatly improved as you stated. Porsche survived, Corvair did not due to Consumer Report and the bloviating of Ralph Nater.

 

OK its Nader.

 

If you had added another "t" to Nater no one would have objected.
Natter | Define Natter at Dictionary.com

A big difference was that the Porsche was an enthusiasts car while the Corvair was an economy car marketed to the general US population with low average driving skills and used to terminal under-steer. Even the much vaunted Mercedes 300SL had a swing axle rear axle and would turn around and bite you in the nice person if you pushed it too hard.

 

With due respect, YES BUT, In 1965 Chevrolet built some very fast corvairs and, As a young guy, I lived 7 mi from Yenko Chevrolet, home of the Yenko Stinger which was an official Chevrolet model sold through Chevrolet dealers. It would blow the doors off most Porsche cars of the period. The point I am trying to make is; I still don't it that Consumer Reports and a bloviating ultra left opportunist destroyed the Corvair. The Stinger, an official sanctioned by Chevrolet modified Corvair was still a Corvair which could have been with us still today as an affordable Porsche chaser or Porsche crusher as was the Stinger. Don Yenko was a nice guy that always had time for a young guy interested in performance cars. So CR should take it a little easy on the Prius C. OK

 

You've now put yourself in the same boat at CR, where you've made such asinine subjective blasts that now you can't back out. Obvious troll is obvious. CR made subjective quips and gave no comparative or empirical data to back it up. Complaining about road noise and then having no amplitude measurement subtracts from their credibility.


Let's go through CR's video bit by bit.

*they get the combined FE rating wrong, claiming it's 1 MPG below the Prius [liftback]
*"steering feedback is mostly dead, robbing this car of being fun to drive." Totally subjective, and I disagree on the fun-to-drive, as they fail to qualify their definition of fun.
*"the ride is busy and choppy." Also subjective, with no g-force data to back it up, or even any relativistic comparisons. Compared to the DD's I'm accustommed to, the c rides like a floating magic carpet. I actually laughed with I heard their comment on the ride, it's so off base.
*This is also a really noisy car. Wind noise becomes noticeable about 40 MPH." Again, where's the data. Notice he's saying this while driving the car and there's virtually no background noise.
*"..taking work to maintain highway speeds." Technically accurate, however absurdly misleading, as holding your foot on the pedal in a certain place to maintain speed is identical to every other car on the road. Thus, this is strictly a dramatic metaphor strictly to discount the car.
*"The interior is all hard plastic." Isn't every other car anywhere near this price? Honestly, name a car that doesn't use a plastic dash, door panels, and center console for less than $40k.
*"the digital displays is in the center dashboard, some drivers dislike that." More subjectivity, other than the Captain Obvious comment about the displays being digital.
*"Automatic climate control is an unusual feature in this class." They fail to discern that "unusual" means "good". Also, what "class" are they referring to?
*"a used regular model Prius, it's a much better car overall." For whom, and why?


As anyone with a clear mind can see, CR goes out of their way to leave data out of their "analysis" in order to deliver a biased result with marginal demographic context. The comment about the cabin being loud while showing off how quiet the interior is, is quiet amusing as far as obvious contradictions.

They can't be too clear if the NHTSA doesn't know about them. Why don't you list them for all of us fools that bought one?

 

Their FE is NOT wrong. It is what they got in THEIR tests. See The most fuel-efficient cars.

Have you ever driven cars w/good steering feedback? Some good RWD sports cars and BMW 3-series are usually the benchmark.

You mentioned your DDs... well, some people drive cars that have very smooth rides. CR tests a lot of cars. My former 02 Maxima had a very smooth ride (while my 04 350Z had a very harsh and bouncy ride). My 06 Prius a definite step backwards in ride smoothness and quality vs. my Maxima.

