Hybrids won't save drivers money, Consumer Reports (April 2006)

First of all weren't you stranded in your Prius? How could a vehicle which had a substantail number recalled to take care of a stalling problem, be named CR's most reliable vehicle? The recall was for stalling not a radio noise or some other bs, it was for stalling.

Secondly I apologize to you for including you in the Sheep-le which make up the nation of great american consumers. I know that you do not do thinkgs the way most americans do, and I inferred that with my questioning.
The point of my question was to say there really are no "facts" in CR, at least in the terms which CR would like us to all believe. Do the people making the ratings drive a vehicle to and from work? If they do, there is no way they can make an objective rating either on the vehicle make they are driving or on a competing make. If a tester was driving say a Nissan altima to and from work every day, and basically loved their decision, does anyone think that tester is going to write and article trashing a Nissan and therefore put their own buying decision into doubt?

I would love to know what motivated the guy who wrote the article about the Prius. I disagree with most of his logic in the article and everyone knows I am not exactly in love with toyotas or the Prius.

 

Yep. I had left Polo Park, heading south on Kenaston, just past the tracks. I had stopped at a red light, when the light turned green I slowly pulled away, following traffic, when the Triangle of Doom turned on.

Since traffic was only going 30-40 km/h, I continued on electric until I pulled into Dr Hook's main equipment yard, they are the largest tow operator in Manitoba. Very convenient.

My GMC also left me stranded when the AutoTrak f***ed up. In that case I had to call for a 4wd tow truck to pull me out.

You do bring up a good point about data reliability and validity. CR depends on mailed in reports, and I'd imagine most folks won't admit if they made a bad choice with something. IOW they tend to gloss over things. Or else they felt they were really screwed and scream bloody murder.

I also look at the JD reports with some suspicion as they appear to say different things about the same topic. For example, their 3 year reliability reports "prove" that Kia and Hyundai are very unreliable, but they gush praise for the "improvements" made. JD can't seem to say bad things, but as their primary business is a "global marketing information services company" that makes sense.

 

I know that JDPOWER at times has an agenda it is pushing, especially when they are doing dealership surveying. My biggest problem with CR is that they have postitioned themselves as the completely objective source for all the automotive facts. Are they a good source for some data, of course. Do they have biases and make mistakes? Of course they do, they just pretend they don't.

 

I answered your same question in this thread yesterday. Here's what I wrote:

The stalling problem is no longer a problem.

As for saving money, well, I drive around 500 miles each week. Now that I'm seeing tank averages over 50MPG, that means I'm filling up my Prius only once each week with 10 gallons of gas. I filled up my previous car at least twice per week with 12-15 gallons each fill-up.

My insurance premium is lower on my Prius, too. Through State Farm, I'm getting a 20% "safety" discount, compared to 0% for my old car.

And for me, buying a Prius wasn't just about spending less money at the pump. It's also about using less fossil fuel, emitting fewer fumes, and sending less money to certain oil-producing nations.

 

There is one flaw in argument that these ratings are somehow skewed toward the Prius or any other foreign make. The same phenomenon that would not make Prius owners report problems would also lead to GM owners or any other car owners possibly underreport problems as well.

I trust the surveys from CR, but don't always put as much trust in their articles. For instance, they recommend getting an HDtv, but I didn't as I still don't think that the prices are close enough to conventional TVs. Yet for 6 months to a year, they have been saying this is the case.

 

I agree with you that most folks will not trash their recent purchase unless they are really unhappy. Where I think CR fails is the fact that their subscribers are disproportionately from the coasts. It would be like determining the politics of the US using a sample made up 70% blue states residents and 30% red residents and calling it a random sample. By the way it looks as though that is very much what happened in the last election. It was a sample from the US, just not a random sample from the US geographically speaking. Huge difference.

 

I don't know, I get the feeling that CR actually believes that they're objective. They're not pretending or assuming an affectation, they really believe it. That lessens my opinion of their objectivity. An organization that really is objective would seriously entertain the idea that they're not.

 

Well, since the opposite of objective is subjective, perhaps they just refuse to be labeled subjective, no matter how objective they actually are...

 

The reaction here of members toward the CR Prius article is pretty typical of others in different forums who discuss products and have an intense interest in them. CR usually doesn't quite get it right a lot. I quit subscribing to CR quite some time ago. I don't remember the last time I actually read the magazine cover to cover. It seems they usually don't include the model of product I'm interested in or have findings that don't match with the people on the forums where the products are discussed in much detail, whether it is audio/video/home theater gear (AVSForum), major appliances (Gardenweb), or cars (Priuschat, Toyotanation, etc.) . In a limited way, I guess you can use CR as a starting point but it seems doing a search on the internet will give you a broader range of informed opinions on specific products. And you can communicate real time with those people to find out why they think the way they do. Also, you will find out the best prices or how to get discounts which also tends to throw off CR research.

