Consumers Reports Seeks Bailout

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 00:09:53 GMT, dizzy > wrote:


Shut up Dizzy


>E. Meyer wrote:
>
>>"dizzy" > wrote:
>>
>>> top-posting troll Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Search 'standard statistical methodology' and get back to us, dummy. It
>>>> can not be stated accurately as a 'list.'
>>>
>>> Learn how to quote and post, and then DON'T get back to us, "Mike",
>>> you top-posting idiot.
>>
>>Oh God, Dizzy's back. Time to update the spam filter.
>
>Aww, then you might miss my "I told you so" about how I was right
>about everything, all along. Right about SUV's. Right about the
>deficit spending.
>
>Look at where you short-sighted dimwits have gotten us.


And in case you look here for the comment

Shut up Dizzy

On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:01:00 -0800, John David Galt
> wrote:

>Comments4u wrote:
>> The line of companies willing to beg for money from Congress has just grown
>> longer. Consumers Reports has requested a Congressional bail out hearing.
>> In its petition, Consumers Reports cites the costs of massive restructuring
>> due to circumstances totally beyond its control. Consumers Reports claims
>> that since it doesn't take advertising, it is the only unbiased source of
>> product information available to consumers, and thus has a vital role that
>> must be preserved.
>
>Have a look at consumerdistorts.com for the rest of the story.


Where has Dizzy gone?
--

Sir Hugh of Bognor

The difference between men and boys is the price of their toys.

Intelligence is not knowing the answer but knowing where and how to find it!

Hugh Gundersen

Bognor Regis, W.Sussex, England, UK

In article >,
Dean Dark > wrote:
> >I'm sure they employ enthusiasts - but do they write the articles? The
> >UK one puts different emphasis on a car's qualities than the average
> >motoring mag. Which can be useful if read in conjunction with a
> >motoring mag test - it will often give extra information.

> I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out.
> They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only
> a tiny little trunk / boot.

They gave those as reasons not to like it - or is that your spin? If there
were pros and cons, then it's right they mention what they find.
Stupidly small storage might well be a problem for some prospective owners.

--
*Toilet stolen from police station. Cops have nothing to go on.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article >,
Dave Head > wrote:
> >I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out.
> >They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only
> >a tiny little trunk / boot.

> Downrating a sporty car 'cuz the "ride is too firm" is the sort of
> nonsense that results in the 2008 WRX getting the suspension mushyed up
> so you have to install aftermarket parts to get that "its on rails"
> kinda handling that my 2005 WRX has.

> Complaining about a "too firm" ride is the mark of a test done by
> somebody's grandpa, not an enthusiast. I remember when the early 90's
> Corvette, the new generation of that time, came out and posted something
> over 1.0 G. cornering force. Then some pinhead complained about a "too
> firm ride", and the next thing you know, we got to say goodbye to the
> 1.0 G cornering. What is that? Car entropy?

The laugh is the MX5 is said to be a modern incarnation of the original
Lotus Elan - which had a superb ride for a sports car of its day.

--
*He who dies with the most toys is, nonetheless, dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:56:26 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
> wrote:

>> I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out.
>> They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only
>> a tiny little trunk / boot.

>They gave those as reasons not to like it - or is that your spin? If there
>were pros and cons, then it's right they mention what they find.
>Stupidly small storage might well be a problem for some prospective owners.

As I recall, these were reported as shortcomings in the car and they
factored into its overall CR rating. To be fair, CR subsequently
published several readers' letters ridiculing their criticisms of the
car, given its target market.
--
Dan.

