 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / February 2005Consumer Reports rates minivans
Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though if you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler the nod. The Chrysler did not do as well as Honda and Toyota on the drivetrain, noise and ride. Interesting enuf, Chrysler continues to get closer on reliability...... Honda and Toyota were only slightly more reliable (very good versus good for Chrysler). The 2 with poor reliability were Mazda and Nissan.... neither were recommended because of reliability problems. > Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though > if you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reliability were Mazda and Nissan.... neither were recommended because of > reliability problems. Sounds right, My neighbor has a 2004 Nissan, And the problems, with fit and finish is absurd. The vents in the roof fell out, the seats are unravelling, the windshield is covered in tiny little airbubbles. the door pulls came off. Drives fine though! Nice ride and handling. Ugly though. > Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though if > you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > good versus good for Chrysler). The 2 with poor reliability were Mazda and > Nissan.... neither were recommended because of reliability problems. Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet until the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then it got very noisy. My Grand Voyager is a little noisier than the Honda was when new, but it hasn't become appreciably more noisy in 162,000 miles! Matt > Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet until > the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then it got > very noisy. My Grand Voyager is a little noisier than the Honda was > when new, but it hasn't become appreciably more noisy in 162,000 miles! So what'd they do - use the old GM technique of nitriding the cams? Works great until the super-hard but micro-thin nitride layer wears thru (at around 70 to 110k miles), then wears like butter. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my adddress with the letter 'x') >> Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet >> until the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Works great until the super-hard but micro-thin nitride layer wears thru > (at around 70 to 110k miles), then wears like butter. I have no idea what the underlying problem was, I just know that the pads on the rocker arms and the cam lobs each had at least 1/16" of metal worn away and were terribly spalled. All 16 were worn aobut equally. Shortly after the car was repaired I traded it for an 89 Acclaim. Best deal I ever made! Matt >> Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet >> until the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Works great until the super-hard but micro-thin nitride layer wears thru > (at around 70 to 110k miles), then wears like butter. Doubtful, roller cams in general are made of different materials with different hardening processes than were used on slider cams. They probably made a New and Better mistake (tm). After all, Honda would HAVE to make a BETTER mistake than GM! :-p I know not all Honda buyers are jerks, but I sure seem to find the ones that are and it serves them right. I had one accost me in my daughter's school parking lot a couple of years ago because I had a "Built when cars were made to LAST!" window sticker in my '66 Dodge (Kanter auto products used to send them out in their parts orders). He started blathering about how he had 150,000 miles on his Accord and how cars now last SOOOO much longer than they used to, so I just said "congratulations! Thats really great you got so much out of that car! You're almost HALFWAY to the mileage on this one!" I didn't bother to tell him that he was less than a third of the way to the mileage on my '73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car :-p >>> Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet until >>> the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then it got [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > third of the way to the mileage on my '73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to > the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car :-p I agree, not all are jerks, but I've found quite a few that are. Not just Hondas, but import drivers in general. Even those driving VW / Kia trash. Funny thing, I've also noticed that in a crowded parking lot, people that are most likely to illegally park in "in the way" places tend to drive import cars. >>> Yes, but could be like my Honda Accord. The engine was very quiet >>> until the cam and lifters began to fail at around 70K miles and then [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > tell him that he was less than a third of the way to the mileage on my > '73 Plymouth and 3/4 of the way to the mileage on my wife's 93 LH car :-p Getting back to the topic of this thread, I blame CR, JD Power et. al. for this mentality. Too much focus on initial quality and not enough on long term durability. Really the Germans are the only ones that I trust for a "drive virtually forever" car (not counting older MoPar and other well-engineered American cars) but even they have lately succumbed to the disease of over-gatgetizing their vehicles to the point that