Consumer Reports' Auto Test Facility Feedback & Mail

Where is the long term reliability info on previously rated vehicles? And what ever happened to the "Van" as a choice, there are hardly any used ones for sale where I live in Norther CA?

I''m glad someone finally has stood up the the "impartial" CR ratings. They are NOT objective or fair towards the American car makers. It is true that Detroit turned out some real junk in the past (''71-''73 Vega), but the cars today are first rate and a bargain compared to the Japanese makes, and the dealers at the Japanese dealerships tend to be rude and arrogant. A friend of mine was looking at a Lexus and the salesman said to them: "This car will never break down when you are driving through a Black neighborhood" They were so appalled at such a naked appeal to racial paranoia that they reported him to the sales manager. The salesman promptly claimed he never said it, and the sales manager told them to get out of hs showroom. People who buy Japanese makes don''t like to admit when their cars do need repair (any car does!), and that biases the reports for sure.

Consumer Reports may indeed have first-rate engineering and test facilities and I would trust their performance data in a heartbeat. However, their reliability data is not objective, as it is based on their opinions, surveys of Consumer Reports readers and, they admit, the results are then adjusted based on “history of past products from the manufacturer.” The magazine consistently has bashed American Auto manufacturers for reliability year in and year out for over 20 years as if they just don’t know how to build cars. If what this magazine prints were true American companies would have been bankrupt long ago. With this much consistent year after year bashing, Consumer Reports has established a readership that is made up primarily of believers that all Japanese cars are perfect, or that all American cars are horrible. Others (like me) don’t read the magazine. Such readers either tend to under-report problems with their Japanese cars or are eager to report problems with American autos. Basically, it gives their readership the data they want to hear to make them feel good about buying Toyotas and, by the way, Consumer Reports magazines. The magazine is happy, Toyota is happy, and the readers are happy. Admittedly, Toyotas and Hondas are obviously well-made cars. And there certainly have been bad American cars in the past. But there are not the extremes painted in Consumer Reports. Bottom line, this magazine is obviously not objective. But it is very powerful, and whether true or not many people listen. American manufacturers can learn from the results, and they must put out long lasting products to overcome a bad reputation. Probably not be a bad idea to start up an opposing magazine biased in the opposite direction?

Consumer Reports Clout with Autos, John Dodge Design News 07-16-07 I have two vehicles that CR hates. A 2006 Saturn Ion and a 2006 Chevrolet Colorado. I love them both. The Saturn with 20K miles has never been in the shop with gas mileage between 28-37, averaging 33 – that’s winter/summer/city/hwy combined. Quiet, sporty, reasonably priced. My Colorado gets 18-24 mpg, the motor is smooth and quiet, it’s a nice sized truck for my needs. They print things like “the body quivers” but never put that into numbers. It’s not Consumer Reports – it more like “Six Guys With a Chip on Their Shoulder Reports”. Speaking of consumers and the ratings they give their vehicles, the average American car owner doesn’t know a lug nut from a muffler bearing, their ratings are more emotional than scientific. James Kurk

John, It sounds like you have bought the Toyota/Honda marketing plan hook-line-and-sinker. You, like many other American buyers, feel a little embarrassed to admit when your Japanese car has a fault or problem. That is exactly what the marketing/advertising program is designed to deliver. Have you ever asked yourself why no one in Asia will believe let alone read a report on cars from Consumers Reports? In their eyes any report that favors a product has been paid for by the manufacturer. That is a cultural difference that plays heavily into all product marketing in Asia. I have trouble believing in the objectivity of the tests run by CR. If the test manager owns a Toyota to drive to work, is he going to rate that vehicle low and admit he did not buy the best rated vehicle? Is the test engineer going to include in his reports his own problems with a Honda that could not be tuned to meet emission requirements? The test managers and technicians at CR are human and are susceptible to all of the marketing and hype that surrounds the products they test. I tend to believe the best value for the consumer is to buy products that are manufactured in his country. For cars that means where the engine and driveline components are manufactured. You will not find a Japanese consumer buying a car that is not manufactured in Japan or a Korean buying one not manufactured in Korea. China is following the same path. As consumers they understand that the only way their country can be a long term economic power is to be a manufacturer and not a consumer. CR wants all Americans to be nice little consumers who do not think about the larger issues or politics behind the purchase of products. Until the test group at CR does not rate the cars that they drive and shuts itself off from all marketing and advertising, I will have trouble believing their reports are not heavily slanted by the world in which they live. Allen Wright, PE, CDT

