Consumer Report responds to criticism of their review

Yeah, you're dead-on with the issue. But it's far from hopeless. Just test in different conditions and report all the numbers (not talking about the EPA here- just CR-type publications). It's never going to be perfect, but they can do a heckuva lot better than they are, that's all. They're so far from reality as they are, it's hard to imagine them not making progress if they just try. This is their job, and they're being lazy and stubborn about it.

Maybe they SHOULD continue on with the test they're already doing, for past comparison sake, but they should also be measuring more than they are. It's the only way they can make their tests useful and relevant to how people are going to be driving their cars.

 

I don't think the CR ever stated their tests were intended to be predictions for "real-world driving". I've known of people who and been in cars of people who accelerate VERY hard (likely flooring it at every opportunity). As for CR's test, I don't think they've ever stated they've driven it extremely hard in their tests. Their description doesn't seem to indicate that. The short city drive starting from a cold engine is what's yielding the seemingly low number. Them intentionally not driving it any differently than any other car, using door placard tire pressures and plenty of stops and idling doesn't help.

Please see my other URL regarding the EPA tests. At the very beginning (in the 70s), the numbers were very inflated due to the lack of "fudging" (aka adjusting) the figures down. You can see the raw unadjusted figures at Download Fuel Economy Data. Since then, a bunch of adjustments have gone into place along w/extra test cycles.

On the last point, exactly! When I was last living in WA, I had a city drive of ~2 to 2.5 miles, one way to work, which also started up a steep hill. On the way home, I'd get something to eat on the way home and would sometimes power down at the place I got something to eat. The trip for food and then home would be ~4 miles total, including a downhill stretch that would frequently max out my HV battery at ~80% SoC and cause the car to essentially kick into B mode, by itself.

When I left my job, I'd frequently just make <3-4 mile trips, each way, also w/the same up and down hill. The weather was colder and there were stretches where the temps wouldn't even get into the 60s. The above was my "real world" and I'd be lucky to even get 40 mpg on a tank on my Gen 2. This is w/me knowing some techniques, Scangauge, tires above placard pressure and grille blocking.

I'll say it again, there's not one test which one can reflect what all drivers will see, regardless of their commute and how they drive.

 

I guess it just really depends on use case. I live in a city with no highways. I got 4.3 L / 100 km when testing out a Prius C from the Vancouver car share for a week on my city commute. I did not test the Hyundai Accent or the Chevy Sonic, but I can report numbers for other small cars, each of which I used for four or five days of commuting. 2011 Mazda2: 8.6 L / 100 km. 2009 Honda Fit: 8.2 L / 100 km. 2013 Kia Rio: 9.0 L / 100 km. 2012 Fiat 500: 8.7 L / 100 km. With numbers like that, it's fuel economy that knocks the pants off of the rest of its class - it consumes half the fuel that a non-hybrid does.

Now if I was doing the same distance on highways, probably I'd see the C and the other subcompacts converge to closer-enough values that I have little incentive. But yeah, no highways.

As for a noisy ride, the Prius C was quieter than anything else I tried on a stop-and-go commute

 

PcInBlack,
What good is the mean, when 99+% find *their* real world result is different ?

 

Would you prefer "editorial license?" or "Fair and Balanced?" or "Out dated?" I think what we have is a clash of car cultures and they are just as baffled and unprepared for the criticism as we were to see their review. But having gotten a clue about how Consumer Reports generates their "score" or ranking, I'm reminded of this Gary Larson cartoon:


My preliminary analysis of the July 2012 issue suggests Consumer Reports ranks cars by:

• maximum 0-60 mph <= 10.0 seconds :: 11.3 or higher is unacceptable (strongly)
• driver comfort (strongly)
• noise at high power settings (strongly)
• handing (weak)
• stability (weak)
• NOT -> fuel economy
• NOT -> interior space/seats

There may be other, non-linear effects but it will take more data than just the July 2012 issue provides. Regardless, I'm patient and curious to find out.

It is a pretty significant flaw , one might call "blindness," that Consumer Reports does not include the operational cost of a car in their "score" or "ranking" compared to what they do use, acceleration, driver comfort, and noise. But it is their magazine and they have a right to try their business plan ... and pay the consequences.

As I pointed out earlier, we'll continue the subscription. But every 'raffle' and solicitation to support their foundation will be returned with a note explaining why their current "score" system needs to be supported by the gas savings of those who drive cars they recommend.

Bob Wilson

 

FWIW, CR does does do analysis of cost of ownership. Best values is an example, but unfortunately, w/o an online subscription, you can't see >3/4 of it, nor the table. It was in the print version of the magazine, probably in Feb 2012.

The Prius Four liftback was #3 out of ALL cars in "value score". From the article (that you can't see w/o paying for access), the value score is based on road-test scores, predicted reliability scores and 5 year owner costs. From the article:

 

Nothing says "CR rationalizes a demographic with priorities very different than my own" than the assumption that a car will be dumped after five years. This is probably why I love CR for its reliability data while pretty much ignoring the subjective opinions. I don't think they are wrong -- theirs are just not mine. I do think that CR comes pretty close to matching the preferences of white, middle class America.

 

The summary text and the table seem like different cars, but they are both the Prius 'c' from CR

 

Yep, it would be recommended if it were cheaper, bigger and more luxurious!