they'd be an absolute nightmare to troubleshoot 10-15 years down the road. It's hard to actually blame the Asian mfgrs. for not producing cars that work indefinitely, however; the way the laws are set up in Japan there's no incentive to produce a car that lasts more than, say, 10 years as virtually no vehicles older than that will still be in service anyway. nate  Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Really the Germans are the only ones that I trust > for a "drive virtually forever" car (not counting older MoPar and other > well-engineered American cars) but even they have lately succumbed to > the disease of over-gatgetizing their vehicles to the point that they'd > be an absolute nightmare to troubleshoot 10-15 years down the road. Indeed. http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20050208.html :) > Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though > if you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reliability were Mazda and Nissan.... neither were recommended because of > reliability problems. Wow, Honda with it's Transmission problems still did better? I get a kick out of all these Jap vans being rated tops, but push come to shove I see many more Caravans rolling off dealership lots. I was surprised that the Honda did not suffer in the surveys because of the AT problems. Reportedly though Honda did everything they could to make customers happy until replacement AT's were available so maybe their customers forgave them when filling out the surveys. Either that or the rest of the van is so reliable it made up for the AT problems. >> Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though >> if you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I get a kick out of all these Jap vans being rated tops, but push come to > shove I see many more Caravans rolling off dealership lots. The Chrysler mini-vans will get a great rating when they switch to superior bushings, sway bar links, a direct fuel injection motor, independent rear suspension and a next generation automatic transmission. On my personal list: 1. Amber rear turn lights. 2. Truly superior headlights 3. A CD changer that recognizes DVD-R and RW disks, digital AM and FM, and a multi-channel decoder for SACD/DVD-A/MP3 and WMP. 4. A switch back to decent tires or something like Michlin HydroEdge or Goodyear TripleTred tires. Honda will then it its dust. > The Chrysler mini-vans will get a great rating when they switch to > superior bushings, sway bar links, a direct fuel injection motor, > independent rear suspension and a next generation automatic transmission. Yet without those, for years the Caravan always had high marks for very "car-like" feel. As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in their time, so I don't see any major problems with them sticking with the known reliable 3.3 and 3.8 L engines. I'd rather reliable over high tech any day. Maybe they'll put a hemi in <g> > Yet without those, for years the Caravan always had high marks for very > "car-like" feel. Oh, but a solid axle is OLD tech! Yuck! :-p > As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in their > time, Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold, Chrysler hand't had a flawed engine in the whole history of the company until then. > > As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in > > their time, > Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head > gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold, > Chrysler hand't had a flawed engine in the whole history of the company > until then. *cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough* >>>As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in >>>their time, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > *cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough* Never had a lick of trouble with that engine in the one my Dad had. Yes, it was a buzzing gutless POS, but it ran longer than the rest of the car did... which isn't saying too much, come to think of it. :-p > > *cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough* > Never had a lick of trouble with that engine in the one my Dad had. Yeah, and Paul T. managed to make 2.6s run well and last. And Hemi A. has some ungodly number of hundreds of thousands of miles on the 3.0 in his minivan. *shrug* > Yes, it was a buzzing gutless POS, but it ran longer than the rest of > the car did... As I was saying... > which isn't saying too much, come to think of it. :-p As you were saying... >>>As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in >>>their time, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > *cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough* What's wrong with a VW 4-cylinder? that block is still in production today and pumping 180 (conservative) HP with a turbohuffer. Also has been used as a basis for turbodiesels, but I don't know if the current TDI is still based on that block or not. Certainly strong enough for just about anything you'd be able to legally do to it. