Are the folks at Consumer Reports a bunch of idiots?

[crazyjoe]

In this thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=374444

There is talk of how Consumer Reports says electric burners heat up faster than gas ones. Obviously that's just plain stupid (though since there is no direct cite, I can't say if it's poor memory or CR being dipshits), because when I turn on the gas, I get heat NOW, whereas if I turn on an electric burner I get heat in a very short time.

I also have experience buying a "recommended" dishwasher from their list. One that supposedly does a good job of cleaning and is efficient, but wasn't 800 - 1000 bucks. Yeah. I have to run the dishwasher with a shitload of extra detergent and on the "heavy soil" setting (where it runs for about 2 hours or more) if I want clean dishes. There goes my efficiency. Oh, and my old dishwasher didn't require as much time or as much detergent as my new one.

In a lot of ways, reading articles, they seem to come off more as snobs than of knowledgeable people.

So, does anyone have anything GOOD to say about Consumer reports?

[bup]

My experience has been hit-and-miss. We bought a car seat based on their recommendation, and it was the hardest tangle of straps I've ever had to deal with. Yeah, I want my kid to be safe, but if I can't figure out the system correctly, then nothing has been accomplished.

They also miss the point, it seems to me, on cars, often. They always focus on the profit that a dealer is getting or manufacturer. I get that, within a brand and model, that makes sense, but they even do it across models. At that point, who cares about profit? If you rate two cars the same, and can get X at a lower price than Y, what's the problem if X gives the dealer a higher profit margin?

They love the protein dishwasher detergents, but I can't tell the difference.

All in all, I'd say you have to really consider what they're looking for in a good widget (which they are usually pretty good about explaining), and then decide if that lines up with what you're looking for in a good widget.

[Zsofia]

That's not poor memory, I had the article in front of me - May 2006, WRT the gas stove thing.

I do hope they're not entirely full of shit, as I'm buying a... gas stove they suggested. They do, however, like Electrasol for dishwasher detergent, and I just had a repairman come over and tell me that's why my dishwasher leaks - Electrasol can cause a suds lock and the thing can't drain. He had me run a cycle with white vinegar and then start using Cascade, and indeed the leak is no more.

[Cheesesteak]

There is talk of how Consumer Reports says electric burners heat up faster than gas ones. Obviously that's just plain stupid (though since there is no direct cite, I can't say if it's poor memory or CR being dipshits), because when I turn on the gas, I get heat NOW, whereas if I turn on an electric burner I get heat in a very short time.I believe that the actual claim is that electric will heat up a pot of water faster than gas. Their test for heating speed is to time a 6L pot of water to a boil. Therefore, when they say electric is "faster" they're referencing that test. I can absolutely believe that electric can do this faster than gas. Direct contact with the element vs. an inch gap with a flame under it.

You definitely have to take their ratings with a grain of salt. They liked the blender that I threw away because it sucked so much. It's a data point at least, and a decent place to start when thinking about a purchase.

[Velma]

I use it before a big purchase but only in conjunction with other review sites, like amazon or epinions. I usually narrow it down a little with Consumer's to get the real lemons out and then read the 'real life' reviews on other sites. Usually I get more helpful info from the real people reviews since you can look for trends in the reviews and they tend to give more practical advice.

It is helpful for things like safety ratings and other tests that people can't rate on their own.

[kurahee]

I subscribe to this rag, and like others, I think it's best to use as a starting point. When I first started reading it, I thought it was great. So I bought one of their recommended best buy vac. cleaners. Now, this VC sucks like nothing you've ever seen, but

1) It's VERY heavy, and difficult to impossible to use on stairs.
2) It sucks so hard, it actually took carpeting fuzz/fibers/whatever out of the not-so-new carpeting I used it on. I mean, I want it to clean, but leave the carpet!

Ahem. Now then. Thank goodness I didn't throw away our old canister vac. that still works just fine. Sort of. The weird thing is, this new sucking monster doesn't seem to work too well on hardwood, tile, whatever. But it should, as it sits low enough to work. I haven't figured this out yet. (CR said it was good for this use)

But there is one thing I've always wondered about C.R. They NEVER seem to rate expensive products/appliances well. I'm talking about house appliances, like Viking and SubZero, and vacs like Kirby. These things are always rated low, and they are so over the top expensive, that I wonder how they stay in business. That makes me believe that C.R. does target a certain audience, older folk of average means. If Viking products suck as bad as CR says (expensive, repair prone, etc, etc), the company would shut their doors.

Someone is buying them. I can't believe rich people are all stupid when it comes to this stuff.

[Balance]

I have considered Consumer Reports unreliable (at best) since reading their comparison of two VCRs some years ago. They raved about how wonderful one of the machines was, while utterly panning the other one.

Well, I was an electronics tech at the time; I spent a substantial amount of time repairing VCRs, and knew the VCR industry very well. As a result, I knew that, although the two models in question had different brand names and model numbers, they were in fact identical. They were made by the same company, on the same assembly line, deviating only for the brand-labeled cosmetic components and model number stickers. There was no difference in quality, functionality, or price between the two machines.

Even if they got a lemon of a machine for testing, that article indicated sloppy research at best, and bias at worst. I've ignored CR ever since.

[gotpasswords]

But there is one thing I've always wondered about C.R. They NEVER seem to rate expensive products/appliances well. I'm talking about house appliances, like Viking and SubZero, and vacs like Kirby.
Their ranking formula seems to be highly price sensitive, and they generally seem to ignore long-term life of an item.

As for Kirby vacs, I've got a 22-year old Kirby that looks and works like new. The local Kirby dealer said so last year, when I brought it in for a brush roller. CR will look at a vacuum for a month or so in testing, and ignore that a $1500 Kirby will outlast, outclass and outperform the $89 "Best Buy" flimsy plastic vac that will last a year if you're gentle with it. If you can front the $1500, the Kirby will be a far better purchase than $100 per year on disposable vacs.

Of course, my new Dyson leaves the Kirby in the dust. :D

[scotandrsn]

I have subscribed for the last several years, and find them often wanting.

We always used them back in the 1970s with nary a complaint. We felt they routinely led us to quality products. Not so much these days. It seems their criteria have changed.

Most annoying however, is that the models they test are almost always gone by publication time.

I just got my CR within the last couple of days, but I can almost guarantee that at least 70% of any electronic equipment models they rated in that issue will not be on the shelves of any store I care to consider buying them at. Their ratings in these categories are often less than worthless.

[Czarcasm]

Considering the title of this thread and some of the responses, I think this is more of a collective bitch session than an actual poll.
Moving thread from IMHO to The BBQ Pit.

