Featured Consumer Reports "New Cars" Dec 2023

The best outside mirrors I ever had were on a Porsche. After purchase option. They were convex and so the field of vision was extraordinary. Since the vision out the plastic rear window was limited, it made for a much nicer experience. Never understood why others didn't use the same idea. Sure there was distortion but the coverage was what I was looking for. I've even seen mirrors that had two sections, one concave and the other flat split in the middle with the concave on the far side.

 

Hmmm (to quote you), so you DO like them because they didn't like Tesla Model 3.
Talk about missing the takeaway. They dinged the Prius, & CR has ding'ed numerous products over the decades that they were ignorantly wrong about - due to their personal bias. Why would you focus on the one point of personal ownership but not the other of personal ownership.
.

 

We like to use Consumer Reports as part of our evaluation process for major purchases.

Consumer Reports - Product Reviews - US Energy Star Rated Site for Appliances- Best Buy Reviews- Amazon Reviews - Appliance rating sites etc.

Do the same for cars.

None of the sites would by themselves be a determining factor but each has their part in our overall product evaluation and decision to purchase.

I think they are valuable for consumers who use them right.

As an example we bought a PHEV vehicle from an Automaker we had no experience with. We used JD Power reliability ratings and customer satisfaction ratings along with Consumer Reports, Moter Trend, Edmonds Auto and many you tube reviews of the product in our decision to make the purchase. Each had their part in the overall decision.

Of course, our in-person evaluation of the products we were considering, our perception of the price to value of the product and a comprehensive Return on Investment calculation are also important factors for us in purchases.

Couldn't imagine only using one source for a product evaluation- everyone has hit and misses - but a number of comprehensive independent reviews from different sources will usually take care of that.

 

Something more to do on walks, look at car mirrors. Ford F150 has a nice side mirror, then there are the F250’s with a mirror about like an 8x 11 sheet of paper.

 

Testing multiple cars doesn't negate any biases of the testers, not faults in their test procedures. The variables in their fuel economy testing means the results can't reliably be used to compared different models for instance.

The Sonic had a wide angle portion on its side mirrors. I liked the idea, but found the size of that section meant is wasn't very useful to me in practice.

I don't see Tesla's implementation of BSM being more difficult to adapt to than what I had to do in the Subaru, but that could prove different when actually driving one. There isn't a standard on how these ADASes need to be implemented. Things will be different between brands and even same brand models. reading the manual and a learning curve is going to be involved no matter if a review gives it a pass or not.

 

In Europe, both Prius mirrors are convex, and the driver's one also has an aspherical outer edge for even more view, as is normal in Europe.

Wing mirrors seem to be one of the areas where US legislation seems unhelpful, like with headlights. In the US, the driver's side wing mirror has to be flat, limiting field of view. (As a European driving a US hire car, it's incredibly disconcerting.) In the US, only the passenger-side can be convex, but it has to have a warning written on it.

 

Hopefully eventually us legislators will cave and allow the much more aerodynamic camera side view mirrors. And why not. You don't even have to have side view mirrors if you're willing to stick your arm out to do your signaling.
.

 

You are right, the word was aspherical, not convex. Always passed inspection. Easy to install yourself as there was no wiring for BSM. Trying to remember if there was heated mirror there.

Another example of how the US standards aren't up to the EU ones.

 

Consumer Reports uses an accurate fuel gauge and do their own driving pattern, which is different than the EPA driving pattern. Also, EPA tests are to a most part done on a dyno by the manufacturer, whereas CR tests are done fully in the field.

That said, CR and EPA mpg results are very similar. CR's values are slightly lower probably because they employ a more demanding driving pattern. In my case, I easily beat EPA because I drive very gentle.

How accurate are EPA’s fuel-economy labels?

Having a video monitor on the center laptop display is useful but not nearly as effective as having a warning light on the side mirror as I explained before.

 

No review is perfect. You should also test-drive the car before you buy.

That said, Consumer Reports still has the best car reviews out there. You should read the other reviews as well, even though they are typically next to useless.

If they are criticizing something, they don't do it out of personal bias but because there is something lacking.

2017 BMW i3 has only 2 out of 5 in owner satisfaction in their survey. So, the review seems to be fair, and the general public didn't like the car. General public can care less about car teardowns as well.

Model 3's owner satisfaction is 4 out 5, which is good but not excellent, hence in line with the shortcomings pointed out by Consumer Reports.

 

The EPA test has outside monitoring of the car's speed and acceleration that the test driver uses to ensure they are following the test cycle profile. Doubt CR does as the testing is done on an outside track or road. While CR states they don't test in wet weather, that still allows a range of temperatures and wind patterns to have an impact on the results. On top of that, they use fuel from the corner station, which introduces season blends and possible contamination. It's those variables that make comparisons between two different models suspect. Did car B do worse than car A because it is less efficient, or because it was tested on a colder day with winter blend gas?

Still waiting for CR to actually publish their test cycle profile.

Has anyone actually tested this, or is it one of those 'common sense' things?