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>>As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in >>>>their time, > >>Can't think of a single bad one prior to the mid 90s when the 2.0 head > >>gasket fiasco happened. Not counting the Mitsubishi junk they sold > > *cough*VW 1.7 in early OmniRizon*cough* > What's wrong with a VW 4-cylinder? Yeah, yeah, I *know*, Nate. You've made some kind of a compact with the devil that lets you get amazingly reliable and long service out of VWs. Those of us who've made no such deal are in a different situation entirely. > that block is still in production today McDeath still sells the Big Mac. > Certainly strong enough for just about anything you'd be able to legally > do to it. Strong? Who said anything about "strong"? The question concerned the overall quality of engineering and reliability of the hardware. DS >>>>>As far as the engine, Chrysler has popped out a couple bad ones in >>>>>their time, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > DS Exactly, and I've had exactly two issues with engine internals in over 10 years of driving VWs with the same basic engine - a burned valve on a newly-acquired 1.8 16V that had been sitting a long time and had a spotty maintenance history, and some worn rod bearings on a Corrado G60 (which apparently was due to VW using a new type of bearing for that motor which was supposedly stronger, and which was easily rectfied by dropping the pan and replacing with the standard bearings) Really, the only major issues with VW drivetrains that I'm aware of that can be attributed to VW (I'm not counting things like the recent ignition coil fiasco or the window regulator thing, which were supplier issues and would have been a non-issue were their dealer network not populated by combusting rectums) are the fact that the G60 supercharger is essentially a maintenance item - you rebuild it every 80K miles - and the close-ratio 020 transaxles were missing a c-clip that caused them to grenade at about 120K miles or thereabouts (the regular wide-ratio trannys are apparently OK, however.) Of course, we can agree to blame VW for their shitty heater cores, I'm totally with you on that one. There's no excuse for heater cores that fail every 8-10 years like clockwork on a well maintained car. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Of course, we can agree to blame VW for their shitty heater cores, I'm > totally with you on that one. There's no excuse for heater cores that > fail every 8-10 years like clockwork on a well maintained car. Yeah, sounds like the Renault Alliance, Defiance, Appliance, etc. Oh wait... you said every 8 to 10 years. I thought you said every 8 to 10 months. Toyota MDT in MO > > Strong? Who said anything about "strong"? The question concerned the > > overall quality of engineering and reliability of the hardware. > Exactly, and I've had exactly two issues with engine internals in over > 10 years of driving VWs with the same basic engine - a burned valve on a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > motor which was supposedly stronger, and which was easily rectfied by > dropping the pan and replacing with the standard bearings) I'll concede the point that the *basic* engine and _manual_ transmission are fine. The stuff that gets bolted on and draped around the basic engine, OTOH...and the automatic transmissions... > Of course, we can agree to blame VW for their shitty heater cores, I'm > totally with you on that one. There's no excuse for heater cores that > fail every 8-10 years like clockwork on a well maintained car. I remember getting the recall card for the heater core fittings on our '90 Jetta. Seems they "could" fail and cause a high pressure/high-temperature leak...directly onto the driver's feet. > I remember getting the recall card for the heater core fittings on our '90 > Jetta. Seems they "could" fail and cause a high pressure/high-temperature > leak...directly onto the driver's feet. The Renault Alliance/Encore recall notice said, paraphrased, that its heater core could rupture and spray hot coolant on the occupants legs, scalding them. I'm sure this did happen to some unlucky people, but everyone else suffered a heater core that weeped coolant just enough so that you could always smell it. Usually a couple months after replacement. Those cars were cool in a lot of ways for the time, but the coolness was more than offset by the godzilla sized sh.t designs of virtually every system on the vehicle. Toyota MDT in MO > The Renault Alliance/Encore recall notice said, paraphrased, that its > heater core could rupture and spray hot coolant on the occupants legs, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the coolness was more than offset by the godzilla sized sh.t designs of > virtually every system on the vehicle. Well...yeah, I guess if you cross your eyes and squint and maybe take large quantities of thoughtfully-combined pharmaceuticals, "zero to sixty in forty-five minutes" is cool in a lot of ways ;-) Yep they left out the engine. But weren't they the ones with pedastal seats in the front so rear passengers had more leg room? That was a decent idea for a small car at the time. And I thought the hood shape was interesting. >> The Renault Alliance/Encore recall notice said, paraphrased, that its >> heater core could rupture and spray hot coolant on the occupants legs, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > large quantities of thoughtfully-combined pharmaceuticals, "zero to sixty > in forty-five minutes" is cool in a lot of ways ;-) > Yep they left out the engine. But weren't they the ones with pedastal seats > in the front so rear passengers had more leg room? That was a decent idea > for a small car at the time. And I thought the hood shape was interesting. Yeah, the