[scotandrsn]

OK, just to demonstrate what I was talking about, instead of doing my job I compared CR's list of Digital Cameras (one of the categories where they claim to keep things up to date in their online version, regardless of when they publish their reports).

Here are their top five picks for compact (as opposed to sub-compact) digital camera as of right now (it's in the current issue), and what I found on various potential resellers' sites regarding availability and price (my own experience is that these sites have a fairly accurate correspondence with what's on the shelves at my local store).

1 Sony CyberShot DSC-W5 (A CR Best Buy) $220

Sony: site lists refurbished models in limited quantities only
Best Buy: Not listed
Circuit City: Not listed
Fry's Outpost: Not listed
Ritz Camera: Not listed
Samy's Camera: Not listed
Sears: Not listed
Target: Not listed
Wal-Mart: Not listed
Amazon: unavailable directly, no price


2 Canon PowerShot A620 $325

Canon: has page for product, no indication of availability
Best Buy: Not listed
Circuit City: $249
Fry's Outpost: $249
Ritz Camera: Not listed
Samy's Camera: $249 -rebate
Sears: Not listed
Target: $299
Wal-Mart: Not listed
Amazon: $Click-and see!

3. FujiFilm FinePix F10 $315

Fujifilm: has page for product, no indicaton of availability
Best Buy: Not listed
Circuit City: Not listed
Fry's Outpost: Not listed
Ritz Camera: Not listed
Samy's Camera: Not listed
Sears: Not listed
Target: Not listed
Wal-Mart: Not listed
Amazon: $331, marked down from $399

4. Kodak EasyShare Z700 $245

Kodak: $199
Best Buy: Not listed
Circuit City: Not listed
Fry's Outpost: Not listed
Ritz Camera: $299 for camera AND printer dock
Samy's Camera: Not listed
Sears: Not listed
Target: Not listed
Wal-Mart: Not listed
Amazon: $149


5. Olympus C-5500 Sports Zoom $280

Olympus: lists camera in "archived products"
Best Buy: Not listed
Circuit City: Not listed
Fry's Outpost: Not listed
Ritz Camera: Not listed
Samy's Camera: Not listed
Sears: Not listed
Target: Not listed
Wal-Mart: Not listed
Amazon: unavailable directly, no price

Not only are their top five picks unavailable, but their prices are way off. I might dismiss researching the Canon A620 due to the price, not knowing it's actually $75 less at most of the places that even sell it.

I realize that CR buys models direclty from the shelves, and that there is testing and publishing delay involved, but these results are so pathetic they might as well not bother.

[bup]

One thing they do that makes the whole subscription price worthwhile is that annual poll of cars and repairs.

Of course, nothing matters more to me in car ratings than reliability.

[NoClueBoy]

Years ago, back when the Canon AE-1 was a current camera, I picked up their 35mm SLR camera special issue. As an avid photog for many years by that time, and working at a photographic equipment retail store at the time, I thought I would find it good fun reading.

However, apparantly the people they had write that issue were not photographers, not having any familiarity with the processes involved. Also, it was painfully evident that they hadn't even read the instruction manuals of the cameras they "tested," as they got virtually every feature wrong on some of the most popular 35mm SLRs ever. (OM-2, FE, ME-Super, XD-11, R-3, A-1, FS-1, RTS, etc...)

I took it back to the store and all of us had some great laughs reading their reports.

I've never taken that magazine seriously since.

[Tamex]

Perhaps Consumer Reports uses the manufacturer's recommended retail price for cameras rather than the "street price" that cameras actually sell for in stores. I noticed this phenomenon in Popular Photography--a camera price mentioned in the articles (such as in a review) was always higher than what you'd see for that same camera in a store or even in the ads in the back of that very magazine!

[kurahee]

Their ranking formula seems to be highly price sensitive, and they generally seem to ignore long-term life of an item.

As for Kirby vacs, I've got a 22-year old Kirby that looks and works like new. The local Kirby dealer said so last year, when I brought it in for a brush roller. CR will look at a vacuum for a month or so in testing, and ignore that a $1500 Kirby will outlast, outclass and outperform the $89 "Best Buy" flimsy plastic vac that will last a year if you're gentle with it. If you can front the $1500, the Kirby will be a far better purchase than $100 per year on disposable vacs.

Of course, my new Dyson leaves the Kirby in the dust. :D

My grandmother swore by Kirby, and that woman was a clean freak. She abused those machines and they never let her down. So, I'll take that as two satisfied customers. But you are right. Dropping $1500 on a vac. is a tough thing to do. Come to think of it, I'm wondering where old gramma got the cash for that?

Now, tell me about your Dyson. CR rates them average at best, but I want to know more. My carpet needs a break!

[Dewey Finn]

I believe that the actual claim is that electric will heat up a pot of water faster than gas. Their test for heating speed is to time a 6L pot of water to a boil. Therefore, when they say electric is "faster" they're referencing that test. I can absolutely believe that electric can do this faster than gas. Direct contact with the element vs. an inch gap with a flame under it.
I don't think they're "a bunch of idiots." Their approach is to attempt to objectively compare products. In order to do that, they need to establish standard criteria, such as the amount of time needed to bring six liters of water to a boil. it's not a perfect approach, but what is the alternative? (Someone suggested sites like Amazon or Epinions, but my impression is that the reviews on those sites aren't from people who have tried all the competing products.)

[mike1dog]

I know a big part of their reputation is made testing cars. I'm not saying it was a great car or anything, but they claimed the Dodge Omni was a dangerous car. Why, you may ask? Because if you were in a turn with the steering turned all the way to one side, and you suddenly turned the steering all the way to the other lock as fast as you could, then the car would lose control. They offered no reason why you would pull a stunt like this, and they didn't perform this test on any other car in that issue. They really don't know very much about cars.

[bump]

One thing they do that makes the whole subscription price worthwhile is that annual poll of cars and repairs.


Except that some of their "reviews" are actually estimated reliability ratings based on previous model years, which by itself isn't bad, but when you do dumb-ass stuff like rate a vehicle highest based on data from only one previous year(Honda Ridgeline) when there are others with many years of data (Ford Ranger, Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tundra), it makes me wonder how much of their "reviews" and stuff is just guesstimation to make people comfortable, and not really to show anything interesting.

[Princhester]

Most annoying however, is that the models they test are almost always gone by publication time.

I just got my CR within the last couple of days, but I can almost guarantee that at least 70% of any electronic equipment models they rated in that issue will not be on the shelves of any store I care to consider buying them at. Their ratings in these categories are often less than worthless.

There is, I suspect, another problem which is what I call the "Choice" effect (that being the name of the Australian magazine of the same type).

When they do a test and find a particular widget that is cheap and very good, it sells out very quickly and I suspect that the manufacturer makes sure they discontinue it for reasons that are counter intuitive but not so much if you understand how the widget market works.