I was not talking about your preferences or embarrassment. Ask any marketing agency to design a plan that makes the consumer feel embarrassed to give negative responses about a product as part of the plan and they will formulate a solution. One of the factors in any marketing campaign for big ticket purchases is how to control negative information about your product. The Japanese spend a lot of money on that aspect of their marketing. If the world is smaller today than in the sixties, why is it that mostly Americans buy heavily from the world market while Japan, Korea, China, etc. buy primarily from their factories (excepting food). You are espousing the position of our government and large corporations that support outsourcing. You probably haven't noticed that Europe is much more conservative in allowing its companies to outsource and become "global." Their position is that they need to keep a lot of manufacturing at home if they are to provide the social services and retirement benefits that they have promised to their fellow countrymen. Most American companies that are now "global" players have dropped most of their social responsibility towards health care and retirement pensions in order to make that business model work. When you look at the "value" of a product you have to consider the entire manufacturing chain. What is the real value to the economy you live within? The jobs and taxes paid by the myriad of parts manufacturers that build up into a final product represent a lot of capital value to any country. If you buy your bolts, transmissions, tires, and other components abroad, you lose all of the value-add chain that really supports your economy. At that point you become a consuming economy where services now begin to dominate. You also begin to see the intrinsic value of your currency begin to erode. Sounds like that might be where we are today. I was not talking about CR accepting advertising. I said the CR team would need to isolate itself from all advertising and purchase of cars in order to be even halfway objective in preparing a report that I would believe. They are affected by the product manufacturer's marketing the same as all the rest of us consumers. I think we disagree on some points but, in the end, we both are going to experience the long term affects of our loss of manufacturing capability in this country. Allen Wright, PE, CDT

Hi John, I enjoyed the CR Auto testing article. What I find most important about CR testing is to read the details particularly about reliability. Sometimes I don't always agree with their recommendations but their data is usually accurate. So then its up to you to make your own judgements and make your pick based on real data. For example if you have a vehicle that's just gonna sit outside and get baked and look like the devil you may not care too much about the paint anyway. I do have a recommendation for you however. If you have teenage drivers in the house its very difficult to beat a 2-3 year old Buick LeSabre. They depreciate real fast so you can pick them up rather cheaply and it turns out unlike most other GM cars they are quite reliable. That distributorless V6 is really good. I bought one from my dad (this was before air bags) and my daughter made a left turn in front of pickup. Of course the Buick was totaled but my 2 kids came away with only scratches. The other advantage is the non-cool factor. Obviously, its not the vehicle that other kids are gonna want to be seen riding around in. The only other comment I'll make is that the only USA vehicle I'll ever buy again will be a diesel pickup. Only because USA models are the only ones available. It is rather sad. I had a '92 Taurus SHO and there's not enough characters on the keyboard to describe everything that was bad about it. However, I must say that even Toyota makes mistakes. I had to replace both inside door handles of my wife's '95 Camry. It was clearly a design defect as the plastic at a critical point was just too thin. Fortunately, it seems that a cottage industry has evolved to provide replacement door handles. best regards Don Fuchik PE, CPM