seats could move more ways than most modern power seats, including the "astronaut move". And just like every other inovation or standard feature they brought to this compact econo car class, it was with glaring fault. I saw the left side seat tracks rip apart when heavily used (delivery people, etc) causing the driver to flip into the passenger seat on a sharp turn. I'm sure you can agree that's dangerous. Every theoretically nice feature on these festering, moist, piles of dung was plagued with mass failure rates. Toyota MDT in MO Is this actually going to happen? > The Chrysler mini-vans will get a great rating when they switch to > superior bushings, sway bar links, a direct fuel injection motor, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Honda will then it its dust. >> The Chrysler mini-vans will get a great rating when they switch to >> superior bushings, sway bar links, a direct fuel injection motor, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Honda will then eat its dust. > Is this actually going to happen? We since Chrysler just pulled out the duel function duel bulb red rear lights for a one bulb combined stop, marker and turn function; to save a few cents, I would not hold my breath. Apparently all that talk about safety from Chrysler is just more bull. Richard. > >> On my personal list: > >> 1. Amber rear turn lights. > >> 2. Truly superior headlights > >> Honda will then eat its dust. > > Is this actually going to happen? > We since Chrysler just pulled out the duel function duel bulb red rear > lights for a one bulb combined stop, marker and turn function; to save a few > cents, I would not hold my breath. Apparently all that talk about safety > from Chrysler is just more bull. The current combined stop-tail-turn is DEFINITELY better/safer than separate adjacent "duelling red" tail/brake and tail/turn lamps. With the "duelling reds" if the brake is on it's impossible to see the turn signal until you're right on top of the van (or car...'98.5-'01 Audi A4, post-'97 Taurus/Sable especially wagon, Honda Civic '01-up, Honda Accord '05...) But yes, red rear turn signals are stupid. >> >> On my personal list: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > "duelling reds" if the brake is on it's impossible to see the turn signal > until you're right on top of the van (or car...'98.5-'01 Audi A4, Once I was behind an Audi with duel red signals, he put his brakes on, and put his blinker on. A passenger in my car said "Stupid a.shole should learned to signal" I pointed out that he did but it was hidden in the brake lights, and if he had amber turn signals it would be much more visible (this passenger is against amber signals) >post-'97 > Taurus/Sable especially wagon ... not including 2000+ sedans. >, Honda Civic '01-up, Honda Accord '05...) New Sentras are really bad. There is a tiny little red turn signal hidden in the middle of a gigantic red brake light. > But yes, red rear turn signals are stupid. Agree. The wife's 2003 Dodge Stratus is pretty bad too...one can hardly see the red turn signal when the brake lights are also lit. Now my 2004 Sebring (basically the same car) has amber rear signals...it makes all the difference in the world! Those you *can* see very clearly regardless if the brake lights are lit or not. > The wife's 2003 Dodge Stratus is pretty bad too...one can hardly see the > red turn signal when the brake lights are also lit. Now my 2004 Sebring > (basically the same car) has amber rear signals...it makes all the > difference in the world! Those you *can* see very clearly regardless if > the brake lights are lit or not. NHTSA (the DOT) says "Automakers prefer to have the choice of color. Show us a pile of dead bodies from red signals, heh heh heh, and we'll consider mandating them, heh heh heh." Ford and GM say "There's no proof amber signals are better" (despite GM having specifically illustrated the amber signals on the new-for-'01 Chev truck in the promotional brochure and expounded on their "clearer signal"). American Honda says "Americans prefer red signals." >>The wife's 2003 Dodge Stratus is pretty bad too...one can hardly see the >>red turn signal when the brake lights are also lit. Now my 2004 Sebring [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > American Honda says "Americans prefer red signals." And I'd argue that the advantage of amber over red was very VERY small, UNTIL the duelling-red implementations came out. Then it became huge. >>>The Chrysler mini-vans will get a great rating when they switch to >>>superior bushings, sway bar links, a direct fuel injection motor, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > lights for a one bulb combined stop, marker and turn function; to save a few > cents, I would not hold my breath This is actually a VAST improvement over dual-bulb red signals! Dual-bulb separate-function red (aka "duelling red" signals) have a high confusion factor because of the fact that the brake light remains on when the turn signal flashes and tends to MASK the turn signal. With a single-bulb combined function (you can add multible bulbs for redundancy), the brake light assumes the role of turn-signal on one side, so at least there's no confusion factor and you still have at least two brake indicators (the other side and the CHMSL). That's how all 60s and 70s cars worked, the duelling-red crap came about after wiring harnesses were converted to