The sale price of widgets is set by marketing people according to what the market will bear, and how the most money can be extracted from the most people, not by price of manufacture (which merely sets a floor). Manufacturers sell (as a typical example) an entry price widget, a mid price widget and an upper price widget. The disparity in price in no way reflects the disparity in manufacturing cost.

The entry price widget typically lacks a few features but in no way does that lack justify the price drop: the features are missing just so that it justifies the purchase of the model above by those that can or will. At the same time, the manufacturer can still make some money out of those with with little money to spend, which it wouldn't if it priced all its widgets high.

The upper price widget similarly has a few additional features, but again in no way does the cost of those features necessitate the price hike. One of the big features that the upper price widget often has is prestige and reputation. This is achieved by selling upper price widgets under a different brandname upon which the manufacturer has lavished marketing expenditure in order to convince people that the brand is higher quality, more prestigious etc. even though the upper price widgets may well differ only in terms of a few stickers and mouldings from the lower price widgets, and come from the same factory. This allows the manufacturer to extract more money from the rich while selling them nothing much more than they sold the poor for half the price.

If Choice/CR does a report that shows that [low price point] Type A Brand X widgets are cheaper, better, more reliable and easier to use than [high price point] Type B Brand Y widgets, then that will kill the sales of the latter. And the latter is where the the real profit is. So if one manufacturer owns Brands X & Y, they certainly don't want Type A Brand X widgets on the market.

They NEVER seem to rate expensive products/appliances well. I'm talking about house appliances, like Viking and SubZero, and vacs like Kirby. These things are always rated low, and they are so over the top expensive, that I wonder how they stay in business. That makes me believe that C.R. does target a certain audience, older folk of average means. If Viking products suck as bad as CR says (expensive, repair prone, etc, etc), the company would shut their doors.

Someone is buying them. I can't believe rich people are all stupid when it comes to this stuff.

What marketing people know, but most consumers don't like to admit to themselves as much as they should, is that in the absence of objective information people assume expensive things must be better.

I have heard (but admittedly never actually from first hand sources) that an experiment was done in which catfood sales were proved to increase by increasing the price while controlling all other variables.

How much objective information does the average consumer have in order to determine that a particular product is actually better quality?

Many rich people got where they are by being savvy about appearances. They care that they are seen to have expensive widgets, not whether they actually work better.

[flood]

The thing about Viking and Sub-Zero and Wolf though, is that, while they are readily available to the general public, most people don't have the need for a professional grade 46" range. Viking and Wolf make most of their money with contracts for restaurants or on TV shows that you see on food network (pay attention to the credits at the end of Good Eats or whenever Emeril is sucking off his Viking cooktop). What CR does is they take this information into account; since most people won't EVER need a commercial grade range, they're not going to rate it as high because the damn thing is so expensive and you could get a quality Kitchenaid range that LOOKS commercial grade for half (or sometimes even a quarter) the price.

As for electric heating up water faster than gas, yes it's true on some makes of radiant heating cooktops, and most certainly true on the newer induction ones (see my comments in the linked thread).

FWIW, the Bosch dishwashers that came out on top in CR for 2006 are definitely worth every penny (though they don't have built-in hard food disposals). Remarkably quiet, and unbelievably efficient, if I had the money I'd definitely spring for one.

[flood]

48" I meant.

[scotandrsn]

There is, I suspect, another problem which is what I call the "Choice" effect (that being the name of the Australian magazine of the same type).

When they do a test and find a particular widget that is cheap and very good, it sells out very quickly...


I don't doubt that this happens with certain items, but the list of cameras I gave is their current list of top-rateds (, and the magazine version I have open in front of me says "Most models available through September 2006" which, as shown above, is BS. For most of the listings in my previous post, it's not a question of the store saying "sorry, out of stock", it's a question of the itme not even being listed in the catalog. Most of the cameras are not given the treatment of current items by the companies who manufacture them. IOW, Consumer Reports is recomending cameras that have not been widely available in months, to say the least. They are woefully behind the curve.

[Princhester]

As I said, what I was outlining was another problem. I wasn't trying to suggest your problem wasn't also real.

You are however being a little unfair. Firstly, you say their top five picks are "unavailable" when three out of five that you list clearly are available to at least some degree. Secondly, it's not CR's fault if things aren't available till when the information given them (no doubt by manufacturers) says. Thirdly, for a camera model (which would typically be on sale for quite some time) to be out of stock three months early is not that long. It is entirely possible that the lack of availability now (instead of from September) is because the sales and stock estimates weren't made on the assumption that the camera concerned would be listed in CR's top five. Thirdly, your information is from websites, so it is fluid. Once a model is sold out, they aren't going to list it but say "sold out" they're just not going to list it.

[Rick]

I have considered Consumer Reports unreliable (at best) since reading their comparison of two VCRs some years ago. They raved about how wonderful one of the machines was, while utterly panning the other one.

Well, I was an electronics tech at the time; I spent a substantial amount of time repairing VCRs, and knew the VCR industry very well. As a result, I knew that, although the two models in question had different brand names and model numbers, they were in fact identical. They were made by the same company, on the same assembly line, deviating only for the brand-labeled cosmetic components and model number stickers. There was no difference in quality, functionality, or price between the two machines.

Even if they got a lemon of a machine for testing, that article indicated sloppy research at best, and bias at worst. I've ignored CR ever since.

One thing they do that makes the whole subscription price worthwhile is that annual poll of cars and repairs.

Of course, nothing matters more to me in car ratings than reliability.
No so fast there Bup read Balance's story and then hear mine.
Back in the 1980's Volvo built two different series of cars that were imported to the US and reviewed by Consumer Reports. The 240 and the 740. The non-turbo 740 had the exact same engine and transmission as the 240. The engines and transmissions were built in the same factories. The cars were assembled in the same factories.
Yet CR rated one of them as above average in reliability for engine and trans, and the other below average for the same. :confused: WTF?

Second bitch about CR they are the kings of apples to avocadoes comparisons. Back in the early 1970s I worked in the tire department of a Montgomery Ward store. I had several people tell me they would not by Ward's tires because they rated so poorly in a CR test. I finally got one guy to bring in a copy of the issue. CR had compared the top of the line Sears/Michelin radial tire to the cheapest nylon bias ply tire Wards sold. They compared a $10 tire to a $60 dollar tire.
It did not surprise me at all that the Sears tire did better. :wally

Third bitch. They do things like compare peanut butter to say which one tastes best. Sorry boys but taste is an individual thing. The one you like the best, might not be the one I like the best. That does not make me wrong our you right. It just means we like different things.