Hello John, Just thought you'd like to know that my 1987 Ford Aerostar van got over 400, 000 miles before I junked it. It still ran OK but the transmission finally wore out and it was pretty rusty by then. By the way, it got 30 mpg which is better than the new Volkswagen Beetle which only gets 24mpg. Not bad for a back wheel drive van or is it an SUV. I bought a new Aerostar in 1997 and it now has 208,000miles and it runs good too but it only gets 26 mpg. Let me remind you these are Ford products, V6 engine, automatic transmission, back wheel drive, vans. They stopped making Aerostars, thinking that a front wheel drive Windstar would be better but it wasn't and it's a flop. I also have a 1993 Ford Ranger pick-up truck with just over 200.000 miles. I bought that used, it's running just fine too. I don't believe Consumer Reports evaluates long term reliability. They check short term under-warranty issues but not long term, really long term reliability. I remember they evaluated the Aerostar van and gave it poor marks for the electrical system. But I've had no problems, and really don't believe it deserved a poor rating. I don't believe Consumer Reports does a cold weather test either. I'll bet some of their favorites would have trouble here in northern Wisconsin where it can be 30 below for several weeks, and no we don't all have heated garages or tank heaters. A very high priority is for the car just to start reliably. After that lots of cars end up with broken plastic knobs and handles. And fancy electric mirrors and windows will freeze and strip-out their drive system,... real convenience. Regards, J. Arthur Smith

My experience has been that CR appears to be pretty much on the money. When I was searching for a good convertible, new or used, a couple of years ago, I went through CR's ratings thoroughly before stepping out to hunt for my car. For example, I really liked the Saab convertible, but CR gave it a "black hole" for reliability. I talked to a number of Saab owners. They all loved their Saabs and had continued to purchase Saabs over the years, but they agreed that the rating was pretty much right on. Based on my experience with vehicles from all of the continents, my summary (caveat: this is an overall generalization) is that American vehicles excel in innovations, European vehicles excel in attention to detail in design of form and functionality, and Japanese vehicles excel in reliability. But that's my just personal take on it. Harry Burch, Engineering Specialist Media Handling Competency Center Xerox Corporation

John, While I agree with you that CR's auto ratings are the gold standard for cars as an appliance, that is just one of the reasons people buys cars. People also buy cars for fun, or to race, or to impress their neighbors. There are no washing machine clubs where people go to argue about Maytag vs Whirlpool. But there are auto clubs, where you'll never convince a Ford man to buy a Chevy, no matter how CR rates them. That's why I read enthusiast magazines as well as CR. When I find a car that performs well, is fun to drive, and is reliable - I know I've found my next car. Paul Bevilaqua

