4th Mar 2009, 06:38
I'd rather ask what warranty I am getting and then test drive. I am tall and my options I choose and driving gives me a first hand observation. Sitting in a chair at home with piles of magazines doesn't work. A review from someone 5'4 for a 6' driver is perhaps overlooked. Maybe someone likes driving a car as slow as a slug and vague handling. I like my own determination. I do compare pricing however online.
4th Mar 2009, 13:03
15:47
I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you said. Unfortunately your use of the Aveo vs Cadillac will be used by some to dismiss your whole argument. The Aveo is a Korean car with a Chevy nameplate slapped on... much like the Geo Metro.
4th Mar 2009, 13:13
You make some very good points. I agree, but would add that publications can be used as a source of info in the process of elimination. For example if you do some trailering you can find out which vehicles fit the need. You may find that one vehicle has a better stock trailering package. You might find that one was more troublesome in some meaningful area.
What I mean is that magazines should just be a means of informing your test-driving process.
4th Mar 2009, 14:54
Any one who is a regular reader of CR knows what the expected responses are. CR does not want that confounding factor in there data, but I guarantee you they know it is there. Any one who handles market research data struggles with this. I have been in numerous data review meetings where we look at the data, discuss the problems, then at the end say, you know, all we can do is analyze and report what we got.
This kind of thing is one of the very hardest things about doing good market research. Even though what a researcher can present to the subjects is very neutral and unbiased, like the form you mentioned, that form is really only a very small portion of what the subject is responding to. The responders carry with them a world of experience, conversations, TV ads they saw, remembrances of things they read in previous CR issues. And it affects how they respond.
I do not mean to disparage the fine work that CR does, and the positive contributions they make to our society. I am just trying to share a little knowledge about these issues so people can better understand how to interpret and use the results that CR gives.
Any one who has been involved in data collection in market research has seen a subject trying really hard and getting frustrated and saying something like "what is my response supposed to be?" One way we normally try to control for those kinds of overly involved people is to throw out the very most positive responses, and the very most negative responses. Maybe you don't know that if you ever filled out a survey and gave a product all 10's for very best of everything, that response probably got discarded and not factored into the final tally.
4th Mar 2009, 15:46
I think we're all smart enough to realize what "domestic" and "import" stands for.
Don't bring that kind of technicality to a debate like this. Domestic means the big 3. Import or foreign means Toyota, Honda, Nissan. And always will.
Were they are built is irrelevant. It's simply a label to separate the two.
4th Mar 2009, 19:19
"But my truck is a Toyota because as with the previous items, it too is the best quality for the application, which is proven reliability."
The Tacoma has exactly the SAME reliability rating as the Ford Ranger, which is less expensive and comes with a better warranty.
"The Chevy Aveo is garbage. A Cadillac on the other hand is vastly better and more dependable"
I don't understand how people who are supposedly car-literate keep confusing the Aveo with GM-built cars. The Aveo is Korean. It is basically a mechanical twin under the sheet metal to the Hyundai Accent. I have driven the Aveo and found it to be an incredibly smooth and good riding car for a sub-compact. The ride is better than that of the Accent. Friends who own Aveos and follow the recommended maintenance procedures have had no trouble with theirs, though the highest mileage any of them has on theirs is just over 98,000 miles.
4th Mar 2009, 22:16
I am sorry if it sounded like my work was related to the car industry in some way. I am but a small cog in a giant big pharmaceutical firm. Our market research is only used internally to help us figure out what projects to pursue and what features to include. I have been very unimpressed with how well that works. In reality, all the real decisions are made by top level executives who ignore the market research. It is just like a Dilbert cartoon.
Like any other big company, my firm makes us sign papers that say we understand that we are subject to immediate termination if we say things that can reflect poorly on the firm or are outside the narrow confines of press releases from the PR department. We are told that as long we don't identify who we work for, we can say what we want. But as soon as we represent ourselves as belonging to the firm, we can't say anything interesting.
The thing I was trying to point out was how hard it is to get good results. I think CR does a great job on data collection and a pretty good job on reporting fairly raw results.
But I lost any notion that CR is "unbiased" when I found out that they gave the 2007 and 2008 Camry "better than average" reliability ratings when in fact they had not collected any data on those cars yet. Then they had to recant their ratings and report they were actually "worse than average" and remove the "recommended" status. Judging from my experience in a big bureaucracy, it looks to me like the same kinds of Dilbert cartoon behaviors happen at CR just like they do in any organization of any size. Little cogs like me collecting good data - executives above me ignoring it and following their internal biases.
3rd Mar 2009, 19:43
That is pretty much right. CR does the same kind of testing that the car magazines do, which means they prefer fast cars with big engines and are more tolerant of road noise and stiff suspensions than the average consumer. I wish they understood us average buyers better and adjusted the reporting for that.
CRs attitude on safety is somewhat schizophrenic. They criticize the manufacturers for safety issues, but they are too wise to offend the readers and point out that consumers should consider safety more. CR should put more effort in educating readers about real safety issues.
CR is good a posturing, like in the last issue saying that the government should toughen the roll over crash standards and showing a picture of a man in a wheelchair who could have been helped by a tougher roll standard. But why has CR hardly ever said a word about which cars (like Volvo) that have been designed to much stronger roll over standards for many years?