Consumer Reports slams Magnum

Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking and
handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.

 

Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................

 

Sign over Consumer Reports main entrance: "If it's American, it must suck!"

 

Actually the Mazda and Volvo did not do all that well either.
Consumer Reports sign really says "If its Toyota or Honda, we love it."

Consumer Reports made a list of all the current smaller SUV's/wagon. Some
things I remember: The Pacifica was rated better than the Magnum and the
frequency of repair is average. Mazda 6 is not recommended because of bad
frequency or repair. The VW's did well but one had a bad frequency of
repair and the other average.

All of the cars are so different from each other it is highly unlikely that
someone thinking about a Magnum would decide on a Honda Pilot instead.

 

I've never understood this about any car magazine. They put really different
cars together head to head.

For example, they might have, as "hatchbacks", the Echo hatch, VW Golf, and
a Mini. Those cars are on such different parts of the continuum. If I were
rating "super small cars", I'd put Echo vs. Hyundai Accent vs. Chevy Aveo.

Then they nitpick stupid stuff, like they might complain about the Echo not
having power windows, completely oblivious that such options add cost, and
people buying compact cars tend to be price conscious.

Oh, and they think the Echo Hatchback is "cute". At that point they loose
all credibility.

There was an article in one magazine about the Ford Freestar. Being of
domestic origin, they had to invent something wrong, as the vehicle hadn't
given them any problems. What did they complain about? They said because the
gas tank is large, it is expensive to fill. WTF!? If it had poor fuel
economy I'd report that as such, but too big a gas tank? I'd consider that a
plus because it would extend the range. I'm curious if they know that you
don't have to fully top up the tank each time you stop for gas, nor do you
have to wait for it to reach empty.

 

Consumer Reports dislikes the Magnum, eh?

I wasn't so hot on it before, but now I am.

 

Actually, they recommend the PT Cruiser, Pacifica, and T&C.

 

My experience with cars is that Consumer Reports usually gets it right. (OK
Mr. Stern, they were a bit brain dead with lighting issues).

Richard.

 

My experience with everything from telephones to toasters to washing
machines to automobiles to oil filters to frozen pizza is that Condemner
Retards usually gets it wrong.

 

Why do I think of PT Barnum when I read this response and think of CR?

 

Consumer always gives the best rating in simple matters like peanut butter to
some local in house brand that only a small geographic area has access to.
I remember one report on health insurance. The best one rated was available to
Federal government workers only.
Don't rate stuff like this, rate items that everyone and their hunky brother
can buy.

 

Or the best buy item was discontinued the day you got the issue in the mail.
Or 6 months after they top rated an item and you purchased it, they publish
an article recommending that reader's don't buy it because it is unreliable.
Or the day after you buy it they publish a new article saying that all the
readers that bought it hate it because it has one major deficiency that they
missed.

Unfortunately, CR is still better than nothing. It does make you aware of
what is available.

 

OK, I give up; why?

Richard.

 

I find, when it comes to vehicles, when CU, Car & Driver and Road and Track
agree with each other you can have some security in following their lead.
But CU's survey information is very useful on areas of reliability. This is
not utopia and CU is far from perfect, but sometimes it is a good starting
point. Today the net gives us other outlets for information. Just like this
newsgroup; don't you think.

Richard.

 

Car and Driver and Road and Track both accept adverisers' dollars, so you
won't find many objective reviews in either mag.

Consumer's Union stopped being objective when they decided to accept oil
reports from manufacturers rather do their own tests, in order to save
money.

As for their surveys, did you ever notice that all up-scale and Japanese
cars get top marks?

That's simply because their owners have plenty of time on their hands to
respond to CU's questionaires and have never owned anything else except
upscale products.

CU reflects the elitist attitudes of its subscribers and nothing more.

Best,
doc

 

I agree with Dan. Reading CU, I often conclude that their choices reflect
their agenda rather than the facts. They might be objective on subjects
where they don't have an agenda.

 

Their agenda is self-promotion, nothing more or less. They love to crow
about how they accept no advertising. That's true as far as it goes, but
their magazines are absolutely full of ads...for themselves. That's how
they make their money, is by selling the magazine.

I happen to own an early-'60s Dodge. Found a 1961 Consumer Reports
magazine issue on Ebay with a review of my car, so I bought it. It was fun
to read the old road test, but more than that, it was really interesting
to compare the 43-year-old issue with a current-day issue. Night and day,
not even CLOSE to being the same magazine, except at the very broadest,
most general conceptual level.

If there were still a magazine in regular publication directly comparable
to the Consumer Reports of 1961, I'd subscribe.

But there isn't.

 

I surely haven't found that. Quite the opposite, in fact -- it took a good
eight or ten instances for me to decide that the problem wasn't random or
my fault, but was CR's flawed testing and survey methods that were to
blame for my consistently bad results following their recommendations.
Eventually I learned, though.

DS

 

I agree that the relaibility ratings are probably the most important to
me. Some of the things they rate you can't find in "exactly" that model,
etc.
I did have one bad experience with tires. They rated these Dunlops as a
best buy. So I got some for my 95 NYer. And they weren't bad for the first
20 or 25 k of their 40k lifetime. But then, they got bald (kept pressure
at 40 psi, big mistage), leaked around the rims, and I think I ditched em
after 35k or so.

 

Keep in mind that their "reliability" ratings aren't based on controlled
long-term tests, but simply a poll of their readers who choose to
respond to their questionnaire. Hardly data worth hanging your hat on.


Matt