[DrDeth]

Except that some of their "reviews" are actually estimated reliability ratings based on previous model years, which by itself isn't bad, but when you do dumb-ass stuff like rate a vehicle highest based on data from only one previous year(Honda Ridgeline) when there are others with many years of data (Ford Ranger, Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tundra), it makes me wonder how much of their "reviews" and stuff is just guesstimation to make people comfortable, and not really to show anything interesting.

It's simple- if it's made by Toyota or Hoinda, it gets the highest rating. Even if it's a brand new model. :rolleyes: Next, the reliability ratings aren't objective- they are entirely by subscriber vote.

I have ranted about this before. One huge problem is that CR uses completely unrealistic car prices to compare- they use list prices! (Note, they don't always use list prices, sometimes for other products they list a normal discount price). Let us take two cars- a Toyota and a Ford. Assume very similar autos, same niche and everything. The Toyota will have a price a couple thou over the Ford, and for that price is a better car. But the list prices has very littel to do with the real price of cars. Financing is a huge profit item for Toyota, while Ford often has a 0% financing sales campaign. That saves around $3000. Frod is more eager to deal than Toyota- that can easily save $2000. Trade in- Toyota will lowball you there too, so that's another $1000. So, while indeed the Toyota is a good deal at only $2000 more than the Ford- it's a crap deal at $8000 more! And CR knows Toyota dealers are bad- they used to run a poll "satisfation with the deal". But somehow, after years of showing Toyota about the worst, and Saturn the best- CR decided to stop printing that important peice of info. Someone told me that CR doesn't print info about good deals as they want you to pay for their deal service. :mad:

[RTFirefly]

We dropped the CR subscription a couple of years back, but I'd noticed some of these same problems, especially tested models that weren't available anywhere.

The other big thing that bothered me about them is that, even when testing supposedly inexpensive products, the products they tested were priced well above what I saw in the stores and in the ads. You'd never know, reading CR, that you can get a pretty good vacuum cleaner for $50 at WallyWorld, or a pretty good desktop computer for $300 at a bunch of places if you read the Sunday ads for a couple of weeks.

Since I do a fair amount of bottom-feeding in my appliance shopping, I got tired of this disconnect between what was in CR and what I was considering buying, and stopped subscribing.

[scotandrsn]

As I said, what I was outlining was another problem. I wasn't trying to suggest your problem wasn't also real.

You are however being a little unfair. Firstly, you say their top five picks are "unavailable" when three out of five that you list clearly are available to at least some degree. Secondly, it's not CR's fault if things aren't available till when the information given them (no doubt by manufacturers) says. Thirdly, for a camera model (which would typically be on sale for quite some time) to be out of stock three months early is not that long. It is entirely possible that the lack of availability now (instead of from September) is because the sales and stock estimates weren't made on the assumption that the camera concerned would be listed in CR's top five. Thirdly, your information is from websites, so it is fluid. Once a model is sold out, they aren't going to list it but say "sold out" they're just not going to list it.

There are a number of things that aren't CR's fault...except for deciding to publish rated lists of items that by now they should know have nothing to do with what the consumer will find in the store or at Amazon.

It's a result of the fast turnaround cycle and bizarre (to me) profit structure of tech companies. In the early 1990s I temped as an equipment technician for the marketing AV department at the Bose factory. Right about then they were gearing up for inside sales of the Acoustimass system (the original two little tweeters plus hidden bass box setup). There they were, strategizing about how they could play up its strengths, minimize its weaknesses, etc.

Meanwhile, every exec had the Acoustimass MkII, which fixed all the flaws and had better sound overall, sitting on their desk. R&D and manufacturing on it was all done, but because some genius in accounting had Acoustimass I as some separate line item than Acoustimass II, millions were going to be spent rolling out version I, when, IMO, they could have sold II at a higher price to make up for the R&D on I. Version I was expensive enough that most people who would have bought one would not have immediately turned around and bought II when it came out, in my estimation. So they were going to sell less of II in order to spend more money trying to sell as many of I as they could. Doesn't make sense to me.

But, then again, Bose is still in business*, so what do I know?

I have had similar experiences with software developers.


*Opinion was in my department at the timethat if Bose hadn't managed to garner a big reputation for itself to the point that they could charge an arm and a leg for their stuff, they would have gone under years ago.

[Cheez_Whia]

OK, time for another of my Sears stories :) . A lady approached me with what I could tell was a page printed off a website, and says, "I'm looking for a garage door opener, and my son says to buy this one." I take the sheet, and, sure enough, it's printed off of the CR website for the screw drive GDO that they have given a "best buy" rating for. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but I maybe know something she doesn't. I say, "Sure, that's a great opener; but do you mind me asking a few questions before you make your decision?" She agrees, and I quiz her about where she lives (Snowmass), if her garage is attached to the house (by a breezeway, not an interior wall), and if it is heated in the winter (no). I also ask where her son lives (Florida).

Well, I had seen the complete hell my manager had been through the previous winter, when a fellow who lived up in the mountains had found he had to manually open his door during the coldest part of winter because the grease in his screw drive opener had congealed to the point where it would no longer operate in his unheated, detatched garage.

I recommended that she buy a chain drive opener, and why. She left the store, and I'm sure she called her son. She came back in and bought the chain drive, and was pleasantly surprised that it cost less than the model she had originally come in for.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

The problem with items not being available in stores is not the fault of Consumers Reports.

Especially in electronics & technical products, the big chain stores like Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. order their own models from the manufacturers, with their own model numbers on them. Often just one of the manufacturers standard models, but with a few slight cosmetic changes, but a different model number. And their contract specifies that they can't sell to anyone else with that model number.

This is specifically done to prevent consumers from doing comparisons -- they can't go across the street to the competitor and compare prices on the same item. And their models are not the same model number as those tested by CR, so their sales clerks can argue that the problems reported in CR don't apply to this model.

There have also been cases where manufacturers have taken advantage of this, too. If a model is given a very bad rating, they may change the model number on all the new ones coming out of the factory, to try to escape that bad rating.

And if a model gets a good rating, manufacturers will continue using that same model number on a new, cheaper version of the product. This has been going on for years in cars, where a good model name will go from mid-sized to compact to sub-compact over the years, but still keeping the same model name.



Also, given the fast pace of model introductions in electronic items, it's not surprising that the reviews are months after the item is introduced. They have to buy the item, spend time testing it, write the article and then wait for a 2-3 month production schedule before the magazine is delivered to your house. CR buys actual products from a store.

Their reviews could be earlier if they accepted pre-intro 'beta' samples from the manufacturer, like many of the electronic magazines do. But it's quite likely that such 'reviewer samples' are carefully checked & tuned by the manufacturer before being sent out, unlike the ones a customer would find in a store.

