VenSeattle

LOL... I know... I thought about making corrections, at least correcting the title of the article from Truted, to Trusted... but Truted is part of the URL. I figured all the errors were intentional by topspeed.

Before: After:

Both x2

Consumer Reports: Never To Be Truted? Posted on 08.13.2007 12:00 by Ralph Kalal Link to original artical on www.topspeed.com Consumer Reports, the publication of Consumer’s Union, has long been accused of a bias toward imported cars, particularly those made by Japanese brand manufacturers, and against anything built by a Detroit automaker. The bias hasn’t changed. Apparently, it’s intentional and institutional. The current issue of Consumer Reports purports to offer a comparison test of the new Toyota Tundra pick-up truck and the Chevy Silverado, as well as the Dodge Ram and Ford F-150. So, you’d expect them to get comparable vehicles, wouldn’t you? Apparently not if you’re the people at Consumer Reports. They pitted the Tundra with the optional 5.7 liter V-8 against the Chevy with the standard 5.3 liter engine, producing 66 hp less than the Tundra. They could have used the 6.0 liter optional Vortec V-9 MAX which is more closely comparable to the optional Toyota engine, but they chose not to. They also pitted a Tundra with a 4.30 axle ratio against the Silverado with a 3.73 ratio, then gave the Tundra praise for having better acceleration. But the Silverado offers a 4.10 axle ratio as a no charge customer selection. Not only that, but they predicted that Toyota’s Tundra would have an above average frequency of repair rating. The Silverado? Too new to classify. The Toyota won the test. Surprise. It’s sorta like a boxing match were one of the competitors has his hands tied. In response to criticism of the “comparison” test, Consumer Reports has posted an explanation on its blog. It’s complete doublespeak, but you can judge for yourself: click here. Consumer Reports explanation boils down to saying that they selected trucks that used the powertrains most frequently purchased by consumers. Then, why do they call it a comparison test? As John Neff, who broke this story at Autoblog, notes, “Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they’re about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.” An equal comparison is not what Consumer Reports has done. Moreover, instead of admitting they used a flawed design for their testing, they’ve elected to defend their choices on the basis of a criterion utterly irrelevant to the purpose of the test. The test wasn’t biased merely in the vehicles selected. Giving the Tundra a predicted above average reliability rating while saying that the Silverado is to new to rate is plan ludicrous. The Tundra, as Neff points out, is an all new vehicle produced at a brand new plant. The engine Consumer Reports selected for its test is the one that breaks camshafts, seemingly at random. The Silverado is a new chassis and body, but the drivetrain in the truck is one that has been on the market for some time. And it is the Silverado that’s too new to rate? It’s the truck with the 20 engines, so far, that have had to be replaced because their camshafts broke shortly after delivery that gets the “above average” rating for reliability? Yup. That’s the way Consumer Reports did it. For decades, consumers have looked to independent, unbiased third-party evaluations when selecting products. The first to make a big name for itself was Underwriter’s Laboratories, a creation of the insurance industry which tested products for safety. If the product passed, it got the “UL” certification label. Being UL certified became critically important in the marketplace because consumers trusted the testing and didn’t buy products that didn’t have proof they’d passed that testing. At one time, Consumer’s Union seemed to be the next stage in unbiased testing. While UL pretty much restricted itself to home appliances, CU went further, testing the big stuff. And nothing was more important to its bottom line than the car tests. They grew their magazine, Consumer Reports, in much the same way that Peterson grew Motor Trend: testing cars. They just pitched to a different audience. Consumer Reports always hated performance cars, always loved economy cars. The place has always had a semi-socialist streak about it – a belief that they knew what you ought to buy because they knew how you ought to live. Testing a GTO against an SS396 and a Roadrunner was not their style. They didn’t test to figure out which was the best factory hot rod you could buy. No, they tested economy cars, and anything that might seem like fun was automatically at a disadvantage. You weren’t supposed to have fun in a car. That was irresponsible. Today, however, Consumer Reports is largely irrelevant to much of the auto buying public, thanks to J. D. Powers and Associates. Powers has turned its firm into an empire largely on the basis of its survey of satisfaction among owners with automobiles. Car makers trumpet their Powers ratings in full page ads in all the major newspapers. The rankings make headlines when the come out. Sometime, the meaning of the rankings can be a bit oblique – there’s the 6 month owner satisfaction study and the 3 year reliability study, and it is a safe bet that few in the consuming public understand the difference between them – but they do count. The biased test of the Tundra, Silverado, F-150 and Ram is, in the long run, another in a series of mistakes made by CU, mistakes which have allowed them to become far less significant than they were even a decade ago. They no longer care about being fair. They care simply giving the decreasing number of readers that continue to subscribe to their magazine that which the reader wishes to hear. But that number appears to be decreasing. Consumer Reports claims a paid subscription number of 4 million per monthly issue. That appears to be down from a figure of 5 million claimed some years ago. Beyond that, the magazine has been nailed for falsifying information in several instances over the past decade. Magazines that tell the truth do not lose lawsuits brought against them for false statements. But the Consumer’s Union lost a lawsuit in 1981 brought by Bose, the audio equipment maker. The federal court found that Consumer Reports had published a negative statement about Bose products which was “false and with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of its truth or falsity.” The district court’s finding was reversed on the technical ground that CU had lacked “actual malice,” which is the legal equivalent of saying that CU knew what it said was false, or didn’t care, but that the First Amendment won’t allow punishing speak unless the speaker has evil intent. CU got off the hook – sorta – the same way when Isuzu sued them in 1966. Consumer Reports had published a test in which they claimed that the Isuzu Trooper was prone to roll-over. CU went so far in their grandstanding as to hold a press conference in which they demanded that Isuzu stop producing the vehicle and calling for the federal government to investigate the manufacturer. Isuzu sued. The court found that Consumer reports had made “numerous false statements.” The Trooper was put through tests not administered to other vehicles and tests which were different from those administered to competitors. A jury could not reach a verdict on punitive damages against Isuzu and because, once again, the court couldn’t find “malicious intent,” CU escaped having to pay damages. “Malicious intent” has become the shield by which Consumer Reports believes it has the freedom to lie without even trying to hinge what they say on the truth. At least, though, they weren’t prepared to take the heat a second time: in 1998, they decided to dip twice into the same stream and published an article claiming that the Suzuki Samurai had an unacceptable tendency to roll over. Suzuki sued, too. (What did CU expect from a company that would name a vehicle “Samurai”?). This time, CU settled. They issued a statement which, basically, denied that the plain English words they had used meant what the plain English words they used commonly are understood to mean. Suzuki, no doubt mindful of the license with “malicious intent” had previously given to CU, took what they could get and called it quits without getting money damages from CU. But the most blatant and most recent example of Consumer Reports just outright lying is child safety seats: In February of last year, Consumer Reports claimed that only two child safety seats on the market passed their crash tests. They claimed the tests were conducted at 38.5 miles per hour. Since every seat the tested had passed federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration testing, the press immediately descended on the NHTSA administrator, promised an immediate investigation. And she pushed it through, in weeks. Consumer Reports, it turned out, had lied – through their teeth. They actually tested the seats at 70 mph. The statements they made in their magazine were complete fabrications. CU attempted to blame this on Calspan, an independent laboratory associated with the University of California and which has a long-standing and unblemished reputation for testing in highway safety related areas. They had not, however, disclosed in their published article that the testing was not done internally, nor did they explain why they did not learn that Calspan had misunderstood their directives. Moreover, they disclosed that they have a close tie to the Ralph Nader crowd that has been anti-auto advocates since the publication in the early ‘60’s of Ralph Nader’s book, “Unsafe at Any Speed.” Turns out that Joan Claybrook, a former head of NHTSA, but for more than the past decade, a prominent member of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a Nader-linked group, is a board member of Consumer’s Union. Turns out, according to Claybrook, that CU doesn’t conduct most of its own crash testing, except for the equivalent of bumping into parked cars. That wasn’t something they bothered to mention in their articles. The safety seat industry sued CU. CU got off the hook, again, by claiming there was no actual malice. Whatever the criteria may be for a successful libel suit against CU – and one has to think that sooner or later someone is going to tack the past instances of lying to another and prove a pattern of conduct that does establish “actual malice” – this much is clear. Consumer’s Union is very fortunate that J. D. Powers and Associates doesn’t evaluate magazines for honesty.