One problem with all automobile review sources is that some consideration that may not immediately pop into your head as applicable to all cars can become extremely important, but gets no mention in the reportage. An EXAMPLE: my 1994 BMW 325i had a "pile driver" to lock the steering wheel against theft. The "pile driver" was electronically actuated upon sensing key removal. Neither the rate of key withdrawal nor the steering wheel position nor the history of steering wheel rotation prior to car parking had any effect on the SPL (sound pressure level) of this pile driver which registered 117.8 decibels SPL peak unweighted (linear) (Quest 2700 Sound Level Meter). Not a single source of some dozen or more reviews of this car mentioned the "pile driver". I liked the car and bought it anyway. For 10 years, I had a persistent cough. Somehow, I had to cough everytime I removed the key from my ignition. Actually, in addition to wearing earplugs, I would cough to invoke the additional hearing protection from the vocalization-induced stapedius reflex (see Wikipedia). An EXAMPLE: Grand Prix's of the 90's (NOT Grand Am, mind you, but Grand Prix): Side mirrors were placed on the tail fenders -- rendering them useless. I exaggerate for effect, obviously. But the side mirrors were so far back they could not be used reliably. In a rental car I even had an accident (relatively minor, but a royal pain in a rental) when the driver side mirror (as I glanced back behind my shoulder; again, I exaggerate for effect) showed nothing. An EXAMPLE: Though I live with it, the Audi A4 (2006) 'quattro' high-polished silver-mirror badging plate on the passenger portion of the trim will beam that fireball in the sky directly into your eyes. (So too the shiny interior trim, but I live with that too. It does look gorgeous on a cloudy day -- but that never exists in DC though. Fortunately routine commuting and knowledge of sun angles tells me which eye to close. Luckily I am quite facile at ambidextrous one-eye closure). An EXAMPLE: 2006 VW Passat. Need your ears pierced? Just play the VW radio in that car. No matter how soft or how you tweak the tone controls the thinnest, trebly-est, incisive ear-piercing frequencies will bend the hi-frequency hair cells of your inner ear to extremes. An EXAMPLE: This one is true of all cars with cloth seats. It is known about deep vein thrombosis and that it is good to move legs about as a preventative measure to stroke. Even without that stroke risk factor though, do you really want to stay super-glued to your seat with zero motion during the entirety of the elapsed time in the car? I doubt it. Sure you can move with cloth seats, but your pants will not move a bit. Perhaps females don't mind the effect, but most guys would not appreciate the imbalance from your body & its parts moving with respect to your pants while your pants stay put. NONE of these types of things shows up in ANY car review. But they are all ERGONOMICS -- sometimes way more critically important ergonomics than what shows up in a column or two of red/black circles. They don't show up in in-depth review text (or even full article reviews) either. Seems like if it cannot a priori / without-thinking apply to all cars, that nobody will write about it for any car. Oh, but what about the cloth seat problem? Well Americans are mostly oblivious as can be about ergonomics anyway (and I'm a natural born American, but I'm an exception). Now, you may say "Aren't all these things that you talk about what a test drive is about?" They most certainly are. But with a myriad of things to observe during a short (or even longish) test drive, you may not notice them. Why? Well, like I said: a myriad of things are on the list to pay attention to. There are the features, looks, performance, the black/red circle type stuff and on and on. It is too difficult to note absolutely everything (even with an 8-page form -- yes I made such a beastly thing back in 1994). Plus, there are things like sun angle and the interior shiny badging which may not show up as a beamer during your test route but may be obnoxious during your commuting. Plus, after-work in the fall or winter, the fireball is not in the sky. Speaking of which, suppose there was some headlight problem. A summertime test drive at 6:30 p.m. wouldn't reveal that. An example: since half your driving life in DC is actually spent not moving but parked behind the shiny jelly-bean butt of the car in front of you, wouldn't it be nice to turn off your search light (headlights) on-demand. Can the car do that or does the car insist that they always be on. OK, this one can be tested (but better do at night just in case a light sensor insists "headlights on no matter what you want" when the light level is low). But with all the other things on your list, wouldn't it be nice and simple to have the car reviewer folks tabulated "car can have no headlights when in 'drive'* at night Yes/No". (* A Buick allowed me to kill the headlights only if in 'park'.) Bottom line, the folks that get intimate with the car tell us lots of stuff straight out of the factory brochures/pamphlets, some stuff about consumer history, some stuff about phenomenological feel, but rarely any of the things that really might be troublesome when one drives the car -- not for a few minutes -- but on one's daily commute with Sun beaming back to you from shiny trim/badging, with queing endlessly behind shiny-butt cars with your headlights on (must they be??), with pants super-glued to cloth seats, and so on. Not once have I ever seen a mention of an every-day ergonomics concern. The folks that have been intimate with the car should share this information. That's what I care about from them. They have the time to investigate such stuff; and they could then TRULY add to your REAL knowledge about the car. Like I said, there are just too many things to do on a short test drive and some CANNOT be tested (unless you drive at least twice [Sunny Sunny day & again at COMPLETE nighttime; this can be a challenge in the summer; waddaya gonna do, test drive the same car in both June and December?; a substantial fraction of your life, that wait]. But even Sunny day, how's the sun angle in the sky & w.r.t. car during your short test drive -- and how do they compare with your usual commute trajectories and Sun angles at commute times). I know my text above was whiny -- but full of substantive truth nonetheless. As far as Consumer Reports go, I liked the Edmund's 2006 Guide better than the Consumer Reports 2006. And I did purchase and read both. Edmunds captured more phenomenology than did Consumer Reports.