[Bill Door]

I know a big part of their reputation is made testing cars. I'm not saying it was a great car or anything, but they claimed the Dodge Omni was a dangerous car. Why, you may ask? Because if you were in a turn with the steering turned all the way to one side, and you suddenly turned the steering all the way to the other lock as fast as you could, then the car would lose control. They offered no reason why you would pull a stunt like this, and they didn't perform this test on any other car in that issue. They really don't know very much about cars.

I actually owned one of the Dodge Omnis (actually, it was a Plymouth Horizon, but they were identical), so read the report carefully.

You may have overstated it a little, but not much. As I recall, the test was their standard accident avoidance manuver, where the wheel was suddenly jerked to the side, as if to avoid something in your lane, but not to the lock. After that, the wheel was released, not turned to the opposite lock, and the car was supposed to straighten out. The Omni/Horizons overcorrected, and came close to rolling over, and probably would have without the outriggers they used.

I nicknamed the car "the rollover deathtrap", and continued to drive it from 1978 until 1994. I figured if you thought letting go of the wheel after an accident avoidance was a good idea, you ought to die.

Not a bad car all in all, I paid $3706 for it, brand new, and drove it for close to 120,000 miles, and this was in upstate New York, where the road is heavily salted from November through April.

[Rocketeer]

I actually owned one of the Dodge Omnis (actually, it was a Plymouth Horizon, but they were identical), so read the report carefully.

You may have overstated it a little, but not much. As I recall, the test was their standard accident avoidance manuver, where the wheel was suddenly jerked to the side, as if to avoid something in your lane, but not to the lock. After that, the wheel was released, not turned to the opposite lock, and the car was supposed to straighten out. The Omni/Horizons overcorrected, and came close to rolling over, and probably would have without the outriggers they used.

I nicknamed the car "the rollover deathtrap", and continued to drive it from 1978 until 1994. I figured if you thought letting go of the wheel after an accident avoidance was a good idea, you ought to die.

Not a bad car all in all, I paid $3706 for it, brand new, and drove it for close to 120,000 miles, and this was in upstate New York, where the road is heavily salted from November through April.


My 1985 Omni was a neat little car. 2.2 liter engine, 5-speed, went like stink. The upholstery (a kind of corduroy) wore like iron. Drove it for 236000 miles.

[even sven]

Someone is buying them. I can't believe rich people are all stupid when it comes to this stuff.

Amazingly, being expensive and difficult to repair is an inherently good trait to some people. Look at BMWs.

We buy tons of stuff for no other reason than it's expensive. Look at diamonds, expensive cosmetics, etc. They've done studies where people won't but a product at one price, but will buy it at a price several times higher.

In any case, the true market for SubZero fridges and the like is not the truly rich (who couldn't care less what their cooks keep the food in), but rather the insecure middle class that is eager to do the things they perceive as being something a rich person does. This market seriously would not buy the same thing if it were cheaper.

[JRDelirious]

OK, the "predicted reliability" rating is based on reader feedback from those who send back the survey form. So you WILL have cases of products with identical important components (e.g. engines) getting widely divergent results on reliability if CR did not classify them as "twins" -- for instance, what if it happens that relatively more owners of model "B" are disgruntled, maybe because it's the upline model and they're pissed that it's really no better than the economy model.

With anything subject to Moore's Law (technology) they ARE too slow to get the report to press -- I figured that out long ago, that most of the list will be either superceded by new models or will be going for a much lower price. I look to those articles mostly for the satisfaction/frequency-of-repairs statistic, keeping in mind the self-reporting phenomenon.

Third, I do notice they've kind of "de-contented" some of the ratings, such as for instance the questions on the car purchase deal. And they've kind of muted down what used to be every year a major, huge push for learning to haggle down the price on cars (in which I recall, they often DID point out that Honda and Toyota were less likely to play around). Now it's briefer and less insistent than I used to recall it; either they feel the job is done or they gave up, I'm not sure.

Overall I've found their product evals, when compared with my real-world experience, to be a decent overall guide, though it should not be the sole source. I remind myself that anything that scores within one standard dev of the top rated or "best buy" product will be equivalent for most practical purposes.

And sorry, guys but I sent my questionnaire the other day and I still gave my old excitement-proofed Toyota Camry boremobile pretty decent marks. (I also gave good marks to my Frigidaire and my GE range -- those are still American, aren't they?).

[Rick]

OK, the "predicted reliability" rating is based on reader feedback from those who send back the survey form. So you WILL have cases of products with identical important components (e.g. engines) getting widely divergent results on reliability if CR did not classify them as "twins" -- for instance, what if it happens that relatively more owners of model "B" are disgruntled, maybe because it's the upline model and they're pissed that it's really no better than the economy model.
Yes but CR claims to deal in facts not perceptions.
Perception != reality

[JRDelirious]

Yes but CR claims to deal in facts not perceptions.
Perception != reality
Never worked in political campaigns, huh? ;)

I wonder if anyone's ever tried to sue CU for deceptive advertising about their ratings, as opposed to for specific product disparagement or testing method.


Actually, having taken many CU surveys, the usual format of the question is for you to identify the make and model of the car/fridge/whatever and answer a series of "ecstatic/satisfied/unsatisfied/pissed" alternatives about various aspects of the product, and/or a series of questions to the effect of "in the past year did you have a mjor failure or unexpected repair of [the product; or, of this list of components, check those that apply]", with sometimes an added q. about how much it cost. They tell you they mean significant expense, damage, hassle or downtime but kinda leave it up to you to be on the honor system to not be a whiner about every last imperfection.

So it's a "fact" that they got a survey result that indicates a Honda Civic is more reliable transportation than a Dodge Neon. But it's up to us to be aware that certain items in the reports are arrived at through the methods of social sciences, not physical sciences. Maybe CR needs to be more modest about that but it doesn't bother me. (I'm unhappier with the change in the way the CU board is elected, now by slates rather than individually)


BTW, I've noticed that folks unsatisfied with CR tend to be quite vehement about it, for some reason.

[Operation Ripper]

I bought a Toshiba HDTV they recommended and it has been great, FWIW.

[RaftPeople]

In my book, Consumer Reports has ZERO credibility.

In the early to mid 90's we bought a new Dodge Caravan after having read a good review, including quality ratings, etc.

Our transmission went out at 10,000miles and again at 20,000 and again at 30,000, each time replaced under warranty. The mechanic at the last dealership (a friend of my wife) took us aside and told us to sell this car before the 36,000 mile warranty ends because it's a huge problem with these cars that it is not going to get fixed.

So I did some research and found the following:
The transmission had been a known problem and used in various models since 1988.
There was incredible pressure from consumer groups (Ralph Nader) and class action lawsuits for Chrysler to fix the problem.


