I was on the fence about buying a C, but now that CR has labeled the C and a "no buy", I am going to get one.
The US automotive press were waving their willies around when the numbers were down, but once Honda fixed the quake-caused supply problems it became the number one compact and has stayed there. They finally got bored when they realized nobody was listening to them.
America is a country of big people, and more importantly fat people with bad posture and back pain that makes them grumpy. A night of poor rest from sleep apnea and a blaring TV causes them to wake up sleepy, leave home late, and rely on aggressive driving to get to work on time. CR can hardly say this, so instead they favor cars that are big, fast, high off the ground, have oodles of cushions, and do not require any physical flexibility.
So because CR pans the Prius C, you are going to buy one? Is it that you don't trust their review? I applaud your independent thinking.
I hope that guy was joking. There are lots of good reasons to ignore CR's opinions, but "just because" is not one of them.
I suspect he omitted the word "not", but I can't be sure. As far as CR goes, they have objective criteria for trying to bring objectivity to an inherently SUBJECTIVE endeavor. I still maintain that CR has a lot of good information, but in the end they produce just another opinion. Now, excuse me fold up my soap box...
I agree, and if you have some understanding of their criteria their test reports are useful. There really is no reason to tear up when some reporter doesn't like one's car.
You really should quantify that statement. You can disagree with CU's opinion but you should do so for your reasons, not theirs. I like the 'C' on paper but their review gives me some pause. Not enough to rule out the car for my next ride but enough to evaluate it in greater detail than I otherwise might when I finally start shopping. It's only prudent to scrutinize it more in the face of such criticism, no matter how you feel about CU's reviews in general.
Their gripes with the car continue to amaze me, because I share none of them. It's as if they're driving a different car.
I don't know, I've followed the whole CR hate's the Prius C debacle from a nice detached distance. I've already posted in other threads why I think their original review was unfair. Then posted again when CR reacted with a hurt incredulous reaction. What I really think it boils down to, is CR has already climbed out on a limb. They are already on "attacked" record as strongly disliking the Prius C. They can't back up now. So just keep on attacking. And I really sense reading most of their reviews in regards to the Prius C, is that it isn't so much REAL reasons they specifically dislike the C, as it is that they think the standard Prius is a better deal, AND The Prius C is akin to a Hybrid Yaris.....and CR hates the Yaris. So CR is kind of stuck continuing to rally against The Prius C. But my detached and distant opinion still stands. Much is flawed in their outlook and review in this regard.
CR had a very balanced review of the Prius C. Good points, bad points. Prius faithful freakout over anything negative about Prius does not put Consumer Report "out on a limb" more that the screams of heresy from the Prius faithful are more out to lunch.
I think Toyota will make improvements to the Prius C next year. For now the buyer might as well go for one of the deals on a new 2012 Prius Hatch or even possibly a good used gen. 2. But for now, Toyota will do nothing as long as the C is still selling well. I like the car for what it is, but at a lower price, say for instance $19,000. for a C model 2.
While I won't argue that Prius "faithful" freakout over anything negative about Prius. In this case I simply disagree. CR's review of Prius C was not very balanced. I feel no inclination to debate this again, as it has already been thoroughly debated in other threads. But IMO CR's reviews have been very unbalanced. Infact, I would say if your ultimate conclusion is to put Prius C on your "No Buy" list? Then how "balanced" can the review be? If it was so well balanced....the Prius C wouldn't end up on their list as a no buy. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say CR doesn't like the Prius C. And I simply disagree, their evaluation and reviews have been unbalanced and unfair.
