comments4u

Consumer's Reports, widely presumed to be the leading authority on
automotive reliability data, has decided to change its rating categories.
CR says the change is to provide more meaningful descriptions of its
ratings.

The previous categories were much better than average, better than average,
average, worse than average, much worse than average. The new categories
are maybe better than average, imperceptibly better than average, average,
imperceptibly worse than average, and maybe worse than average. The
changes are due to criticism leveled at CR for reporting irrelevancies as
being significant.

"Variations in quality have become minimal over the years" said CR
Spokesman Justin Jest. "Our data shows that the category previously called
'worse than average was populated by vehicles needing one repair more than
average every 40.2 to 77.3 years."

Industry observers say that while a move in the right direction, CRs
changes don't go far enough. "They should completely eliminate the
categories 'imperceptibly better' and 'imperceptibly worse' and just call
those vehicles average", said Joseph Camel of the Brand Research Institute.
"And their data collection methods are still subject to gross errors."

Mr. Camel pointed out an instance where a Ford product was rated worse
average on electrical while a Toyota product was rated better than average
in that category. The difference was traced to a single item: light bulbs
for the dome lamp. Ford owners reported the light bulb burned out between
55,000 and 72,000 miles and called it an electrical defect. Toyota owners
did not report this as a defect, as their light bulbs were replaced
automatically (at owner expense) as part of the 48,000 scheduled
maintenance.

Brand wide, only Honda and Hyundai vehicles are rated better than average,
while only Mitsubishi and Mercedes fall into the below average category.
Mercedes is very unhappy that competitor BMW is rated higher. "BMWs don't
have time to make their defects apparent" said Mercedes Spokesman Heinreich
Tungensheek. "On average, their owners wrap them around tress at 27,000
miles. Our cars are being penalized because of the sensible driving habits
of our owners make them last longer."

In a semi related move, J D Powers will stop rating vehicles all together.
In a prepared statement, J D Powers said "We've decided the public is not
well served by our compilations of irrelevant anecdotes."

c. e. white

Funny...but very close to the truth.

Ed

ohbottomloader

CR a leading authority on auto reliability data? Ya gotta remember that
it's compiled from voluntary subscriber responses: granola moms with
nothing else to do, nerds who find their new Fit far superior to the
Yugo they traded-in......and a disproportionate response rate from the
truly disgruntled.

Ancient history: my Dad subscribed to CR and I poured thru the tests
and charts before I was old enough to drive.......and used the charts to
target reliable models. But when I got my license and summer job, I
lusted after an MBG and learned a lot about Brit itron. I thought it
strange that CR reported some years of MGBs had worse or better body
integrity, transmissions, brakes, engines, etc. than others......a
little odd since those things didn't change year-to-year.

Digging further I learned that some year Corvettes were more likely to
rust than others (!). And Jeep owners were upset with air and water
leaks (if anyone bought CJs or Wranglers looking for creature comforts,
they deserved to suffer).

But I still subscribe and take it all with a grain of salt......and
still read the car tests and annual car issue. It's about the only
source of info about cars we really buy: I get all the car mags, too,
but they're seldom more than rhapsodies about glitzie supercars I'll
never see, let alone buy........ the car mag writers are just interested
in free ego trips,