For Consumer Reports to miss or ignore this information basically indicated to me they are either:
Paid by manufacturers to list products and not say too much negative
or
Not very good at researching and determining quality of products.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

In my book, Consumer Reports has ZERO credibility.

In the early to mid 90's we bought a new Dodge Caravan after having read a good review, including quality ratings, etc.

Our transmission went out at 10,000miles and again at 20,000 and again at 30,000, each time replaced under warranty. The mechanic at the last dealership (a friend of my wife) took us aside and told us to sell this car before the 36,000 mile warranty ends because it's a huge problem with these cars that it is not going to get fixed.

So I did some research and found the following:
The transmission had been a known problem and used in various models since 1988.
There was incredible pressure from consumer groups (Ralph Nader) and class action lawsuits for Chrysler to fix the problem.


For Consumer Reports to miss or ignore this information basically indicated to me they are either:
Paid by manufacturers to list products and not say too much negative
or
Not very good at researching and determining quality of products.Well, the CR Annual Report shows that consumers gave the Dodge Caravan a black mark for "transmission" in every year from 1997-2000. Maybe more in earlier years; only the last 8 years are shown.

And the CR list of "Used cars to avoid" lists Dodge Caravan or Grand Caravan 6 times, covering pretty much all the years from 1997 thru 2004.

So it seems like CR is pretty clear in saying that lots of consumers reported problems with Dodge Caravan transmissions (and brakes were even worse).

[RaftPeople]

Well, the CR Annual Report shows that consumers gave the Dodge Caravan a black mark for "transmission" in every year from 1997-2000. Maybe more in earlier years; only the last 8 years are shown.

And the CR list of "Used cars to avoid" lists Dodge Caravan or Grand Caravan 6 times, covering pretty much all the years from 1997 thru 2004.

So it seems like CR is pretty clear in saying that lots of consumers reported problems with Dodge Caravan transmissions (and brakes were even worse).

Unfortunately that was about 4 years too late for a tranmission that was a known problem for 5 years prior to my purchase of the car.

[mobo85]

So, does anyone have anything GOOD to say about Consumer reports?

Their "Selling It" column is usually entertaining. And the original essays in the book version were very entertaining.

[robby]

In my book, Consumer Reports has ZERO credibility.

In the early to mid 90's we bought a new Dodge Caravan after having read a good review, including quality ratings, etc...

I find this hard to believe for the simple fact that I can't recall CR recommending ANY domestic vehicles in the 15 years I've been a subscriber. Even when they do rate domestic vehicles highly for performance (such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee, for example), they don't recommend it because of poor reliability.

It's not just domestic vehicles that receive this treatment. Volkswagen Jettas have been top-rated for performance the last few years, but are not recommended due to poor reliability.

I like to see some evidence for the report that you supposedly relied on to your detriment.

...For Consumer Reports to miss or ignore this information basically indicated to me they are either:
Paid by manufacturers to list products and not say too much negative...
Please provide a cite for this libelous assertion. I have found Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) to be the most honest, above-board consumers' protection group in the country. They go out of their way to purchase all of the products they test by anonymous buyers, including expensive items like cars and trucks. They do not accept free products for testing, nor do they accept ANY advertising from outside groups whatsoever. It would be quite a scandal to find that they accept any payments from manufacturers, so why don't you provide some support for this baseless accusation?

Unfortunately that was about 4 years too late for a tranmission that was a known problem for 5 years prior to my purchase of the car.
Prove it.

[RaftPeople]

I find this hard to believe for the simple fact that I can't recall CR recommending ANY domestic vehicles in the 15 years I've been a subscriber. Even when they do rate domestic vehicles highly for performance (such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee, for example), they don't recommend it because of poor reliability.

It's not just domestic vehicles that receive this treatment. Volkswagen Jettas have been top-rated for performance the last few years, but are not recommended due to poor reliability.

I like to see some evidence for the report that you supposedly relied on to your detriment.

I don't have my old copy of CR and I'm not going to purchase a back issue, but are you saying they don't review and provide results of their investigation of domestic automobiles?

You will just have to trust me that they did indeed have a reliability rating associated with the Dodge Caravan when I looked at the magazine, and the rating was not negative. I even went back to the magazine and double checked before I went to the lemon-law attorney because I couldn't believe that such a huge problem could get missed.





Please provide a cite for this libelous assertion. I have found Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports) to be the most honest, above-board consumers' protection group in the country. They go out of their way to purchase all of the products they test by anonymous buyers, including expensive items like cars and trucks. They do not accept free products for testing, nor do they accept ANY advertising from outside groups whatsoever. It would be quite a scandal to find that they accept any payments from manufacturers, so why don't you provide some support for this baseless accusation?

While I'm sure it was probably a mistake on your part that you only quoted 1/2 of my quote, I'm going to post it here so we both know what I wrote:

For Consumer Reports to miss or ignore this information basically indicated to me they are either:
Paid by manufacturers to list products and not say too much negative
or
Not very good at researching and determining quality of products

It's an opinion arrived at based on my own limited experiences with CR. If you say they don't accept payment, fine, I trust that. Which means the level of research and quality of information I was expecting was not the same as that which they are attempting to provide to people. Clearly, if there was a problem with the same transmission since 1988 used in various models, I would have expected a red flag, but there was no mention, hence my conclusion.



Prove it.

I'm not going to dig up all of the web-sites I did the first time around with this problem, it's not that important, but here is one web site:
http://www.daimlerchryslervehicleproblems.com/

"Since the late 1980's Chrysler's front wheel drive A604 Transmission later renamed the 41TE commonly used in its minivans has proven to be a Transmission very likely to fail, however Chrysler continues to use this Transmission design and the almost identical 42LE in many of its newer vehicles. These Transmissions are so problematic and trouble prone, they require a special fluid that has been revised and modified at least 3 times to help keep the Transmissions from destroying themselves. Between 1989 and 1991 Chrysler made 28 different changes in attempt to deal with common problems. Chrysler's special Mopar ATF has been developed to help smooth out common shift problems and prevent common premature failure. Chrysler's A606/42LE used in Dodge, Chrysler vehicles such as Intrepid, LHS, Concorde, 300M and Eagle Vision is a nearly identical Transmission, which has also been plagued with the same problems. For years Chrysler has also used these knowingly flawed Transmissions to their advantage, capitalizing on replacement Transmissions, parts, rebuild kits and the required fluid for those that actually know about the special fluid requirements..."

[Frank]

I don't have my old copy of CR and I'm not going to purchase a back issue,
If you can give me an approximate date, I'll see if it's in my stack.