support amber-turn, red-brake separate functions but people disliked the look of amber turn signals and the carmakers took the cheap way of going back to all red. > > Chrysler just pulled out the duel function duel bulb red rear lights > > for a one bulb combined stop, marker and turn function > This is actually a VAST improvement over dual-bulb red signals! Agree. > Dual-bulb separate-function red (aka "duelling red" signals) have a high > confusion factor because of the fact that the brake light remains on > when the turn signal flashes and tends to MASK the turn signal. Agree. > With a single-bulb combined function (you can add multible bulbs for > redundancy), the brake light assumes the role of turn-signal on one > side, so at least there's no confusion factor Well...much *less* confusion factor. > and you still have at > least two brake indicators (the other side and the CHMSL). Which is fine when traffic density and speeds are low enough that you can see more than one rear lamp assembly. Let traffic density and/or speeds increase to points they often reach, let the CHMSL burn out, you only get to see the left or the right, and then it's "Um...red light just came on...is it a brake light? Is it a turn signal?". This is a bigger problem up here where the roads get slick than down there where it's not, 'cause people tend to get on and off the brake rapidly (whether or not they're deliberately pumping the pedal). > That's how all 60s and 70s cars worked, Not the Checker. > the duelling-red crap came about after wiring harnesses were converted > to support amber-turn, red-brake separate functions Naw, I don't think this is really what happened. Many of the cars that use duelling reds are not sold in any variant form anywhere amber is required. I think in many cases it's just a styling gimmick. > but people disliked the look of amber turn signals I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care. >>but people disliked the look of amber turn signals > > I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care. A lot of people do, look a the proliferation of "M3" style aftermarket taillights (look stock but with clear lens turn signal segments) for a wide variety of cars. I would count myself among the group that thinks they look better. Too many colors on the rear of a car makes it look too busy IMHO. Of course, there's also the proliferation of "Altezza" style taillights which proves another point, that a good number of people have no sense of style whatsoever. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >>>but people disliked the look of amber turn signals >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which proves another point, that a good number of people have no sense of > style whatsoever. I doubt the car manufactures worry so much about the lighting demands of ricers. Hell half the time their aftermarket lights are wired incorrectly. > >>>but people disliked the look of amber turn signals > >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I doubt the car manufactures worry so much about the lighting demands of > ricers. Hell half the time their aftermarket lights are wired incorrectly. Are you kidding? Look at all the ricey-looking taillight designs that are coming straight from the factory. Of course most of those are from Asian mfgrs. They are listening to what people want; unfortunately not tempering it with good taste in some cases. nate > >>but people disliked the look of amber turn signals > > I still don't buy this. I think most people don't care. > A lot of people do, look a the proliferation of "M3" style aftermarket > taillights (look stock but with clear lens turn signal segments) Nonresponsive. The claim is that the color of the light was objectionable to Americans (maybe that's how you can tell a real patriot?). Amber turn signals can look amber, red, pink, colorless/clear, colorless/chrome or yellow when not emitting light. "They make the car look unattractive" is therefore a bogus excuse. DS >>>>but people disliked the look of amber turn signals > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > DS I agree, but I imagine it's cheaper to make a red lens that transmits red light than a red lens that transmits amber light. In the absence of regulations mandating amber, the choice is obvious. Now why the mfgrs. don't use clear lenses and "NA" type bulbs, that I can't explain. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > The claim is that the color of the light was objectionable to > > Americans (maybe that's how you can tell a real patriot?). Amber turn > > signals can look amber, red, pink, colorless/clear, colorless/chrome > > or yellow when not emitting light. "They make the car look > > unattractive" is therefore a bogus excuse. > I agree, but I imagine it's cheaper to make a red lens that transmits > red light Ah, but "cheaper" is a different question entirely. >> > The claim is that the color of the light was objectionable to >> > Americans (maybe that's how you can tell a real patriot?). Amber turn [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ah, but "cheaper" is a different question entirely. And the 64 thousand dollar question: In 2005 did Chrysler switch to a one bulb tail light system because it was safer or because it was cheaper? Richard. > Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though > if you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reliability