 

...but didn't you read the rebuttal? they guy said it drives like a "Mercedes-Benz"

Completely agree with you, trying to trade in a hyundai is like bringing a white elephant to the dealership

Love the color of your C by the way, it's gorgeous

 

You quoted an especially salient point from Consumer Reports:

A hybrid is about fuel economy but if you drive a car using maximum acceleration, the noise is going to increase and usually, mileage takes a big hit. Certainly their 37 MPG city says they are really stomping on the accelerator and probably braking beyond regenerative range. Due to front-wheel drive, maximum power and braking also impacts handling as well as increasing noise. It sounds as if their test protocol brings out the things they most bitterly complain about and then down rate. Meanwhile, mileage has no effect on their "score."

Bob Wilson

 

Thanks! I am really glad that I held out for the Summer Rain. It just makes me smile when I see it

 

I enjoy the quiet ride of my CTh, and was initially a bit perplexed by reviews that criticized the noisy interior. Then I realized that my driving habits were the difference.

Regarding the CR text summary and table I posted, I find it odd that the text is so bitter about areas CR gave an 'average' grade.

 

I noticed they said the Hyundai cabin was cheap and noisy too, but that's ok, because it's Mercedes like! Let's face it, something about the C irked this guy, maybe the Habenero color! Traffic cone indeed!

 

Yup, never done it as drag racing is equally interesting as tractor pulls and am not impressed by you for bragging that you did.

So even stop watches have too much margin of error, way to prove my point all along. Apparently another aspect of being into drag racing is poor reading comprehension and significant problems recognizing one's bias. You 2 nerds are blathering ceaseless about fractions of a second on an 18 second overall slow time which you admit can't even be measured by a stop watch, and of course therefore would fail to perceive in the real world, yet its somehow the utmost urgency to weight the C on. All in a scenario of racing a 1/4 mile track which would never be done with the car in the 1st place.

>It's just another objective test. Should they NOT run objective acceleration tests just because it's a Toyota, a Prius c or a car designed for FE? No. There's no reason they should be excluded.

No one said they shouldn't test it, there's this thing called a "weight" which assigns a coefficient based on the sub-test's importance. They can test the sub-compact's torq for towing as well, no reason that should be "excluded" either. Only an idiot would care significantly about the results of either for this class, so the coefficient with an effective and logic model would place these low.​

 

^^^
Sigh, so now you've come to insulting me. I think I'm almost done w/this thread.

Those times can be measured with a stopwatch, but a human with a stopwatch is the WRONG tool for measuring 1/4 mile times at a track when all of them use much more sophisticated and accurate timing equipment in conjunction w/their lights. If you watched a car that achieved an 18.0 vs. 18.4 on the 1/4 mile next on the same track, next to each other, you WOULD see a difference.

The Prius c is slow. Providing objective measurements such as 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times (I prefer the 1/4 mile, since there's less variance due to driver technique, external conditions, etc. and it can be easily obtained at a track) vs. that of other cars helps back that up. The c's slowness isn't the only reason for it to not to well in CR's review, right or wrong.

In the print version, the lows they listed were "acceleration, noise, ride, driving position, rear visibility, fit and finish, small trunk". They go into more detail in the article. I don't know what the weighting is of acceleration vs. all the other factors in their test score.

In the brief time that I've test driven a c, I can agree w/the small trunk and rear visibility as the rear head rests are HUGE. If I had one, I'd remove them both if nobody's sitting in the back and store them in the trunk, in case I have passengers. (I even posted about it at The Prius Aqua has different Headrests! | PriusChat.)

 

Whilst we have all been debating numbers and other variances noted in the car review, the biggest gripe I believe we have is the fact that Consumer Reports made a press announcement of how "poorly" the Prius C performed in their tests. Yes, they made a press announcement of their "opinions" of the car which is odd because they don't make press announcements for every "poor performing" car in their tests.

And in response to criticism of their evaluation, they (Tom Mutchler) served it up with a childish slap to the face by comparing a Chevrolet Sonic/Hyundai Accent to the Prius C as being "Mercedes-Like" in comparison. That is the major bone of contention we have.

 

Why are you trolling a Prius forum when you don't even own a Prius or hybrid vehicle, according to your avatar? Your subterfuge of having scientific knowledge on how to do a car review isn't even remotely convincing and you act as though Consumer Reports is completely faultless. Unless we have 3rd party verification that all tests are done under the same conditions for all cars, for which we do not, you have nothing to base any of your statements on. For a non-hybrid car owner, you have no idea what you've been talking about and trying to argue against a group who actually owns the car makes you look foolish beyond the point of entertainment.

Interesting statement about the Prius C being slow. Not as though the 2nd generation you have is any quicker. Why are you playing devil's advocate here? Because you don't own a Prius C but a superior 2nd generation Prius? I wonder how you'd react if Consumer Reports criticized (fairly or unfairly) a car you owned...

 

Actually, the Gen 2 is a tad bit quicker in the 1/4 (CR's results were 18.1 sec @ 78.3 or 78.4 mph, depending on whether it was the 04 or 08 Touring they tested). It has nothing to do w/whether my Gen 2 is superior to the c or not.

FWIW, it's obvious the c is smaller than the Gen 2 but also obvious that c gets better city numbers in the EPA and CR tests than the Gen 2. The c also seems capable of easily delivering far superior city numbers over the Gen 2 in "real world" driving.

I'm mainly trying to point where some of their results came from (e.g. 37 mpg on their city test) that people call BS, hogwash, inaccurate, etc. The other part has to do w/slowness and objective tests. Some folks here have made goofy statements such as about 1/4 mile times and speeds.

I have insufficient seat time w/the Prius c to agree or disagree w/CR's comments about the interior quality, fit and finish, ride quality and noise.

Hmmm.... as for your last part, I wonder now too...

 

Here is an article plus video by USA Today on the Prius c:

Test Drive: Toyota Prius c a hybrid with personality – USATODAY.com