My experience was the opposite. Despite all CR's bad reviews of the build, the electrical system, and the durability of the Saturn L300, I believed the people who said, "Well, CR just doesn't like Saturn." I'm regretting that; CR was right on the money.

[RaftPeople]

If you can give me an approximate date, I'll see if it's in my stack.

My experience was the opposite. Despite all CR's bad reviews of the build, the electrical system, and the durability of the Saturn L300, I believed the people who said, "Well, CR just doesn't like Saturn." I'm regretting that; CR was right on the money.

It was either '93 or '94 (I know that doesn't narrow it down too much, but hey that was a while ago)

[robby]

While I'm sure it was probably a mistake on your part that you only quoted 1/2 of my quote, I'm going to post it here so we both know what I wrote...
No need to do that; your original post is still there for anyone to read.

I didn't take issue with the second half of your quote, so I didn't repeat it. You basically stated that the publishers of Consumer Reports are dishonest or incompetent. The latter is a matter of opinion. The former is not. If you don't have any evidence to support such an accusation, then don't make it.

If you say they don't accept payment, fine, I trust that. Which means the level of research and quality of information I was expecting was not the same as that which they are attempting to provide to people. Clearly, if there was a problem with the same transmission since 1988 used in various models, I would have expected a red flag, but there was no mention, hence my conclusion.
The earliest auto issue I have is April 1997. The reliability info in that issue was compiled from their 1996 survey. In a section entitled "Highlights of the 1996 Survey," they state:

Other transmissions likely to be troublesome: those in long-wheelbase Chrysler minivans (Chrysler Town & Country, Dodge Grand Caravan, Plymouth Grand Voyager) and in older short-wheelbase Chrysler minivans. Chrysler redesigned the minivans in 1996, and time will tell how well their transmission will hold up.

In the trouble summaries for the Dodge Caravan V6, every year from 1989 to 1993 was rated as "worse than average." The '94 and '95 model years were "average," and the '96 model year was back to "worse than average." (The 4-cylinder model was generally rated as "average" reliability.)

The Dodge Caravan V6 transmissions were listed as being "worse than average" or "much worse than average" for model years 1989 through 1993.

In summary, you don't say what what model or year of vehicle that you bought, but my reading seems to show that CR was pretty clear in showing that Dodge Caravans historically had transmission problems.

[Frank]

It was either '93 or '94 (I know that doesn't narrow it down too much, but hey that was a while ago)
robby has me beat. It looks like I subscribed in 2000; I had thought it was earlier.

[Paul in Qatar]

I thought I was the only one who did not like CR. I have tried to use it, but as someone else pointed out, the specific models of stuff the review seem to be no longer in the stores by the time I learn about them.

I do sort of like the articles. If I am in the market for (say) a washer, it tells me to look for this, this and that. That helps I think.

Otherwise, it is not too useful.

[DrDeth]

I find this hard to believe for the simple fact that I can't recall CR recommending ANY domestic vehicles in the 15 years I've been a subscriber. Even when they do rate domestic vehicles highly for performance (such as the Jeep Grand Cherokee, for example), they don't recommend it because of poor reliability.
.

I have in my hand the 2006 CR "New car ratings & Reviews" special issue. The following domestic cars are "CR Recommended" (which requires at least an average reliability):
Buick la Cross, Buick Rendezvous, Cadillac CTS, Cadillac STS, Chev Avalanche, Chevrolet Impala (which gets a "better than average" relaibility rating, too, which many Toyota's, etc don't even get), Chev Malibu Maxx, Chevolet Monte carlo, Chrysler 300, C. Crossfire, C PT Cruiser, Dodge Magnum, Ford Crown Victoria, F 500, F. Focus, F. Mustang, Jeep Liberty, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Grand Marquis, M. Montego, Pontiac G6, & P. Vibe. And, in the prior year, it was about the same. So, you're just plain wrong. Many domestic cars are recommended.

I completely beleive both that CR downrated the tranny on the Dodge Caravan, and also Recommended it. CR gets many of it's ratings from it;s readers after they have owned the car for a while. The Dodge Caravan could well have been Recommended based upon prior perfromance, then downrated in later editions when the tranny problem was found.

There is little doubt that CR is biased in favor of Toyota & Honda. However, I think this is becuase they rank some things very high that those car companies do well, while ignoring stuff that those companies are very bad at. I seriously doubt if there is any colusion going on, however.

There is no doubt that CR USED to run "Rating car dealers' or "satisfaction with the deal" , where Saturn used to get top ratings and Toyota the worst. Oddly they no longer provide that info. :dubious: I think it is because they are biased by the one company that they do accept advertising from (and a shit-load of it, too)- themselves. They push the CR "New car Price Service" pretty hard.

[RaftPeople]

No need to do that; your original post is still there for anyone to read.

I didn't take issue with the second half of your quote, so I didn't repeat it.

Well, don't you think dropping 1/2 of a quote, especially when they are connected by an OR is, possibly, just a tiny bit misleading?

You basically stated that the publishers of Consumer Reports are dishonest or incompetent. The latter is a matter of opinion. The former is not. If you don't have any evidence to support such an accusation, then don't make it.

Both can be opinions and facts. In this case, it was my OPINION that one of those two statements was true. I even said "it indicated to me."

Companies that appear to be impartial take money from other companies and promote their products. This happens ALL the time in our economy. It happens in trade journals, it happens with consultants, it happens on TV, on the radio, it's everywhere.

So I don't think that's such a bad thing to consider.


The earliest auto issue I have is April 1997. The reliability info in that issue was compiled from their 1996 survey. In a section entitled "Highlights of the 1996 Survey," they state:

In the trouble summaries for the Dodge Caravan V6, every year from 1989 to 1993 was rated as "worse than average." The '94 and '95 model years were "average," and the '96 model year was back to "worse than average." (The 4-cylinder model was generally rated as "average" reliability.)

The Dodge Caravan V6 transmissions were listed as being "worse than average" or "much worse than average" for model years 1989 through 1993.

In summary, you don't say what what model or year of vehicle that you bought, but my reading seems to show that CR was pretty clear in showing that Dodge Caravans historically had transmission problems.


In 1993 I purchased a new 1994 Dodge Caravan (I just looked at my old files).

I don't think a consumer report issue from 1996 or 1997 is going to help me back in 1993 when I made my purchase. But if your point is that they figured it out eventually, ok fine, that certainly indicates they aren't completely asleep at the wheel.