were Mazda and Nissan.... neither were recommended because of > reliability problems. I noticed that the Japanese vans get more horsepower and better fuel mileage with less displacement. Also CR has been mentioning headlights for a while now and including them in their ratings, maybe they've heard Bro. Stern. Brian, in Cedar I am happy to see they added headlight reviews. Hopefully it will lead to better headlights overall. Not much brand consistency from what I can see in their reviews of headlights. >> Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though >> if you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they've heard Bro. Stern. > Brian, in Cedar > Also CR has been mentioning headlights for a while now and including > them in their ratings, maybe they've heard Bro. Stern. "Not hardly". I kept a close ear on a CU staffer (Associate Editor of CR) at the Transportation Research Board Visibility Committee headlamp conference in January of 2003. He sat in on all the right paper presentations and discussion sessions, asked lots of good questions of lots of good experts in the field of automotive lighting (and got lots of good answers). ...And, after all that, he managed to write an article full of just plain old ordinary false information. Not just different opinions, I'm talking about factually *wrong* information. That's *after* factoring out open questions, matters of opinion and suchlike. I saw and heard the input, and I read the output that resulted. The input was like fresh hay going into the North end of a horse. The output was like used hay coming out the South end of the same horse. And it didn't stop with just one article -- CR now "rates" headlamps according to a contrived and utterly unrealistic set of criteria they seem to have pulled out of thin air. DS >> Also CR has been mentioning headlights for a while now and including >> them in their ratings, maybe they've heard Bro. Stern. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the North end of a horse. The output was like used hay coming out the > South end of the same horse. I understand the equine comparison. Do you suppose they just don't get it, or do they have an agenda? >> And it didn't stop with just one article -- CR now "rates" headlamps > according to a contrived and utterly unrealistic set of criteria they seem > to have pulled out of thin air. Finally someone realizes that headlights aint all the same. You won't hear that at Motor Trend. Brian, in Cedar > > ...And, after all that, he managed to write an article full of just > > plain old ordinary false information. Not just different opinions, I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > fresh hay going into the North end of a horse. The output was like > > used hay coming out the South end of the same horse. > I understand the equine comparison. Do you suppose they just don't get > it, or do they have an agenda? Well, no real headlamp-related agenda, I don't think. Just their normal agenda of pretending to be experts in everything from wine to oil filters. > > And it didn't stop with just one article -- CR now "rates" headlamps > > according to a contrived and utterly unrealistic set of criteria they > > seem to have pulled out of thin air. > Finally someone realizes that headlights aint all the same. You won't > hear that at Motor Trend. Of course headlamps aren't all the same. Haven't been since 1983. (And if you want to be a *real* stickler for semantic accuracy, they haven't been since 1957.) But it does little good to print up magazines that say "Hey! Headlamps ain't all the same!" if you go on to "explain" the differences completely incorrectly, and then proceed to make completely unrealistic, nonsensical ratings and recommendations based on that "explanation". DS Consumer Reports doesn't know how to test anything. Larry Behold Beware Believe | Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though if | you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | good versus good for Chrysler). The 2 with poor reliability were Mazda and | Nissan.... neither were recommended because of reliability problems. > Not surprisingly, Honda and Toyota were rated the tops in minivans though if > you really want those fold down seats, Consumer Reports gave Chrysler the > nod. The Chrysler did not do as well as Honda and Toyota on the drivetrain, > noise and ride. CR are idiots. Always have been, show no signs of changing. > Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:30:34 -0600 > From: Steve <no@spam.thanks> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > CR are idiots. Always have been, show no signs of changing. About here is where ol' Lloyd would pick up the CR torch. Did he die or something? --Geoff > About here is where ol' Lloyd would pick up the CR torch. > > Did he die or something? > > --Geoff Probably finally realized that he doesn't have much reason to post here since he hasn't owned a Chrysler product in years. Or got fired and lost his free internet access through Emory :-p But hey, we've got Glickman as a replacement. And if nothing else at least he's less predictable than Yoid was... ;-) > Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:46:46 -0600 > From: Steve <no@spam.thanks> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ;-) Talk about being damned with faint praise! =:-O -Geoff |
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.