As for interior hard plastics, sit inside a ~$20K '12 Nissan Altima and touch all the surfaces. In most non-econobox class cars that are $20-30K, there will be plenty of soft-touch plastics, esp. above the gauge cluster. Sit inside ~$30K vehicles and touch the surfaces. You'll notice a far better quality of plastic than in the Prius c or cheap econoboxes.

I don't like instruments in the center. I don't sit in the center of the car.

As for automatic climate control, it is unusual to be included standard in econobox class cars.

 

It's almost as if they didn't mention that....oh wait...they didn't. The implication is EPA, which is of course standardized, not their own totally undisclosed methodology.

My vehicular credentials are more than enough to comment on steering feel. ...and the BMW F30 3-er is hardly a benchmark anymore now that they're targeting poseurs instead of enthusiasts. The last 3-er with positive uncorrupted without excessive tramlining steering feel was the E46. Incidentally that's about when the whole auto industry got on the whole Nurburgring kick and opted to trade good steering feel in general for front end grip, of which they're sometimes mutually exclusive depending on geometry philosophies.

Soft-touch plastics are a little industry joke/annoyance. They're slightly more expensive to manufacture [depending on specifics], however their longevity rates are generally poor as they scuff, tear, and abrade much easier than a good ole single stage ABS or PP. Basically, if you see soft-touch plastics, you had better not touch them because even a little rub can irrevocably ruin the surface finish. Now that's irony. If you want legitimately luxury material, stick with leather, metals, carbon-fiber, and hardwoods. Of course, you have to pay for it dearly, and no $20k is going to have them solely due to their cost, unless you make serious sacrifices elsewhere. In a car like the Prius c, where whimsical amusement is the interior theme, expensive luxury materials aren't really relevant. CR complaining over the obvious use of inexpensive materials within the interior is tragically misguided.

What seems to be happening here is; people that don't understand the c are using their ignorance to defend CR's own. Those that own a c obviously are significantly more probable in understanding the thesis of the car and will see the lack of logic in CR's review. This is moving beyond defending the car simply because we bought it, which good logical thinkers can do.

 

Their FE methodology isn't undisclosed. They discuss it briefly at the end of http://www.consumersunion.org/Oct_CR_Fuel_Economy.pdf. They talk a lot about FE on consumerreports.org.

I seriously suggest you get in a $20K car like a '12 Altima (can be had for just a tad over $17.5K in my area, due to incentivess right now) and compare its interior material quality to the Prius c. You'll see where it falls short. My mom has an '07 NAH and the interior is basically unchanged from the slight refresh that Altima got mid-cycle.

 

That doesn't mean they actually follow any of that. How naive do they think we are? That link you posted is from 2005. EPA introduced their current "more pessimistic" ratings in 2008. I say "more pessimistic" because they are for me however they end up being more accurate for the average meathead that floors it up to a red light.

Current Altima? I have. I have Ist hand experience with almost all current platforms on the market. This is getting off topic. There are cars out there that offer a different mix of overall driving experience. An average mass-market sedan is probably the furthest thing from interesting to me. "Fall short", you're missing the point, just like everyone else. I don't want yet another boring drab interior with faux luxury; I like the unabashedly whimiscal interior. The single stage plastics make it durable and easy to take care of so I can spend more time driving and less time worrying.

 

Yes, I know it's an old document and describes their tests vs. the old EPA tests. The EPA test changing doesn't change their test. They've discussed what they think about the newer tests (began w/MY 08) numerous times, such as at New EPA mileage figures.

That PDF has the most detailed description I've seen of their FE regimen. You're welcome to Google for site:consumerreports.org fuel economy test how we city highway to see if they have anything more descriptive.

I only brought up the Altima because it has a price that's comparable to some trim levels of Prius c and w/incentives, can be cheaper than a Prius c. It's gotten top (test scores) ratings in CR for a family sedan and has pretty good interior quality and driving qualities (related to it getting top ratings in CR). I'm also more familiar with it since my mom has one and I sometimes drive it.