On 12/13/08 9:30 AM, in article ,
"SMS" > wrote:

> Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>
>> My BMW - like all of them - isn't 100% reliable. And requires some
>> replacement parts earlier than many. Doesn't stop me liking it though -
>> there's more to liking a car than worrying about the percentage of them
>> that may break down. Unless you know it's going to happen often - which
>> simply doesn't happen with modern cars.
>
> For vehicles, Consumer Reports emphasizes reliability and safety. Yet
> many of us have bought vehicles knowing full well that they are neither
> the most reliable or the safest, but have other characteristics that we
> value. Some are items that are extremely important to a small subset of
> people.
>
> I made a list a long time back of things that I needed to consider when
> selecting a vehicle, and few are considered by Consumer Reports, but
> they can be important considerations to some buyers.
>
> Exterior
> --------
> 1. 5 mph bumpers
> 2. Sufficient front and rear ground clearance for speed bumps, steep
> driveways, dips, parking stones, etc.
> 3. Trunk with low liftover
> 4. No difficult trim that will make the car a pain to wax.
> 5. Hood springs instead of prop stick
> 6. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in trunk lid
> 7. No tail/brake/back-up lights integral in rear bumper
>
>
> Doors & Windows & Mirrors
> -------------------------
> 1. All door windows fully framed OR PROVEN DESIGN FRAMELESS WINDOWS
> 2. Rear windows open on 2 door models.
> 3. Power mirrors (mechanical inside controls at a minimum).
> 4. Folding outside mirrors
> 5. No glass mount rear view mirror.
> 6. Power door locks, especially on minivans or wide vehicles
> 7. Drivers side sliding door on minivans
>
>
> Audio
> -----
> 1. Radio/Cassette has built in CD-Changer controller for
> non-proprietary CD changer.
> 2. CD changer that mounts under seat rather than in trunk
> 3. Standard radio antenna (non-windshield, non-power)
>
>
> Interior
> --------
> 1. High quality supportive seats
> 2. Easy entry/exit for 6' person
> 3. Rear seat headroom enough for 5 10" person.
> 4. Passenger hand grips above all doors (except driver's)
> 5. Usable cup holders
> 6. Multiple Cup holders (4 minimum).
> 7. Remote fuel door release.
> 8. Rear cargo cover for SUVs
>
>
> Safety
> ------
> 1. Side air bags
> 2. Rear headrests
> 3. Minimum of 4 star rating for both passenger and driver.
> 4. Steel safety cage or equivalent body strength
> 5. Good overall rating from IIHS.
> 6. Traction control.
> 7. No daytime running lights, or easily defeatable DRLs.
> 8. Head curtain air bags
>
>
> Engine/Transmission
> -------------------
> 1. Oil filter accessible from top (or otherwise easily accessible)
> 2. 0-60 in <12 seconds
> 3. Able to climb I-80 up to Donner Pass at 60MPH minimum (or similar
> test depending on your area).
> 4. Minimum of 7500 miles between REQUIRED oil changes
> 5. Long engine and power train warranty (5 year 60K minimum)
> 6. Non-interference engine (yeah, I know this is getting hard to find)
> 7. Sealed coolant recovery system (very rare except on European cars)
> 8. Selectable shift points
> 9. Cruise control maintains speed on uphill (unlike my Honda CR-V)
> 10. Front accessible engine
> 11. Engine has a history of reliability (i.e. no history of oil burning,
> sludge, cracked heads, timing chain failures, etc.).
>
>
> Brakes & Wheels
> ---------------
> 1. Wheels can accept tire chains or cables (S type okay)
> 2. High quality brakes with thick rotors
> 3. Spare tire does not mount on rear door
> 4. ABS
> 5. Tire size is 'super-standard' not uncommon (expensive) size
> 6. Full size spare
>
>
> Exhaust
> -------
> 1. Long or lifetime warranty on exhaust system
> 2. Stainless steel exhaust system
>
>
> Body
> ----
> 1. Galvanized steel body
>
>
> NVH
> ---
> 1. Low engine noise, wind noise, and road noise
>
>
> Fuel Economy
> ------------
> 1. 30mpg or higher fuel economy for a car, 20MPG for a minivan, 25MPG
> for a mini SUV, 18 MPG for a full size SUV.
> 2. 300 mile minimum range
>
>
> Accessories
> -----------
> 1. Ability to mount a trailer hitch, even if just for a bike rack
> 2. Accepts Thule or Yakima rack with loading up to the limit you need
> (varies based on what you want to carry, i.e. skis, canoes, bicycles,
> lumber, cargo box, etc.)
> 3. Sufficient towing capacity for your needs (needs vary of course)
> 4. Roof rack mounting without load bearing on roof (i.e. structural
> steel rain gutters).
> 5. EASY mounting system for baby seats, sides and middle
> 6. Extra cigarette lighter outlets
> 7. Cigarette lighter socket not in ashtray, and/or auxiliary sockets
> 8. Provision for fog lights if not standard
> 9. Pre-wired for alarm
>
>
> Insurance
> ---------
> 1. Low to moderate insurance cost
> 2. Low theft rate
>
>
> Dealer Specific
> ---------------
> 1. No pinstriping
> 2. No dealer logos (removeable if present)
> 3. Dealer not wash car before delivery since they often do it poorly
> and scratch the paint.
>

