LR_Sales

I never really like consumer reports to much to begin with since I have always thought they don't know a thing about automobiles. I mean I would listen to them about buying a toaster or an oven but for cars they just seem clueless.

I was at a newstand the other day just flipping through stuff and saw the New Consumer Reports with all the brand new cars in it. So I started flipping through it checking some vehicles I own and some vehicles that are on the lot of the dealership I work at now. I look at the MINI first and for 2003 and 2004 it has almost all top ratings all they way down and for 2002 just a couple of below average ratings. CR a the end fo their little one paragraph blurb still says that reliablity ratings are bellow average. HUhh for the past two years it has scored at either the highest or second highest ratings for all of their categories but is still bellow average. I am glad I was not graded on their averages while I was in college.

Flip over to the Jaguar X-Type. I have a couple of used ones on my lot and I am thinking about buying one. They drive nice and the AWD will be good up here now that I moved from VA to CT. Pretty much the same ratings as the MINI. The 2002 X-Types were a little weak but 2003 and 2004 were very strong. They still said the same thing that relibality was below average and gave the predicted relability their second lowest rating the same as they gave the MINI. I just don't see how two years of B+ and A- grades plus one year of C+ and B+ grades average to a D-.

Now I flip to the back where the newst vehicles are that have not been out long enough to be tested or have reliablity ratings. I work for a Land Rover dealership now so I of course check out our products. Quick little blurb about the LR3 nothing really surprised me there it is a great vehicle. I see the Range Rover and now I am looking for the bit about the Range Rover Sport but I can't find a picture or any description of it. Odd I think it came out a few weeks ago they should have something ont.

I read the blurb on the Range Rover more carefuly and thats when I realize what CR did and when I realize that they now jack about cars. They listed the Range Rover Sport as what was essentialy a trim level option of the full sized Range Rover. They listed the Range Rover as still using the BMW 4.4 liter V8 when Range Rover is now using the same Jaguar 4.4 liter V8 as the LR3 but with five more horsepower. The BMW engine and transmission were replaced in 2006 with the jag engine and trans. They quoted the specs of the Jag engine but called it a BMW.

The Range Rover Sport is not a trim level of the full size Range Rover it is a completly seperate model that is not even based on the same platform as the Range Rover. The Range Rover Sport is based on the LR3 platform and it shares many of the technical features of the LR3 includeing Terrain Response that is not even avaliable on the full size Range Rover.

This information has been out for months but CR still screwed it up royally. I am planning to clean up this a little bit and send it to CR see what they say.

Mugatu

iTrader: (1)

um, ok

Glyphon

i agree. CR often tends to contradict themselves (theirselves?). and i think they pick their "Recommended" cars based off of sales numbers, and not much else.

LR_Sales

I was pissed and so wrote that then posted it on every forum I go to on the internet.

CR just does not like European cars for the most part. Look at their relability ratings for Japanese cars then and the reliablity ratings for other cars. Japanese cars wit the same reliablity as European cars ger recomended while european and some amerian ones do not.

Oh and the same magazine gave what looked like above average reliablity ratings for the RX-8 then said that relability was poor in the paragrah description. WTF?

They dont' seem to seperate out over all quality statistics from initinal quality like J. D. Power does either. Of course a completly brand new model is going to have some kinks to work out. If you don't want to help the manufacturer work out those kinks don't buy the first model year of a new vehicle. If you want the newest, baddest, coolest toy however you have to pay for it.

Ok gotta stop this going to turn into me complaning about people trying to negotiate on my new Range Rover Sports when there are less then a dozen in the whole state.

Apophis

I think that Consumer Reports evaluations of automobiles are best suited for those who neither know much about cars nor care to learn. I think it's just something that will provide concise color-coded evaluations for those who "can't decide" or "don't know where to start". It certainly wouldn't be considered a great resource for car enthusiasts. I can't really blame them, though. They evaluate just about everything else, so the omission of cars would be a glaring one. In the meantime, it sure will sell magazines...

BlueEyes

That's exactly what it's for Apophis. It always amazes me at how upset people get about reviews, ratings etc without ever considering the target demographic of the article. In the case of consumer reports and cars, it is not someone who would actively seek out a web forum to talk about them.

Frostee

look at who has more ads in the magazine, then look at ratings...

Riccio

Nice try, but CR doesn't accept advertising..................

Ike

1.) The reviews are based solely off of surveys from people that own the cars.

2.) Just because something has good marks in most areas does not make it realiable. For instane if a car has no problem areas other than the electrical system, but that electrical system problem is very common then the vehicle could still be deemed below average in reliability due to the problems per vehicle ratio.

3.) It's not just consumer reports that is giving Eoropean cars poor marks, it's prettymuch everyone. The Mini has a lot of issues, as do Jags, VWs, Mercedes, etc etc. They ARE below average in reliability when compared to Japanese and many American cars.

4.) That issue has been around for months which is why they don't have the correct MY06 info.

cleoent

i read about the rx8 in CR and it was about right....

Meh, only a total dolt would buy a car based on what CR says.

LR_Sales

The Range Sport was always going to be built on the LR3 platform and that has been known ever since the prototype was built. I didn't even wort at Land Rover then not sure how long ago it was.

Mitch Strickler

[QUOTE=IkeWRX]1.) The reviews are based solely off of surveys from people that own the cars.

You made three other statements that I agree with. #1 is flat wrong. The reviews are based on CR tests and their "expert" opinions. Incidentally, that's why people who know cars don't need the reviews, and may disagree with them.

The most important information in the magazine is not the reviews, but the compilation and analysis of survey information. Read them carefully, including the detailed CR explanations that tell you why seemingly contradictory ratings really are not contradictory, and you will pick up useful data that you can't get anywhere else.

Mitch

Ike

[QUOTE=Mitch Strickler]My bad, shouldn't have used the word reviews, meant to say their reliability ratings are based on owner surveys. If I want reviews I'll read C&D, CR is pretty useless for auto reviews, but their reliability ratings are a pretty decent indication or what to expect from a car. It's certainly not definitive, but they don't just make this stuff up.

BlueEyes

Car and driver pissed me off the other day.

They had a test of sedans in another issue and used a BMW 530i instead of the 545i because they were to keep the cost around 55K. The 545i starts at 55,800. Some guy wrote a letter to the editor and said you should have used it instead, they said "good luck finding one for 55,800. I guess insinuating that you couldnt find a no option model.

Then, they went onto the under 200k supercar challenge. The F430 costs 191K, but they say good luck finding one for that, it will be in the 200's or something to that effect.

Well, WTF car and driver, we talking actual street price or MSRP, flippy floppy!! I don't know why it bothered me, I need to relax.

Ike

Pretty sure that's due to dealer markup rather than options, ala the FordGT so it's different IMO.

Edit: Just did a quick autotrader search, only one dealer in Milwaukee or Chicago had a 545 under 60k.

LR_Sales

Street Price is very regionaly biased for some vehicles so MSRP is best for a national publication.

For example my dealership is selling all of its Range Sports for MSRP. There is no negotation you will pay MSRP and not one penny more or less or you will not get the car. Some Land Rover dealerships are charging way over MSRP for all of their Range Sports. The only Sport we charged over MSRP for was the limited edition Vesuivus Orange one and that is because it became a bidding war.