Consumer Reports twists the knife

Let me try this one more time and then I'll leave this thread to the dust bin. First and foremost, this is a discussion about CR and the credibility of a single review and subsequent cars to avoid comment. Not about the value of the car.

CR publishes a review of the C with vague, contradictory statements about the car's handling characteristics, that many seem to feel is slanted towards the negative, when several positive features were actually described. This is my only beef with the review.

I cannot argue with their points about the ride and road noise. Compromises were obviously made to save weight, when it was learned that the difference in aerodynamics caused by chopping the lift back into a more traditional hatchback was going to cause a loss in mpg.

CR chose to not recommend the car. That's fine. Based on their usual criteria, that was the right decision, and consistent with their always rigid automobile judgement standards. But that doesn't make up for the poorly phrased language used to describe the cars handing.

The "twist the knife" part comes when in the September issue, they call the C a "car to avoid". Maybe this was another case of poor phrasing, but CR's list of cars to avoid, published in their annual auto issue, has always been a list of the worst of the worst cars. Vehicles had to have major and dramatic design defects or thoroughly nonredeemable repair and reliability records to get on this list. Unless they are redefining what it means to be on this list, which they made no mention of, the Prius C, and the Civic for that matter, do not belong on it, not based on the previous criteria CR used. "Not recommended" is one thing. "Car to avoid" is entirely different

I feel the same way you do about CU, it's a "well respected, objective, credible product review organization", and I don't think there is a vendetta. At first I thought it was just some poorly chosen sentences that one reviewer used, but then they came up with the cars to avoid thing, and well, without some further explanation, I feel they have lost a bit of credibility and consistency. I haven't given up on them. My subscription is not going to be cancelled. But I still think their views on the C do not stand up to their own usually high standards of objectivity.