 

"CR is not perfect".
Has the world come to an end yet ?

Seriously, only our most forlorn think so. Everybody else realize that CR is a superb consumer mag, that sometimes makes errors; makes calls on preferred products that may or may not coincide with any one individual consumer; and overall lacks specific information or expertise that others may hold.

As an example, I don't bother reading CR reports on computers. My choices are not theirs -- but that is OK. They do not tell me anything I do not already know, and my priorities differ.

Whereas, when I went to purchase a washer and dryer, CR was seminal in my choice. I did not pick their top 5 choices, but I did find through CR what I was looking for: a super reliable, no frills, inexpensive choice

So long as CR is transparent enough that I can follow what they test for, and how much they weight individual characteristics in their final choices -- but collect good data along the way -- I remain a CR reader.

Come to think of it, did GM's decline coincide with CR's ascendancy as a consumer mag ? Before CR, did the US consumer have *any* reasonable data on car manufacturer reliability over five years ? This thread has devolved into sour grapes for GM and it's stooges.

 

Strange you don't value the CR recommendations unless it is automobiles?

 

Forlorn's suggestion that a consumer's subsequent reporting on a product THEY CHOSE TO BUY, is colored by underlying political persuasion, is simply idiocy.

 

So a few weeks after purchasing your brand new zorch you will put on a survey that you wish you had purchased something else. Do you know anything about human nature? If there are major problems they will spill the beans if not they will most certainly justify their purchase.

Do you know anyone who tells their neighbors how sorry they are about their new vehicle? I will tell you from firs thand experience that the best salespeople are people who have just completed their purchase. When the market is hot the best 'prospects' are the neighbors of someone you just sold. They already know all of the selling points!

 

Only you can somehow connect your post with mine.

 

Well, no, in this case the opposite of objective would be "biased" but I'm not sure that considering the opposite is useful. The point is that objectivity is something that needs to be maintained and tested at all times. I value coworkers and friends who are willing to point out when something that I do doesn't measure up to my standards. When they point out an error in my work or whatever, I go back and reexamine it. When I see that they're right then I own up to it and correct it. If they're mistaken then I point it out. We do it with light hearts, not with heavy ones because making mistakes is part of the process, as is not taking yourself TOO seriously. But objectivity is a constant struggle to maintain and if CR refuses to seriously examine their conclusions when someone brings up a contradiction, that's not being objective.

 

unfortunately, the damage has been done. just saw a blurb on the local news saying a "new study" shows that hybrids will cost "thousands of dollars" more to own and operate.

they did not attribute the study to anyone and the on air time was about 45 seconds. but that is all it takes.

i cant help but feel that this is not the end of what CR has to say. i be willing to bet that this issue will be re-visited.

 

Yes, especially when the price of gasoline keeps going up and people realize that owning their gas guzzler will cost them thousands of dollars more just to keep running

 

With very few exceptions that is all the news is anymore is unsubstantiated stories being retold over and over. Or worse yet making up the news as you go, which seems to be easier and easier to document all the time.

Does anyone remember Stone Phillips, Jane Pauley and the Dateline NBC episode on GM side-saddle gas tanks and the aftermath?

 

Objectivity refers to the adherence to a PRE-determined set of criteria, letting the chips fall where they may. When Road&Track says "Wow, knocked my socks off", all you can say is Wth. Bias refers to the tendency of the criteria to favor one outcome over another. In the case of CR's member surveys, there probably is a bias, being a self selected sample of consumers. But saying its biased in favor of Asian cars because most of the membership is on the coasts doesn't explain the spotty reliability of European cars. Are BMW and Benz owners less full of themselves than Prius owners? I doubt it. I think the kind person who's motivated to fill out the lengthy questionaire is also motivated to be honest. They may check the box that says "I love my car", but they'll also report all the trips to the dealer.

 

Go to an audiophile forum after a CR review of speakers!!! I know a thing or two about bicycles and only glance at their bicycle reviews. Goodness of multifaceted consumer goods such as cars, speakers and bicycles is, well, multifaceted. With can openers, its all about opening cans without slicing off fingers. Their criteria of goodness for bicycles is not mine, but I'm about 3 standard deviations out from the norm of bicycle consumers. Would I insist a bicycle that meets my criteria is right for all? Probably, but that doesn't make it true. But both selections, mine and CR's, may be objective, just different criteria.