We don't even require or request this much information to register as a member. I can't believe these stats are even remotely accurate. You guys do realize that 79.5678% of all stats are made up... don't you? ------ Heh... there it is...

Sirius subscriber here. Love it. One of the only things that annoy me about GM is that it doesn't offer buyers a choice between the two... but soon it won't matter. I'm 50% sure the merger will go through... which is up from 34.3% a few months ago.

Like the show this topic should be cancelled due to bad taste j/k

GM just remodeled all of Chevrolet's trucks/SUVs (aside from the soon-to-be-disco'd TB.) Within the next three years, all of Chevrolet's cars will be replaced/remodeled starting with the 2008 Malibu this fall (followed by everything else: RWD Impala replacement, Camaro, Cobalt replacement, and Aveo replacement.) Chevrolet may also receive a family of all new sub-compacts. Chevrolet is not being ignored nor is it suffering in any way because GM is focused elsewhere. Neither is Cadillac for that matter... Cadillac can not produce a Sixteen or even an S-Class competitor until it masters the mid-luxury segment that the current STS failed to achieve. The 2008 CTS will accomplish this. Suitable BLS & DTS replacements will round out Cadillac’s portfolio right on schedule.

If GM were to introduce a sports car with an I6, it would be better to do so in an all-new vehicle, than try to change the image of an existing popular model. Saturn or possibly an all-new Pontiac probably be a good place.