Dear Mr. Dodge, I am a Professional Engineer with over thirty years experience with consumer products. I have been able to evaluate the opinions expressed by Consumer reports in my various positions with four different employers. Case 1: Huffy was the number one Bicycle manufacturer for many years and they were not liked by anyone in the industry including many suppliers. As an employee of a competitor, I looked forward with glee to CR evaluation of a Huffy bicycle. To my surprise, CR trashed the Huffy because of brakes and recommended a change which would put the bike in violation of CPSC regulations. Case 2: I was employed by a manufacturer of exercise equipment. We were reacting to a very popular multi-action rowing machine produced by Diversified Products. CR evaluated the DP unit and claimed that the support rails were not strong enough. I was somewhat suprised because I planned to duplicate the rail design. I reviewed my calculations and decided to duplicate the design. I later worked for DP and had the opportunity to check on the failure rate of the rails. They had the same experience as my previous employer, hundreds of thousands of units produced and zero rail failures. I began to notice a pattern. Certain brands were trashed and other brands were treated favorably even when the product was marginal. I have other examples but you get the point. I gave up on reading CR many years ago. I believe that CR may have expertise in automobiles but I am not convinced that they are unbiased with any product. It is just not their way to be objective. James Lucas

John, I just read your column on Consumer Report's ratings. I have been shopping for a new car for the last seven weeks. My 98 Ford Contour is starting to make noises and along with the 132,000 miles, I think it is time. I always buy new and have always purchased Ford. I don't pay any attention to advertising, news reports, or what experts say. I am an engineer and make my own analysis. Plus, I know what I want. With those things being said, my survey affirms Consumer Reports position in your article. The Japanese may be leading, but the Koreans are playing the value card. The Chrysler's were luxurious, but the fuel economy horrible (do the car co. execs. pay for gas, or is this comp'ed?) !! I thought the GM's to be of cheap construction, and Ford, well, I can confidently report that nothing has changed there in the last nine years- except less features and higher sticker. I think the automobile is becoming a commodity. And I think decision makers within the US companies must also believe this because there appears to be more effort in the sales/marketing aspect than the design/engineering and performance part of the vehicle. I just hope the American performance in the auto sector does not spill over to other (important) technological segments of our economy. Joe Mathews

Hello John, I was extremely impressed and pleased with the extensive testing Consumer Report published in their 2007 addition. Manufacturers published specifications provide very little real data on the expected performance of their vehicles. Consumer Report provides actual tested data for clear comparisons. For myself when it comes to safety, I like separating fact from fiction. Tests like ‘dry/wet surface’ braking, emergency maneuvering, and tip-over characteristics with probable level of injury was most enlightening. I must complement CR for their extensive research and historical record gathering and then the final published product is wonderful. When I see the resultant reliability records I know as a Senior Component Engineer that many of the reliability issues are directly related to poor components selection. As a simple example of good design and component selection, my 2002 Hyundai GX 2.7L (135,000 miles) is leak free. My 1997 Chevrolet Suburban K2500 7.4L (115,000 miles) has had oil leaks since 60,000 miles. A simple thing like poor gaskets leaves an impression on the driveway as that constant reminder of the quality choices some manufacturers make. I believe Consumer Repost illustrates why US and European manufacturers need to make changes at the top where decisions impact current and future business. Good work CR and to you as well John. Lynn Briley Sr Components Engineer - Powerwave Technologies Inc.

Hmmm...having grown up in "Steel Country" and having matriculated from Michigan State, I freely admit that I've got a bias. However, when Consumer Reports dinged the Suburban for high gas usage, but not Mercedes and BMW SUVs that would cost even more to fuel (due to 91 octane requirements), I think that there is a little bit of bias in their ratings. Also worth noting is their break from the rule of "no recommended ratings for a vehicle in the first year" for the Toyota Tundra. This recommendation mostly ignored the fact that the Tundra's predecessor, the T100, had a nasty tendency to lose the headgasket at about 80,000 miles due to a mismatch between the header and the engine block--it wasn't as if Toyota had a stellar record with big trucks and could be trusted to continue in that vein. The Tundra proceeded, at least in its first few years, to have a less than stellar reliability record, if I remember correctly, and a friend informs me that their recommended compact pickup, the Tacoma, has quite a few transmission issues (he's had four trannies in his Tacoma so far) but is yet recommended by CR. Certainly the "Big Three" (or "littler three" ) are not beyond reproach in vehicle design and reliability. CR is right to "ding" them for this. However, I think that CR does in general have some institutional memory of the "Bad old days" of the 1980s, as well as the stellar products that Toyota and Datsun put out at the same time, that corrupt to a point their ratings of today. Regards Bert Perry

