Consumer Reports rates the 300 and 300C

This month Consumer Reports rates the 300 and the Ford 500. They point out
that the cars are worlds apart..... Chrysler was trying to build an
exciting car while Ford was going for ergonomics. Guess which one got the
higher rating...

 

I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about. It's a
known fact (at least by some) that some of their reporters/writers have been
bought.

=========

 

my first impression on sitting in the driver's seat of
the 300 was that i was in a submarine. rarely do the A pillars
create blind spots. this time they sure do. and all the finish
looked cheap. plastic. on the good side, ride was firm
and comfortable.
....thehick

 

Like many others, I have little faith in CR to intelligently evaluate
anything more complicated than toasters. But these really are two different
cars, even if they occupy a similar size and price slot. I can't imagine a
500 being advertised being in a drag race with an expensive imported sports
car.

I sat in a 500, and it oozed upper-middle class style and upper-middle age
comfort. I haven't ridden in one, but I have read that with the CVT they are
buttery smooth. That's certainly not the image that Chrysler is trying to
push.

There's room for both of them in the market, and I hope they both succeed,
because they are interesting cars.

 

Known by whom?


Matt

 

I know more people who don't trust what they say than those that do. The
"known" ones are usually the ones that can remember the news stories about
them from several years ago.

==================

 

Do you have documentation that Consumer Reports has been "bought" in regard
to their road tests? I doubt it.

C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its size.
The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises visibility.
The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates
them will prefer the 500.

 

I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as merely a "transportation appliance"
but can understand how any Ford product (excluding the new Mustang) could
be/would be/is regarded as merely an "appliance".

 

I won't waste my time digging up info for you, you already have your mind
set that it didn't happen. But several writers/researchers lost their job
due to "favors" they received from several companies. That's all I'll
respond to about this.

I didn't waste my time reading the article either since, as you say (and as
I know), the two cars really shouldn't be compared. Their target customer I
would certainly imagine would be different although Ford may not want to
admit that. The Ford is definitely a nice car but until they offer more
than that V6, they won't appeal to everyone (especially with that plain
vanilla Honda-like exterior). It's a safe car for safe (and older) people.
It will be a big hit with the rental car companies. The 300 either with the
3.5 V6 or the hemi is a much more exciting car, visually and from the
drivers seat. I've driven both. Proof not necessary here either since they
are currently at your local dealer and you can research this as well.
======================

 

Well that is certainly solid data to hang your hat on.

Matt

 

Yes, but the majority of car buyers do view cars that way and that is
why Toyota is now #2 in sales ... and will be #1 in a matter of time.
That is also why both CR and C&D have a place in this world.


Matt

 

Yes, both magazines have a place in this world, but the only place I have found
for CR is with analytical retards, as they are the only ones who will read and
respond to the surveys - so as to perpetuate some real-world need for the
magazine. And I repeat...............I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as
merely a "transportation appliance".

 

Very well said.

 

I just don't put trust in CR because their articles are written by morons,
and they used flawed testing methods. That's not just for cars.

See the case of CR vs. Suzuki Samurai.

 

I too hope they both suceed, because it will mean there is some hope for the
domestic manufactures. Same with the new Chev Cobolt that replaces the
Cavalier (car rags will stop laughing at Chev for selling such an outdated
design.)

The big test will be how these cars hold up in five years.

 

Uh, CR won the case.

Matt

 

If you want to study a group of them, these people are easy to spot by their
Hondas.

 

Also, consumerism is a world view, and I usually try to filter out their
agenda. Consumerists are clearly opinionated about cars. Cars are made by
corporations (bad), use natural resources (bad), cause pollution (bad) are
associated with Americans freedoms that we guard jealously (bad), and
sometimes crash (bad). The Consumer's world view would say cars are just an
example of how corporations kill people and don't care.

Sometimes they state their agenda plainly. Sometimes it's obvious,
particularly when an experiment proves the opposite of the hypothesis, and
the fool who did the experiment concludes "my hypothesis was right".

 

And Toyota.

 

The interesting question here is not I think what happens to the 300, which
is fairly conventional, but the CVT transmission in the Ford. If it doesn't
have legs Ford as a company worldwide could be in big trouble. CVTs aren't
new - they've been sold in Europe since the 50s - and Ford has been
experimenting with then for the past 40 years, but the problem as I
understand it is they don't scaled up well. They're OK on a 100hp car, but
on the 200-hp engine standard in the Freestyle and 500 that's where the
question mark lies, even more so for the 250-hp 3.5 engine option to be made
available in a couple of years.