I think you are missing the point. Their test criteria are not your criteria.

Forget FE. We already established it plays a small or no role in CR's tests scores. On all the other aspects, can you get a car that does better on their objective and subjective tests for the same price or less? The answer is yes.

Just because you feel the negatives of the Prius c aren't negatives for you, doesn't mean that their test scores should suddenly be higher or that it should suddenly be recommended.

 

I credit the "Buy" recommendation for the Porsche from Consumer Reports

 

SageBrush,
I completely agree. In my line of work I see 3-5 thousand people traveling into the country per day mostly Americans. (airport) On the conservative side and sadly at least 90% are out of shape and obese or borderline obese. They could not run one hundred feet to save themselves nor come close to passing a body fat index test. Another words they look like they have given up on taking care of themselves forever.
Any doubters out there can just stop and take a look around when your out in public in a mall or traveling. It's mind numbing to see how many Americans have just let themselves go. Sadly, at the end of the day the weak will whither away and the fit will live on. It's hard work to stay fit. We now live in the land of fast Mceverything and now the land of "entitlement" and little to no self discipline.

I guess my point of this rant is you are exactly right. It's ashame that what I see Is what the rest of the world sees.

As for CR, they get way more press and credit than they deserve. I discount them, they want to sell product and it appears they will report whatever it takes to keep the numbers up on the bottom line.

 

I read it too and was somewhat dismayed, but I still like the magazine for their other reviews and tests of things they do well. Like house paint, vacuum cleaners and other appliances. I still can't figure out why they say the C gets great gas mileage at 36 mpg (or whatever it was that they measured).

 

I'm starting to get a chuckle out of your posts, as they're curiously contradictory. The sports car demographic are not using CR as any sort of automotive resource. CR remains totally irrelevant for the enthusiast.

You have still failed to explain this little snippet of drama.

 

43 mpg overall (The most fuel-efficient cars)

37 mpg achieved by the c on their city test is the best for ANY non-EV and non-PHEV (Best vehicles for city & highway mpg)

 

Right on the money.

Also, for everyone saying that the liftback feels like a luxury car compared to the C.... it should it's 25% more expensive.

I'd like to hear what new cars for the same money are a better value than the C. As someone mentioned, CR seems to have turned into C&D, where some subjective "fun to drive" and "magic something" ("magic something" is the excuse for the blatant bias of why BMW > * in the eyes of C&D) is more important than value, reliability, and practicality. As I mentioned in the original CR thread, I didn't buy the C because I'm a Prius fan, a tree hugger, or care about ending oil dependence. My last car made over 500whp, had no cat or emissions equipment, and got 17mpg of leaded fuel on a good day and I'm ok with that. I bought the C because it's simply the best equiped and overall best value new car in the price range. Suggesting someone buy a used Gen II is asinine, because if you're going to start comparing new cars to used cars, then a used GS430 for $22k is infinitely more car for the money, or maybe a Ferrari 360 with 490,000 miles on it would be awesome.

 

p

TOYOTA, Just lower the price of the Prius C model 2 down to $18,000., Give a rebate back to all those that already purchased one and everyone will proclaim what a great value the C is and we will all be in agreement as happy pigs in the mud.

 

I'm always down for a rebate, but at the $22,300 I paid for the model 3 I think the money was well spent. I'd challenge anyone to find a similarly well-built car with the same content for that price. We won't even factor in the fuel mileage.

 

I really think the controversy here is overblown. While I take CR's advice seriously, they are but one source to help one formulate an opinion. Keep them in mind but go drive the car for yourself to see how well it fits your own needs. You, the buyer, are the best judge of what's right for you. Maybe CR's opinion was based largely on subjective reasoning but it shouldn't matter too much if you do your own objective evaluation of the 'C' based on your own preferences. As a source, they're most useful in compiling reliability data but are often slammed on their road tests. Nothing new about that so let's move on; it's not worth getting bent out of shape over.

 

+1