John - Interesting issue on Consumer Reports. I've been driving 40+ years now, and reading Consumer Reports about the same amount of time. Having owned 80+ cars (don't ask!) from all over the globe, I feel somewhat qualified to weigh in. I typically buy used at around 80K to 100K miles & put on another 20K to 100K miles, so I see all the long term problems. My experience has closly tracked Consumer Reports' reliability serveys - they are spot on, in my opinion. Japanese cars are extremely reliable, European cars less so, and (sadly) American cars even less. Although everyone has made a quamtum leap over past products. The 97 Saab I'm driving now (140K) is probably typical of a lot of products: the drivetrain is bulletproof, the body is holding up very well, even in my rust-belt state, but the electrical accessories are dying one by one. My 03 Honda has had zero problems over 80K, and in't even scheduled for service until 105K. The Japanese seem to be the only ones to have figured out how to make corrosion-proof electrical connections and reliable electronics. All that said, I wish other products were as reliable as the average car these days. They (almost all) start reliably at -40 deg, don't overheat at +120 deg., don't leak fluids out or water in, protect you pretty well in an accident, and last for several hundred thousand miles if treated OK. Thanks for listening. Ray Jorgenson

JD Powers has become a joke. They sell ratings in every possible category so eveyone can buy their ratings. When JD Powers was bought out it became a useless as a tool. I have been taking cars apart and repairing them since I was 15. I have worked/repaired virtually every make, including some not in business anymore. There is not doubt that virtually all of the Japanese OEMs have outpaced the North American OEMs. I tow my race car with a F150. It is a 97 with 55K miles on it. I am dismayed how things contniue to fail or are intermittent. My fellow racers experss the same dismay whether they are driving a Ford, GM or Dodge. I am seriously looking at the new Toyota, like many of my compatriots. The Big 3 just don''''t get it. They are clueless. Oh, by the way the new Tundra has more US content than the Chevy. Most Engineers I speak to never work on their own cars and thus are pretty clueless about quality of materials or design. Those who think CR is just bashing the Big These same "Engineers" are also unknowledgeable regarding automotive design. I have repaired Fords, GMs, Chryslers, Hondas, Toyotas, Subies, Mitu''''s, VWs, Audis, BMWs, MBZs, NSUs, Fiats, Porsches, etc. I have also turned many of these same into race cars.

Congratulations to Buick for tying Lexus in the JD Power''s Vehicle Dependability Study. Read the press release here www.jdpower.com/press-releases/pressrelease.aspx?id=2007130 and a summary + commentary here www.autoblog.com/2007/08/09/buick-ties-lexus-for-top-spot-in-jd-power-2007-vehicle-dependabi/ That said, American automakers have a long way to go to match the Japanese brands. As long the UAW continues to receive "lifestyle" prescription drug benefits (the Pfizer ED blue pill) and enforce smoking-allowed workplaces, they will continue to be bashed and deserve it. When GM abandoned the EV1 and allowed Toyota to dominate with a more costly and less green hybrid, and Ford''s idea of innovation and growth was more colors of the Explorer, the US earns all the criticism it receives.

I'm sure that Consumer Reports is recognized as an automotive testing authority. However, it is strange that JD Powers has given GM a host of awards this past year, but according to CR, GM is still lagging behind the Japanese. I have also noticed that the media in general seems to delight in bashing the American automotive industry as well as the United Auto Workers Union. Regardless of the opinions that are dished out from various sources, the true test of a vehicle is it's longevity. Check the percentage of vehicles that are still on the road after ten years, fifteen years, etc. Another test is the long term maintenance costs. Compare the costs of brakes, exhausts, transmission and engine repairs over a ten year period.