 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / December 2004Consumer 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. ========= > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> exciting car while Ford was going for ergonomics. Guess which one got the >> higher rating... 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 > 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. 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. ================== > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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. Well that is certainly solid data to hang your hat on. Matt > 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. 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. >C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as >transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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". >>C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as >>transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but can understand how any Ford product (excluding the new Mustang) could > be/would be/is regarded as merely an "appliance". 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, 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. 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. >>>C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as >>>transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Matt > 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". If you want to study a group of them, these people are easy to spot by their Hondas. > > I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as merely a "transportation > appliance" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you want to study a group of them, these people are easy to spot by their > Hondas. And Toyota. >>>I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as merely a "transportation >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > And Toyota. Or any other UGI (universal generic import). 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. ====================== > > I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about. It's > a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates > them will prefer the 500. > 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. 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 put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about. It's > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > See the case of CR vs. Suzuki Samurai. Uh, CR won the case. Matt > > I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about. It's > a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > See the case of CR vs. Suzuki Samurai. 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". > 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... 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. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > There's room for both of them in the market, and I hope they both succeed, > because they are interesting cars. 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. > The big test will be how these cars hold up in five years. 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. > > The big test will be how these cars hold up in five years. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > question mark lies, even more so for the 250-hp 3.5 engine option to be made > available in a couple of years. Audi has been using CVT's in ~200hp cars for a few years, and as far as I know, relibility has been ok. Unless Ford is using the same ones Audi uses, they are probably a new unit and I, for one, wouldn't want to buy one for a couple years. On a related note, does anyone know the source of the 6-speed used in the FWD 500? It is from Japan, so I would guess the supplier might be Mazda, but that's just a guess. <...does anyone know the source of the 6-speed > used in the FWD 500? It is from Japan, so I would guess the supplier > might > be Mazda, but that's just a guess. It's someone called Aisin. see http://www.autonews.com/files/sae/saec.htm The best source of info on the Ford 500 I've found is http://www.myford500.com > <...does anyone know the source of the 6-speed > > used in the FWD 500? It is from Japan, so I would guess the supplier [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's someone called Aisin. see > http://www.autonews.com/files/sae/saec.htm That is a good thing. Aisin makes transmissions for some Lexi, and in general have a very good reputation. > 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... For the record, also Subaru's Justy in (IIRC), late 80's/early 90's. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > For the record, also Subaru's Justy in (IIRC), late 80's/early 90's. Yep the Subaru CVT did not hold up and GM just closed the design shop on their CVT. Will be interesting if FOrd can make it work. > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yep the Subaru CVT did not hold up and GM just closed the design shop on > their CVT. Will be interesting if FOrd can make it work. Apparently Audi's works, but I think the biggest engine they use it with is the 1.8 turbo of about 170hp. > Yep the Subaru CVT did not hold up and GM just closed the design shop on > their CVT. Will be interesting if FOrd can make it work. They claim their design is fundamentally different, better material in the belt or something like that. Anyway we'll see. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.