Bingo... although it's well known Buick does receive a higher grade of materials (LaCrosse to Grand Prix; Park Avenue to Bonneville; Rainier to TrailBlazer)... Mature buyers (people who have owned multiple new cars) know how to better care for them than some 16 year old in a Scion or Pontiac. It's just reality.

Sorry to hear that you are apparently disappointed in Buick's positioning, but this isn't anything new. Buick has been in the top percentages for years. My Mother holds on to her Buicks longer than I do and she does not experience an abrupt increase in problems compared to my personal experience. And if you think these type of headlines go unnoticed, you're wrong. Three people in my office made a point to mention they saw and read about this today. As for JD Power's VDS study - JD Power changed the study for several valid reasons. - They're studying new cars. By the time a vehicle turns 6 years old or hits 100,000 miles the vehicle is no longer manufactured and is half a generation into its replacement. That particular vehicle's reliability holds little relevance to those buying new or even certified pre-owned. - They only survey original owners. That pool of buyers becomes pretty shallow at 4 or even 6 years into a car's life. - So many unpredictable variables impact a car throughout its life that have nothing to do the manufacturer of the vehicle. Buyers tend to take their cars religiously to the dealer for service, maintenance, and repairs while the vehicle is under warranty but that percentage degrades considerably after 3 years when most warranties have expired. You can not hold the manufacturer accountable when majority of the vehicles are not being maintained according to manufacturer recommendation. - Once again, most of the used car market is made up of 3-6 year old vehicles which that market is not the core purpose of this study. Anyone purchasing a pre-owned car must take into account all possible circumstances despite which manufacturer it came from. Some of the worst built vehicles could be immaculately maintained and last for decades while the best built vehicle would last only a few years without proper care or maintenance.

If they did successfully fix Walt's car, then that shows there is a legitimate fix in place and available for all G6 owners with this sunroof. Let's hope the dealers are capable of implementing this fix successfully in the future. Congrats Walt!

Could this be the reason why we're starting to see contradictory stories about the Buick Excelle replacement (and future US Buick compact) being on Alpha instead of Delta II? If Pontiac is phased out, Cadillac will still need another brand to share the costs. Alpha would make an excellent premium compact Buick.

If memory serves me, Buick usually is. This is excellent news, but one line urks me: It explicitly removes any market association between Lexus and Buick, despite Lucerne CXS/Super compares to the ES350 and the Enclave compares to the RX350. Buick's warranty is also just as competitive. GM needs to work harder at pushing Buick as a premium brand, and not a competitor to Honda. (Yes I've kept up on the 4-sp/3800 argument in the other topics... true enough, but Buick's product offerings cover higher ground than non-premium competitors. Buick will have only premium offerings within 3 years. Hopefully the press will be able to distinguish Buick's return as a real premium brand.)

Here's a better way of looking at it... At the end of 2005, GM's price Cap was under $11-Billion. Fast-Forward to mid-2007, GM's Price Cap is near $20-Billion and has closed a $5.6-Billion sale of Allison Transmission. I say that's a great improvement over the "GM Death Watch Cries" from the media and journalists.

So is the Ford Crown Victoria which is near 100% fleet... At 56% fleet, the Charger looks like it's attempting to challenge the CV.

Yes. This topic was created on August 1st. If you are referring to a different topic, then you are probably referring to the topic highlighting a Detroit News article on GM's July performance. This topic contains GM's official Press Release including sales charts. Not all members are able to check them out in the first week, and many visitors may not know where to find GM's press releases or sales charts.

Not picking on you, but the Aveo was just remodeled in 2007 and will be remodeled again in 3 years. How is GM letting it get long in the tooth?

Well, someone will need to fill the gap left by the former Scion xB billboard on wheels. I still find it funny how the xB avoided this reputation. Besides the ZERO-opted models with tiny steel wheels, the only ones I see are driven painted up as advertisements.

That tells me everything I need to know.

Looks good Northstar!

Those were the five Buicks shipped in by GM for the Buick National in Bellevue. They must have taken the long way home. I saw them at Registration on Wednesday, but I didn't have my camera then. They were already loaded up and departing when I arrived at the car show on Saturday. At least I saw them in person. Just wished I would have brought my camera with me to registration.

Following Paulino's template: GM vehicles I’m interested in (*) or would recommend to a friend: BUICK LaCrosse*, Lucerne*, Enclave* CADILLAC CTS*, STS*, DTS*, XLR CHEVROLET Corvette, Impala, Cobalt, new Aveo, Tahoe, Suburban, Colorado PONTIAC Solstice, G6 Coupe* & Convertible, G8 SATURN Aura, Sky, Outlook, pending Astra SAAB 9-3 Sedan and Convertible 9-5 GMC Acadia Sierra/Sierra Denali Yukon Denali Canyon HUMMER H3 H2

CDJ dealerships to compete against BPG dealerships. Interesting.