I think you have limited yourself to a very small subset of vehicles, and of
those, almost nothing new will meet all your criteria.

On Dec 14, 5:42*am, Dean Dark > wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:55:13 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
>
> > wrote:
> >> >IMHO, they never attempt to pitch their guidance at enthusiasts - like
> >> >those who read these groups - but to the man in the street where a car
> >> >is simply another appliance.
>
> >> That isn't true in the case of CR. *Their chief engineer is definitely
> >> a car guy who was hanging around test tracks long before he was old
> >> enough to drive. *If he tests a sports car and it isn't fun to drive,
> >> it is going to bomb big time. *If it is a minivan test, that is a
> >> different matter.
>
> >I'm sure they employ enthusiasts - but do they write the articles? The UK
> >one puts different emphasis on a car's qualities than the average motoring
> >mag. Which can be useful if read in conjunction with a motoring mag test -
> >it will often give extra information.
>
> I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out.
> They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only
> a tiny little trunk / boot.
> --
> Dan.

Really? Betcha you can't cite a reference.

BTW, the Miata is CR's top pick for sports car.

E. Meyer wrote:

> I think you have limited yourself to a very small subset of vehicles, and of
> those, almost nothing new will meet all your criteria.

No, I know that compromises would have to be made. Some of those I
classify as "absolutely required," some as "strongly preferred," and
some as "would be nice."

What I want to avoid is overlooking key requirements, as I've seen
happen when some people post on Usenet asking for help to solve
intrinsic problems with their vehicles because of overlooking things
when buying. I.e. I've know people to buy vehicles without checking that
there is enough clearance for tire chains, then when they go to buy
chains they find out that they can't use them on their vehicle.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:50:02 -0800 (PST), Lloyd >
wrote:

>> I remember CR's report on the Miata / MX-5 when it first came out.
>> They didn't like it because the ride was too firm, and there was only
>> a tiny little trunk / boot.

>Really? Betcha you can't cite a reference.
>
>BTW, the Miata is CR's top pick for sports car.

I only keep that last 5 years or so of CR. I can't be arsed to do the
research or look it up anywhere just to play a silly game with you.
Unless you want to bet me $500 or so, then I'll do it, because I'm
right and you'd lose.

Let me know what you want to do.
--
Dan.

Dave Head wrote:

>Downrating a sporty car 'cuz the "ride is too firm" is the sort of nonsense
>that results in the 2008 WRX getting the suspension mushyed up so you have to
>install aftermarket parts to get that "its on rails" kinda handling that my
>2005 WRX has.
>
>Complaining about a "too firm" ride is the mark of a test done by somebody's
>grandpa, not an enthusiast. I remember when the early 90's Corvette, the new
>generation of that time, came out and posted something over 1.0 G. cornering
>force. Then some pinhead complained about a "too firm ride", and the next
>thing you know, we got to say goodbye to the >1.0 G cornering. What is that?
>Car entropy?

It's certainly possible for even a sports-car to be "too firm".
Suspension suitable for pulling 1G on a racetrack is probably "too
firm" for most roads and most people. IMO, any such suspension should
be optional.