[robby]

I have in my hand the 2006 CR "New car ratings & Reviews" special issue. The following domestic cars are "CR Recommended" (which requires at least an average reliability):
Buick la Cross, Buick Rendezvous, Cadillac CTS, Cadillac STS, Chev Avalanche, Chevrolet Impala (which gets a "better than average" relaibility rating, too, which many Toyota's, etc don't even get), Chev Malibu Maxx, Chevolet Monte carlo, Chrysler 300, C. Crossfire, C PT Cruiser, Dodge Magnum, Ford Crown Victoria, F 500, F. Focus, F. Mustang, Jeep Liberty, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Grand Marquis, M. Montego, Pontiac G6, & P. Vibe. And, in the prior year, it was about the same. So, you're just plain wrong. Many domestic cars are recommended.
You are correct. I shouldn't have said that. Upon reviewing some of their auto issues last night, they do indeed recommend vehicles that score well on performance and at least "average" in reliability. Many domestic vehicles fall into this category.

Well, don't you think dropping 1/2 of a quote, especially when they are connected by an OR is, possibly, just a tiny bit misleading?

Both can be opinions and facts. In this case, it was my OPINION that one of those two statements was true. I even said "it indicated to me."

Companies that appear to be impartial take money from other companies and promote their products. This happens ALL the time in our economy. It happens in trade journals, it happens with consultants, it happens on TV, on the radio, it's everywhere.
But CR makes a huge point in their publication that they NEVER accept money or free products from companies. And to surmise that they do (even with a alternative supposition that they are just incompetent) with no evidence is scurrilous. They either accept money and products or they do not. It's not a matter of opinion.

In 1993 I purchased a new 1994 Dodge Caravan (I just looked at my old files).

I don't think a consumer report issue from 1996 or 1997 is going to help me back in 1993 when I made my purchase. But if your point is that they figured it out eventually, ok fine, that certainly indicates they aren't completely asleep at the wheel.
I'd be curious to see what they did say back in 1993, but I don't have issues that go back that far.

[RaftPeople]

But CR makes a huge point in their publication that they NEVER accept money or free products from companies. And to surmise that they do (even with a alternative supposition that they are just incompetent) with no evidence is scurrilous. They either accept money and products or they do not. It's not a matter of opinion.

Robby, if you read a review that basically indicated the car had decent reliability (I don't remember the exact rating, other than it was not negative, that's all I cared about), and then you had problems and then found out that since 1988 Chrysler had been having huge problems with their transmissions and that there were class action lawsuits, Ralph Nader, consumer groups and the federal government pressuring Chrysler to fix the prioblem, what exactly would you conclude?

What are all of the reasonable explanations that you would entertain that could explain why CR didn't say "Warning: Chrysler has had significant transmission problems in every model of car that uses the XXXX tranmission, which is the transmission found in this Dodge Caravan"?

[robby]

Robby, if you read a review that basically indicated the car had decent reliability (I don't remember the exact rating, other than it was not negative, that's all I cared about), and then you had problems and then found out that since 1988 Chrysler had been having huge problems with their transmissions and that there were class action lawsuits, Ralph Nader, consumer groups and the federal government pressuring Chrysler to fix the prioblem, what exactly would you conclude?

What are all of the reasonable explanations that you would entertain that could explain why CR didn't say "Warning: Chrysler has had significant transmission problems in every model of car that uses the XXXX tranmission, which is the transmission found in this Dodge Caravan"?
I suspect they did indicate something to that effect in the issue you read. In any event, "not negative" is not exactly a glowing recommendation. I personally wouldn't purchase a vehicle with just "average" reliability, anyway. "Average" is not all that great, IMHO.

Also, CR generally doesn't try to predict the future. They either indicate the "projected reliability" or, for new models, state that there is "insufficient data." Even if a model has historically had problems, they have no way of knowing if the manufacturer has been able to correct them.

However, they do give reliability ratings and historical trouble spots for older vehicles. And as I stated previously:
...In the trouble summaries for the Dodge Caravan V6, every year from 1989 (emphasis added) to 1993 was rated as "worse than average."

...The Dodge Caravan V6 transmissions were listed as being "worse than average" or "much worse than average" for model years 1989 (emphasis added) through 1993.
Consumer Reports covers back 8 model years. In the 1997 issue I quoted above, they reported historical problems with Dodge Caravan transmissions as far back as their reported data (1989). Your 1993 issue would have covered historical problems back to 1985. I'd be surprised if the trouble with Dodge Caravan transmissions appeared out of nowhere in the 1997 issue.

Besides just reading their report on the latest model Dodge Caravan in your 1993 issue, did you look at the historical reliability ratings?

[Stan Shmenge]

Especially in electronics & technical products, the big chain stores like Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. order their own models from the manufacturers, with their own model numbers on them. Often just one of the manufacturers standard models, but with a few slight cosmetic changes, but a different model number. And their contract specifies that they can't sell to anyone else with that model number.

This is specifically done to prevent consumers from doing comparisons -- they can't go across the street to the competitor and compare prices on the same item. And their models are not the same model number as those tested by CR, so their sales clerks can argue that the problems reported in CR don't apply to this model.

There have also been cases where manufacturers have taken advantage of this, too. If a model is given a very bad rating, they may change the model number on all the new ones coming out of the factory, to try to escape that bad rating.

And if a model gets a good rating, manufacturers will continue using that same model number on a new, cheaper version of the product.

Not one word of this is true. Maybe you are thinking of mattresses. Some stores have "House brands", but this is not so common any more. Retailers have discovered people like brand names. In all cases of shopping for electronic goods in recent years, I have found the identical products at all the retailers I checked. This applies to laptop computers, desktops, televisions, stereo gear, car audio, cameras, washers, etc. While it is true not all stores may stock all models from a given manufacturer, they are standard models that any store can order, should they care to stock them.

/comparison shops for all kinds of things
//I am a one-man "Consumer Reports"
///Want a good digital camera? I just bought the Canon A700, and it is one of the best all in one digital cameras you can get. Canon. 6Mp, 6X optical zoom. 'Nuff said.
////CR can suck it

[Stan Shmenge]

I'd be curious to see what they did say back in 1993, but I don't have issues that go back that far.
I have the complete run from issue 1 to around the year 2000 (Late father was a completist) so if anyone actually cares, I could dig it out and settle it once and for all. Usually though, they don't offer reliability advice on new models, and the Crapavan is the kind of car they would tend to recommend, so maybe this is what the poster is recalling.

Consumer reports:

"Nice minivan. It was easy to get in the seat. Short drivers could see out the mirror, blah blah blah. Can't say much about reliability, new model"

Poster remembers CR saying:

"If you buy this minvan, life will be perfect forever"


I don't like CR because for appliances they are wrong, I bought a Neptune washer on their say so, and the thing doesn't rinse the soap out of the clothes. Damn expensive too. For cheap stuff who cares, I can decide if I don't like a brand of peanut butter. Good for the auto data though. You just have to know how to read it.