I agree wholeheartedly. Let me point out just a couple of examples for those who feel CR is simply tough, but still fair and consistent. Because I used to feel that way as well. Here is how the reviewer summarized the handling characteristics of the C. The positive and negative added by me. "The Prius C handles soundly (positive), but it isn't particularly agile(negative) and the steering lacks feedback(negative). When pushed at our track, the C reached the limits of of it's grip early(negative) although the electronic stability control system kept it stable(positive). It posted a decent speed in our avoidance maneuver (positive)." Referring to the above as a summary was actually a mistake. This single paragraphs was the entire analysis of the cars handling. All the positive characteristics buried or overshadowed by negatives, or too vague or contradictory to have any meaning or value. For example, to post a decent speed in the avoidance maneuver, wouldn't the car have to be at least somewhat agile? And what does decent mean? How about a little better explanation than the single word "decent". Maybe a score on a scale of 1-10, a miles per hour where it stopped being decent, or perhaps a comparison to other cars in it's class. When pushed at the track, did the C lose it's grip early or not? Or did it just "feel" like it was about to lose it's grip, and the stability control system prevented it. Again, vague and contradictory. I realize there are space constraints when publishing. Especially for a magazine that is not ad supported. CR's car reviews are rarely more than a page and a half long, but the language used could have been much clearer. As written, it leaves a decidedly negative impression, despite the positives mentioned. But where I really take issue is the September issue calling it a car to avoid. Traditionally, CR either recommended a car or it didn't. Recommended cars perform good to better than average in almost all categories they judge, with maybe a poor rating in a less important area, such as lack of a timer on the rear defroster. Cars not recommended were judged poorly or lower than average in several areas. Finally, in the annual auto issue each April, CR would publish a list of cars to avoid. It was specific to make model and year, or possibly a span of years, and it contained cars that had major design defects or were so bad in terms of reliability and repair records that no positive characteristics could overcome those issues. Never to my recollection has CR listed a vehicle to avoid simply because it didn't like the ride (choppy and noisy) and because the interior materials looked cheap. I'm just looking for clarity and consistency from CR. Up until recently, I think they had at least consistency in their car reviews. But with the Prius C review, the reviewer's subsequent blog comments cementing the suspected bias we felt in the review, and now calling it a car to avoid, they have walked off a cliff, IMHO.
I'll have to look it up, I suspect I'll find that CR treats the Yaris with the same heavy hand. I do agree that the blogger is a bit of an idiot, mostly because his opinions do not come close to matching the CR tested objective measurements. Where the measurements say 'average', the blogger writes unacceptable. If CR does not want to edit blogger opinions, they really should give them low weighting in the overall car grade. I'm assuming that the car ended up on the 'stay away' list because of the highly negative review. I agree completely that *any* car that is safe, reliable, fuel economical and within 10% of the TCO price for that class of car should not be on the 'stay away' list. That is just an error, or suggests priorities that belong in C&D and not CR.
As a matter of fact, I owned and drove all over the Eastern US and Florida in 2 different Porsche cars, a 356A and a 356B in this Corvair period of time. I loved the Porsche but it could be more of a handful than the Corvair for over steer, especially on a increasing radius turn. When it went it was gone! I dont't know if you ever drove a Corvair, I have, but unless you took the curve, like in the Porsche, too fast it was OK. Of course as you know the Porsche is like a diety to its followers. I stick by my feeling that the Corvair got a bum rap from Consumer Reports and I think they should have gone a little lighter on the Prius C. It is a good first car, a good urban car and now its up to Toyota to reduce its price so young and old alike can afford it. Toyota will need to do this for its continued good sales.
Spinning some of the only positive points in a negative phrasing is not balanced and if you're so cynical about the "faithful" you wouldn't be here at all other than to try this just barely passable as subtle trolling you've been doing. You think you're gonna convince a bunch of people who love their car that someone who seemingly would like to kill it with fire has a well thought out and balanced opinion of it? You should find other things to do cause that's just not gonna happen.
Porche 911 is a super high performance $100K sports car. People buy it expecting very special handling characteristics. The Corvair was a budget family car that was unsafe, something even GM admitted, which is why it was Chapter One in Nader's book on unsafe cars.
Giving a car with obvious flaws a pass is not being balanced. You seem to want CR to be neutral when its entire purpose is to RECOMMEND good cars and to NOT RECOMMEND bad cars. Prius C as a car has clear design flaws. Isn't a good value at its $22K base? No. And CR does a good job of detailing why that true. If you are high mpg person, then you will buy a Prius, flaws and all. But it is good to know what the flaws are and CR does a balanced evaluation to tell you good and bad aspects. Those may or may not be important to you but an informed consumer as hold know them.