 

It sounds like you don't know how the EPA fuel-economy test is done.

The final step of the test is done on a dynamometer inside a laboratory, and the total drag force and inertia is programmed into the dynamometer.

However, there is a crucial first step in the EPA test called the "coastdown," during which the vehicle is decelerated from a high speed to standstill in neutral gear (no motive power) outside on a level track. The purpose of the coastdown is to estimate the aerodynamic drag as a function of speed and then program it into the dynamometer. Likewise, the inertia (mass) of the car is programmed into the dynamometer as well. All is an approximation of course, but it works fairly well. Nevertheless, since the coastdown is done on an outside track, it is affected by the air temperature and humidity, which changes the aerodynamic drag, just like the CR test is affected.

CR does not use a dynamometer. Everything is done on their test track.

Sure, perhaps not having any type of blind-spot monitor may be even better. They should do a controlled study against that baseline as well.

 

I am aware because the EPA actually published the entire procedure so others can repeat it.
"For motor vehicles at or below 14,000 pounds GVWR, develop representative road-load coefficients to characterize each vehicle covered by a certificate of conformity. Calculate road-load coefficients by performing coastdown tests using the provisions of SAE J1263 and SAE J2263 (incorporated by reference in § 1066.1010). This protocol establishes a procedure for determination of vehicle road load force for speeds between 115 and 15 km/hr (71.5 and 9.3 mi/hr); the final result is a model of road-load force (as a function of speed) during operation on a dry, level road under reference conditions of 20 °C, 98.21 kPa, no wind, no precipitation, and the transmission in neutral."
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U/part-1066/subpart-D

While the coast down test is performed outside, the procedure calls for adjustment of results to standard atmospheric conditions. Even if it didn't, how the engine is running has no bearing on the results. Differences in air temperature and humidity has an effect on an engine's performance and efficiency that the CR test introduces.

Then there is multiple potential variables between store bought gasoline and the precise defined fuel used for EPA testing.

 

Are we nitpicking the picky nits?

A lot of review companies go through a lot of work to review products. Of course they aren't perfect, but they are better IMO than personal reviews.

As far as I understand, CR once did a bad review on purpose on the Suzuki Samarai. I don't think that means that all their reviews are garbage. When I got my last two sets of winter tires I once didn't used CR reviews, but used personal reviews, and the second time I used CR reviews. The personal reviews lead me to a rather terrible set of winter tires. The tires that CR recommended has been a rather excelent set.

If you want a personal review, here's mine: All cars stink and I'm unimpressed with all these refined piles of ore on wheels that pollute the environment and run over and kill innocent children in the name of justifying impatience and showing off how scratch free a shinny pile of ore can be with enough money.

 

Does that infer we need more sensors, Radar Etc? After all - statistically - we have already proven worldwide that human inattentiveness does not cut the mustard
.

 

At the end, all is an approximation. In fact, glancing at the link you provided, the approximations regarding temperature and humidity are fairly gross; so, nothing is perfectly standardized as you claim/think.

To make it worse, EPA gives manufacturers different options for the testing protocol.

Last but not least, unlike the CR tests, EPA tests are done by different labs and different manufactures, which brings further uncertainty. There was even cheating involved as in the Volkswagen case. There seem to be even more problems with the EPA BEV/PHEV test protocols, allowing manufacturers to bias the mpge/range numbers to their advantage.

Regarding engine efficiency, modern engines are hardly affected by ambient conditions unless it is super cold. The improved fuel efficiency you see in hot and dry days is because of lower aerodynamic drag, not because of higher engine efficiency.

It is good to have actual standardized field tests by CR. At the end, fuel efficiency will be determined by how you drive, and a ±5% difference will hardly be significant in what you will be actually getting with the car, as your driving pattern might be radically different. I regularly get 70–75 mpg with my 2021 Prius Prime Limited in the HEV mode, and this is 40% higher than the EPA numbers. I know you are happy if you ever get 30 mpg with your Subaru after EPA-label-comparison-buying it.

At the end, both tests are useful. I, myself, rely more on the EPA labels/tests than the CR tests like you do, as there is more science going into them and there is more data at different driving parameters, but I won't brush off CR tests as useless.

 

And therefore, the CR tests can have more variability due to temperature, humidity, wind, road surface, elevation changes, etc. I'm sure they have thresholds that they try to stay within to minimize these effects. But the EPA tests are NOT (AFAIK) designed to be an accurate estimate of your actual mpg but rather a benchmark that you can use to compare different car models.
But when CR obtained Prius mpg that was far below both the EPA numbers and widely reported consumer values it was pretty obvious that due to quirks in how the Prius hybrid system warms up and switches between modes must have been exploited or not understood...and (maybe even) gleefully ignored.

EDIT: I see others have mentioned some of the same things

Mike

 

See my later posts. EPA tests are also partly on the field—the so-called coastdown test—because they need to account for the aerodynamic drag, and the testers, who are manufacturers, can vary and choose between test methods and protocols. So, variability and bias are inevitable. Some have even cheated on the EPA tests.

Read the quoted post below: