Consumerreports.org is biased!?!?

[pavanbabut]

Seems like consumerreports.org is biased on rating autos. For example while I was looking at 2007 Subaru Forester, they gave 71 points on their 100 point scale while they gave 83 for 2007 Toyota Rav4 (Limited V6). They both are rated same in three of their four testing categories while in the acceleration category, Forester is given Good while Rav4 is given Excellent. I dont think this is fair for them to use a base model Forester (2.5 X) and suggest a Limited edition (V6 model) Rav4 as an alternative. Now this 71 point rating for Forester reflects for the whole trim levels. I wonder how much a base model Rav4 scores .

I have also seen a crash test video of 2006 legacy sedan where they are comparing it with a Rav4 and concluding that Rav4 is more safer than Legacy in a side impact (ofcourse it should be since its a suv compared to a legacy sedan which stays low to the ground).

-Pavan.

[dcarrb]

Consumer Reports magazine has always awarded the Forester (and most other Subarus) with glowing reviews, calling it the best small SUV on the road for a number of years. Now, thought, they've handed that honor back to the Rav, with the Forester second (last time I noticed). Lofty praise in view of all the models available.

I think you'll have to look long and hard to find a consumer product testing organization more even-handed than Consumers Union.

dcb

[pavanbabut]

Originally Posted by dcarrb

Consumer Reports magazine has always awarded the Forester (and most other Subarus) with glowing reviews, calling it the best small SUV on the road for a number of years. Now, thought, they've handed that honor back to the Rav, with the Forester second (last time I noticed). Lofty praise in view of all the models available.

I think you'll have to look long and hard to find a consumer product testing organization more even-handed than Consumers Union.

dcb

Yep, I know that they have awarded Forester the best small SUV for some years till now and today, when I was looking at the 2007 ratings, I was surprised at their reviews. I know they can't test each and every trim level in a particular model, but atleast they should get a mid range trim (if not the high level like they did for Rav4).

-Pavan.

[Crazy_pilot]

Perhaps they base it on pricing? Subaru's are not cheap cars, maybe a base Forester is in the same price league as a top end RAV4.

[pavanbabut]

Originally Posted by Crazy_pilot

Perhaps they base it on pricing? Subaru's are not cheap cars, maybe a base Forester is in the same price league as a top end RAV4.

Toyota Rav4 Limited V6 - $26,520 (Expert Rating - 8.4, User Rating - 8.6)
Subaru Forester 2.5X - $21,195 (Expert Rating - 7.0, User Rating - 9.6)

-Pavan.

[SubaruKidSVX]

I have noticed some odd ratings on other cars also. I just ignore the rating and read the reviews. I have found that the review is better then the score makes it out to be

Pava- I like the Q. When will you get it? As you can tell I am also an Alfa Nut.

[pavanbabut]

Originally Posted by SubaruKidSVX

I have noticed some odd ratings on other cars also. I just ignore the rating and read the reviews. I have found that the review is better then the score makes it out to be

Pava- I like the Q. When will you get it? As you can tell I am also an Alfa Nut.

hi,
Nice to see another Alfisti over here. I am gonna get it after the Concorso day in August. Actually the current owner thought of selling it in Nov of last year, but no one bought it even though some came and looked at it. All the time I am in contact with him and later he changed his mind and is willing to keep it untill this year's concorso day. I can't imagine a day without hearing to that raw roaring sound of that gorgeous Alfa engine . Will keep u updated... .
-Pavan

[SubaruKidSVX]

We looked at one for a while. We ended up just passing it up. Never know if it comes back. I want to see pictures of them all.

[NapaBavarian]

Originally Posted by pavanbabut

Consumerreports.org is biased!?!?

-Pavan.

Duh?

They have been like that for a long time, what bothers me is theit "Hollier than thou" 'tude. I have heard so many claims that they are better than other magazines because they don't accept $$$ from car makers for ads... They still want to cause a fuss to get their name in the news...

