Consumer Reports twists the knife

What did CR have to say about the Golf TDI reliability ?

As for ergonomics, that is almost as personal and subjective as color choice. CR most definitely does NOT tailor their tests and opinions to the so called "car enthusiast". That much should be obvious.

 

1. "Driving Enthusiasts" would not be buying a Prius.
2. Consumer Reports does not test for the "driving enthusiast" but people buying items based on utility and cost effectiveness.

The CR report on the Prius C is accurate, giving buyers a clear picture of what they are getting.

 

Yes it's been quite clear forever. My point here is, from a [so-called?] driving enthusiast perspective, why should I reciprocate respect for their misguided insight when they have none for me?

LOL oops.

 

Nothing to do with "respect."

Read C&D if you want someone's opinion of whether they had 'fun' driving the car, read CR for measurements and reliability data. Even better, ignore C&D and CR's test drives. Read the data, then test drive the cars that measure up by the numbers.

Getting riled up (or following) the color choices of someone else is silly. Likewise in regard to seat comfort, opinions of aesthetics like plastics, or even road noise. I happen to share ProxSuns and CR's opinion that the interior plastics of the Prius 'C' are not aesthetic. So what ? I sure don't expect (or care) whether anybody else shares my opinion. If my kids were thinking of buying a car and had to stretch every penny, I would applaud including the Prius 'c' in cars to consider. Once we realize that CR did not recommend the car because of road noise and plastics, my kids would ignore the grade because they do not share those opinions or priorities.

Road noise is interesting, because people might guess it is an objective measurement. When my wife drives our CTh and I am in the car, I find it noisy. When I drive it is quiet. I realized the difference is that she floors the pedal on hills and I do not. The point I wish to make is that opinions of others should pretty be taken with a grain of salt, and even objective measurements, even if correct, will vary in actual use by driver behavior.

By the way, I also wrote a letter to the Editor of CR a few months ago regarding the 'C'. I pointed out that the driver test criticism in regard to road noise and car dynamics was discrepant with their objective tests. I have no problem with a test driver hating a car color or plastics, although I think a rant is misplaced.

Addendum: Why "so-called?" Because the term has been co-opted by a group of drivers who start with 0-60 times and end with how much tyre squeal is possible turning a corner. Other enthusiasms can and do exist about cars. E.g., I am pretty enthusiastic about superb fuel economy and efficiency.

 

I think CR's reviews are useful if you don't allow yourself to be completely guided by them. It's very easy to filter out "recommended" cars when searching for your next wheels, but you have to read into why CR isn't making the commendation. For the 2012 Civic, it seems to be because the interior has a lot of hard surfaces. I think back on all the cars I've owned over the years and can't recall which had hard surfaces and which had soft - that just doesn't matter to me.

Test drove the '12 Civic a month ago and was A) impressed with comfort, ride quality, and interior space / layout, and B) baffled by CR's "do not want" review.

I'm starting to regret not test driving the Chevy Aveo since CR didn't recommend that one either [/jokes]

 

That's solid advice. Unfortunately, many people are suckered into thinking the auto media are more intelligent than they really are, or that they're not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

They're not structural, so that makes them aesthetic. I think you meant to say you don't prefer their aesthetic. I am forever amused/annoyed by the media's obsession with the tactile sensation of interior materials you're not supposed to touch. Perhaps they need some sort of quickly identifiable yet totally irrelevant metric to validate their importance. No media outlet has yet mentioned how the tactile feedback of the front window switches require differential force to depress, yet they complain all day long about dash pad hardness, which is something you're never supposed to touch in a car except to dust it.

That's a rather broad generalization. A "pure" enthusiast can appreciate any good car that has marked positive qualities, whatever they are. Bench racers that nut-swing 0-60 times are hardly holistic and bastardize the term "enthusiast", as they end up being "fan bois" more often than not.


In the end, I'll continue to say that CR's review on anything that could be construed as any sort of enthusiast car be dismissed as misguided and irrelevant.

 

If there is anyone here old enough; " REMEMBER WHAT A GOOD JOB THEY DID ON THE CHEVY CORVAIR, ABOUT 1964." It wasn't a bad car at all. My father loved his 1964 Corvair. THEY KILLED IT! Perhaps the one they got was a Chinese knock off. HA. I drove one and liked it. At a lower price maybe, I would like it even better.

 

Yikes! The famous "Unsafe at any speed" Corvair. Quirky little thing, the understeer of a floored Porche 911 Turbo S and the power of VW bug.

 

The Ford Maverick, their choice , was the one that was unsafe at any speed. When the Ford was rear ended the gas tank mounted in the rear exploded. This happened to a lady teacher my wife knew that had one, and many others too. A truly royal screw up. A famous comedian of that period was killed in a Corvair on a winding tree lined road and the press, biased then as they are today, picked up on it knocked the car as being unsave per Per Consumer Reports. Then the facts came out later stating that he was driving while trying to light a cigar. BS seems to fly either from yesterday or today.

 

"Unsafe at Any Speed" was Ralph Nader's seminal book on unsafe US cars. The hapless Corvair was Chapter 1.

 

It was the Ford Pinto that had the gas tank that was easily punctured in rear end collision, not the Maverick.

Corvairs through 1964 did have a serious handling problem, when pushed to the limit they had severe terminal oversteer that was very difficult to recover from. There is a reason why no modern car uses swing axle suspension, it sucks and is dangerous.

The early Corvair handling problem was because they cheaped out and used a swing axle rear suspension that resulted in the outside wheel tucking under when pushed too hard in corners. In 1965 they put a properly linked full independent rear suspension in the car and they became good handling cars.

