Sorry guys. I generally try to stay out of arguments like this, but the bias in these videos by Consumer Reports is so blatant, that I cannot help myself.

This has to do with CR's LOOOOOOOVE of all things Subaru. In this video, CR is testing the new Suby Ascent (which it admits that its subscribers, the same subscribers which form the basis of its reliability surveys, have been salivating to see).

The Suby discussion starts at 6:14. Am I wrong or are the two editors to the right going out of their way to defend the handling of the Suby and to say something nice about the car? They brow-beat the guy on the left so much that he backs down. At the end of the segment, the guy on the left is even apologetic about his negative comments and tries to defend himself by saying he looooves Suby's too and has even owned three of them.



Now let's go back a few months when CR posted a "quick drive" review of the Ascent, hosted by, the guy in the middle in the previous video who was critical of the guy on the left and who was the one most vigorously defending the handling of the Ascent. In this video, he sings a completely different tune. See at 2:40.


The conclusion that I draw from these videos is that CR looooooves Suby. CR's readers looooves Suby. More importantly, CR's readers want Suby to score well on CR's tests. So bad areas are downplayed. Strong areas are highlighted and the overall score is good. Yippee! Everyone wins, right?

An old lawyer once told me that a lawyer who tells his/her client that the client cannot do what the client wants to do, does not have a client for very long.

It seems the same is true of magazines. If the editors do not tell the subscribers what the subscribers want to hear, then the magazine will not have subscribers very long.

 

they give scoobydoo good ratings because scoobydoo pays them to say those things. just like GM vehicles are voted best in class for the last 25 years. cause GM pays the most money for the vote.
ford does not need to pay people off to say good things or buy their products.

 

Consumer Reports (CR), as most of you may know, is a liberal left wing publication that has had a long time love affair with Japanese automakers.

When the Honda Ridgeline was introduced, CR gave it the highest rating of any pickup, calling it a "Best Buy."

Pickup my azz, it was nothing more than a Honda Pilot with the rear section of the roof cut off.

V6 with A/T & FWD and with an integral body, the chassis/body was a one piece welded assembly w/a stub frame that the engine/transaxle bolted to.

The current Ridgeline has a distinct gap between the cab and bed, but upon further examination, it uses the same integral body design of the original.

 

They condemned the 2009 Tacoma as a used vehicle to avoid due to radio failure. Mine had 3 radios.

I

 

While CR was worrying about radios, the frame was rusting away between the cab and bed. I saw one a these in person, it had broken in two, it was laying there, prostrate on terra firma.

 

Being in ca I didn't have rust issues . But there was a rear spring recall that was finally done just before I sold it to carmax. 3 or 4 years to get leaf springs right.

 

CR has always been bad. Remember what they did to the Suzuki Samurai?

 

THIS. They went well out of their way to rig the test specifically to attempt to replicate a previous rollover incident with a CR staffer, which was significantly different than the test parameters for all the other vehicles. They then claimed that the Samurai easily rolled over as if to imply that the Samurai would roll during normal driving, when the reality was that the Samurai was quite a bit more stable than other similar 4x4s. Sadly, Suzuki never really recovered in the North America market after this, which is a real bummer, because I would definitely have a brand new Jimny sitting in my driveway if they were available here, as opposed to the well modified '87 Samurai I currently have.

It could also be argued that they were poised to put a serious dent in Jeep Wrangler sales had it not been for that CR review, and who knows what kind of Wrangler-esque competition we would have today had it not happened?

 

I find it very difficult to understand why, in CR's reliability study, Subies come out numero uno by a large margin.

And yet, Subie had to offer an extended warranty on several of its models for several model years because of consumer complaints about its transmissions. How can a car that kept blowing transmissions be consider the "most reliable".

In addition, in the most recent JD Powers reliability study, Subie was in the bottom half, well below average.

The problem, as I see it is inbreeding.

Much like Ford or Chevy trucks, people who buy Subies are very brand loyal.

Too many Subie buyers are also CR subscribers. As CR's reliability study is based entirely on a poll of its subscribers, you have a reliability "study" that, in essence, asks a group of people heavily biased in the pro-Subie group to ask how they like their car.

In addition, it you read the very limited statistics that CR publishes, for 2018 MY cars, the average, A-V-E-R-A-G-E, number of reported problems in every category except one was <1%.

So for every model of car or truck sold, on average, less than 1 buyer in 100 reported any problem at all in any given category.

With such a puny number of reported problems, how do you separate "Well Above Average", from "Above Average" from "Average"? We are talking decimal percentage points. Tenths or even hundreds of 1% is all that separate super good from just good.

Are you really going to buy a car that is just OK over another car that you really love because only 0.04% of people in CRs poll reported problems with the engine or brakes in the OK car when 0.06% of the people in CRs poll reported problems with the engine or the brakes in the car that you really love?

I don't think so.

It is all just so much nonsense that it ceases to have any meaning.

BTW - In its latest review of used cars, CR came out and plain flat said that any car made today will go 150,000 miles without any serious problems. So why is reliability even a issue in the first place?

 

i would like to see this alleged vehicle that will go 150,000 miles maintained by the average driver. most only change their oil when the oil light comes on telling them they have no oil pressure, and will drive it until it no longer runs before doing a tune up.

 

Then how do you explain a Jiffy Lube on every corner these days?

Assumptions like "maintained by the average driver" has about as much facts behind it as CR reviews....it's right up there with over 90% of American drivers believing they are better than average drivers....

 

there is one jiffy lube style oil change place within 25 miles of me.............and it has been closed for about 9 months.

 

You both miss the point.

The issue is not whether any given car will actually go 150k miles or not. Who cares?

The issue is the hypocrisy of CR.

In one issue claiming certain cars are "unreliable", then in the next month's issue claiming every car made today will go 150K without major problems.

 

CR is stuck in the past when there was a huge disparity in vehicle quality. This quality gap still exists but not from Subaru, Toyota and Honda perhaps and it continues to shrink.

Detroit's big three are CR's red headed step children. What CR fails to mention or even acknowledge is that no one offers the subcompact to heavy duty variety that the big three offer.