Because of the way that so many of you guys are responding, re: Consumer Reports, I really have to wonder just how familiar you are with that publication.
Specifically, I am referring to the apparent confusion between CR’s test results following a thorough test drive/comparison test of the vehicle and the entirely different part of CR’s info, namely their reliability stats.
Yes, the reliability stats are subjective, based on how accurately various and sundry CR members responded when they completed their annual survey on vehicle reliability.
However, unless you think that CR is lying about…how many feet it takes to stop a vehicle from 60 mph…or the maximum speed that a vehicle was able to achieve on their avoidance maneuver test…or a vehicle’s 0-60 acceleration time…or the decibels recorded in a vehicle’s interior at highway speed…or the average mpg that CR logged in their tests…or the number of inches of headroom/footroom…or the number of pieces of luggage that can be put into the trunk/cargo area…or any of their other objective data, then your statements about CR are…just not accurate.
Whenever CR has been challenged in court on their test drive findings (Suzuki Samurai comes to mind, but there were others), the courts have always found in CR’s favor. This outcome could not have been possible without data that supported the statements that they published.
Much more recently than the Suzuki Samuri debacle, CR criticized the extreme-limit handling of a Lexus SUV (I can’ t recall the model name/number, but it is the one that is essentially the mechanical twin of the Toyota 4Runner). Do you know the outcome of that situation? It resulted in Lexus recalling that model in order to reprogram the vehicle dynamics (anti-skid) program. In their press release announcing that recall, Lexus acknowledged that the vehicle was unstable under certain conditions, and that this particular recall was necessary in order to correct handling problems–the exact same handling problems that CR noted in their test drive report.
Instead, some of you apparently think that the statements of a publication (C &D, R & T, MT) that derives its income from auto advertising are more objective. Please give that concept some additional thought…
Do you really think that CR is lying about the objective data that they derived from their long-term test drives? You may want to cavil about the accuracy of the reliability stats that they publish annually, but those stats are completely separate from the test drive results that they publish on a regular basis.
To summarize, if you are confusing CR’s reliability stats with their test drive results, I really have to question just how familiar some of you are with CR’s auto information.