 

Now there is the name of one that made money on BS and thought that it would be good enough to propel him to be President. Speaking of BS, another person actually made it to the presidency which reminds me of Nader in his publication of misinformation.

 

Millions saved from death and injury due to Nader's muckracking on lack of car safety design. As for his presidential run, he didn't do it to get elected president but to try and raise the profile of real US issues (health care, bank fraud, unsafe products, oil use etc,) vs. phony presidential campaign "issues" of Bush's draft dodging or Gore's "invention" of the internet.

 

It's funny that CU was taken to task over trashing a Japanese car. I subscribed to CU for many years and was constantly astounded by their writing negative copy about American made cars while failing to mention the same features or lack of features in Japanese cars. It has always seemed to me that CU's reporting and ratings always had a kind of snobbery and looked down their noses at anything American made - with some justification up thru the last half of the 20th Century, but very much out of step in the last 10 years. They are great for refrigerators and washing machines, but cars continue to be a problem for them.

 

There's nothing new about the CR not recommending a Japanese car based on test scores. This isn't nowhere near the first time it's happened. Besides the Nissan Versa, Scion iQ, Honda Element, Insight, CR-Z, Toyota Yaris, FJ Cruiser not being recommended, they panned the original Toyota (mini) Van, predecessor to the Previa. I'm sure there are many more beyond the ones I've listed.

 

Back in the early-mid 1960s they rated cars like they used a 4 door Chevy Impala for a template and deducted points for characteristics that didn't match the Impala

 

To bring this CR bashing to an abrupt end I offer the following universally accepted review.

If it's not Scottish, it's crap!

 

CP's negative review will either be bolstered or refuted by actual consumer experience. At this stage you really have to be your own judge. This judge is pretty happy so far!

 

Has anyone seen this highly-defensive article from CR?

The Toyota Prius C isn't a good car, and here's why

I do feel a little tweaked that CR is bashing the Prius C but only because of my great affection for the my car. Opinions are opinions. The only thing that makes opinions matter is perspective. Because I'm not a CR reviewer, I don't have an unlimited stable of cars to compare against as the author in this article describes. My choice of the C is was based on my previous experience and the level of compromise I'm willing to accept.

I simply don't care about many of the issues that lead CR to declare the car a bad buy. They are saying that the "expensive drive train" in a "cheap car" make it a bad buy. It's safe here to insert the lines "for them". I don't like the styling of the other prius models. I don't need or want a car that big. I want compact or sub-compact with a hatch. That's just a couple reasons that the car works for me.

I don't think they're saying it's a bad car, they're saying it's not an optimal decision considering all the other cars. This is highly subjective. The fact that more and more Prius C's hit the road every day means that people make their own decisions based on their perspectives. Maybe CR's perspective is slightly misaligned with the majority at times.

 

No, I haven't. Thanks for the blog entry.

Without having read the reviews of other subcompacts, I see the point they're making and perhaps those who dislike the review should try out and drive some other cars they claim are comparable. Pay attention to the ride quality, handling, noise, interior material quality and fit & finish (esp. by putting your hands on various interior surfaces). For them, the FE doesn't (for them), trump the downsides.

Although this is in another class of vehicle, if you were to spend the $20K that CR cites for their Prius c 2 on say a '12 Altima 2.5, you'd be rewarded w/a car w/much better interior material quality, that's quieter, accelerates quicker and has a smoother ride, but at the expense of much worse FE. (My mom has an 07 Altima Hybrid and the '12 isn't much changed from the 07). I priced out an Altima 2.5 at Edmunds w/95136 zip code and it says the TMV is $17,785 due to what look like price cuts and a $2K incentive (since redesigned '13 Altima is out or about to ship). The generation that the '12 Altima belongs to got a 93/100 for the 3.5SR V6 version test score and is the highest rated family sedan. The 4 cylinder got 91. 43 was the lowest family sedan score.

Prius c got a 53 and was the lowest scoring "fuel efficient hatchback". 88 was the best score in the category. The regular Prius (aka liftback) got 80 and was put in the same category.

FWIW, I see plenty of Gen 2 and Gen 3 Priuses around here (and a few v wagons) but hardly see any Prius c. I saw a Prius c parked today but I can go MANY days w/o seeing a single c.

As for the bolded part, is it? Take a look at Prius c sales at June 2012 Dashboard | Hybrid Cars along w/the overall hybrid take % in the US. I don't know how supply limited the c is but (for example) compare to sales figures of other compacts and subcompacts at :
Toyota | July 2012 Sales Chart
Hyundai Motor America Reports Record July Sales -- COSTA MESA, Calif., Aug. 1, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --
http://media.gm.com/content/dam/Media/gmcom/investor/2012/Deliveries_July_2012.pdf (from General Motors | Investors - Sales & Production | GM.com)

As much as I'm a Prius fan, it just seems most Americans aren't willing to buy hybrids (I'm sure it's partly due to FUD and misinformation) and judging by all the monstrosity class SUVs running around solo and/or w/minimal cargo and passengers, FE really isn't that important to them, unless there's a crisis or gas hits $4/gal. Then those people w/inefficient vehicles flee and go to smaller cars... then eventually going right back when gas gets "cheap". (Well, in CA, w/expensive gas, I still saw WAY too many battering ram of death class SUVs running around despite gas being and staying >$4/gal for awhile. What's crazy is I still see people buying new ones or having bought such battering rams recently.)

There's also the notion (that I don't totally agree with) that there must be some payback period to justify buying a hybrid. What's the payback period on a sunroof, V8 engine or BMW? For some reason there's doesn't "need" to be one on those things but "needs" to be one on hybrids...

Take a look at how many battering rams of death GM (e.g. Yukons, Suburbans, Escalades, Tahoes, etc.) sold last month.