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by pavanbabut

Consumerreports.org is biased!?!?

This is like asking if www.tomshardware.com is biased, I mean... cmon...

[benebob]

Did you ever consider that the RAV4 local availabilty wasn't the same as the Forester? Remember they buy their cars off the lot for retail price rather than "borrowing" test cars from the manufacturers?

Also you need to remember that the Forester platform is getting quite long in the tooth (dating back as far as 93 for its basic structure as it was borrowed from the Imp). The RAV4 is what 3 years old at most now? That does come into play concerning ratings.

Remember science is only as good as the scientists conducting the test. Car testing is very subjective. One car might do something good at 35mph but suck at 40mph. Some people don't mind the sound of a pushrod engine in their car and others do, a few years back Old Mud was the best beer tested, etc...

They're both recommended vehicles (as of 06 at least since I haven't read the 07 ratings), they both perform well in crash testing, they both have a above average rating for reliability etc so that's what you should get out of it not one is better than the other.

Personally, if I was going cross country with 3 kids in the back seat I wouldn't want the Forester over the RAV4!

[Crazy_pilot]

Originally Posted by benebob

Personally, if I was going cross country with 3 kids in the back seat I wouldn't want the Forester over the RAV4!

I can say from experience (we have two Foresters) that if you've got a 6 foot person driving, a 6 foot guy behind that seat is not going to be all that comfy.

I personally don't like the Forester for long distances, the seats are too firm and my @ss goes numb after a while.

[Shadow248]

This is nothing new. There essentially is no "un-biased" auto reviewer in existence. Organizations like CR do not accept money for ads, true, but they do accept money, and if you look into their parent organization, Consumers Union, you'll find some familiar names on their list of contributors.

I do agree with the guy who said (in this thread) that they read the review and ignore the score. Since reviews are highly subjective and almost all categories outside of performance are subjective from the start, the best way to get real info out of any review is to just read it and skip over the scores. That way you can pick out the facts you are looking for and ignore the comments from the reviewer that the interior color was not pleasing to him or that the hood panel gap was 1mm bigger than he thinks it should be.

I have to ask about this though...

Originally Posted by RSVX

This is like asking if www.tomshardware.com is biased, I mean... cmon...

I'll take the risk of sounding dumb here and ask...why do you say that Toms Hardware is biased? I'm not saying I disagree, because I haven't heard your argument yet, but i've found the site very informative and it seems to me that they do a good job of using a high degree of objective testing to determine results. Perhaps you know something I don't?

[RSVX]

Originally Posted by Shadow248

I'll take the risk of sounding dumb here and ask...why do you say that Toms Hardware is biased? I'm not saying I disagree, because I haven't heard your argument yet, but i've found the site very informative and it seems to me that they do a good job of using a high degree of objective testing to determine results. Perhaps you know something I don't?

I have not beem to THW in about 3-4 years. Prior to my absence it was very obvious which vendors were paying their bills. Being it was so long ago, I do not remember all of the details. I have also not been back since then, so if they have changed, I cannot comment on that. Basically between myself and many other Tech Savvy people that I knew/work with it was very easy to determine what was going on based on the blatently obvious results... at that time.

[Shadow248]

Originally Posted by RSVX

I have not beem to THW in about 3-4 years. Prior to my absence it was very obvious which vendors were paying their bills. Being it was so long ago, I do not remember all of the details. I have also not been back since then, so if they have changed, I cannot comment on that. Basically between myself and many other Tech Savvy people that I knew/work with it was very easy to determine what was going on based on the blatently obvious results... at that time.

Ok. Well I think things have changed a bit since then. The Intel loyal had been complaining alot because THW seemed to be leg-humping AMD. But now that Intel has Conroe out, they're obsessed with it and seem to have abandoned AMD. Seems reasonably unbiased to me. I only visit the site casually though, so maybe i'm missing something.