Over the years, I've noticed that TTAC flamers arrive in groups. Usually, it's down to a reader posting a particularly blunt TTAC editorial or negative review in a fanboy forum. While these single-minded venues usually prefer to kick the snot out of TTAC in the psychological safety of their own website, an emotionally charged individual or two (or three) often feels compelled to vent their home site's collective ire in the forum that gave rise to it. Needless to say, I gently remind them of our policy, issue a warning and invite them to write an 800-word rebuttal– which is WAY too much work for most. Recently, as The Big 2.8's blunders have escalated from dumb moves to farce, the flamers have reappeared in force. I take it as yet another sign that the domestics are facing "the end of days." Later today, I'll pen a Death Watch on Rick Wagoner's pronouncement that his turnaround plan is working. Meanwhile, I noticed that USA Today published a review of a plug-in electric hybrid Toyota Prius– some two years ahead of GM's now we say it, now we don't launch date for the Chevrolet Volt. Yes, it's different technology. But surely we can conclude that it's all over bar the shouting. Which is, of course, our job.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Maybe Ricky and Bobby are blogging TTAC under aliases?
Don’t expect regular-production versions for at least two years, probably longer.
I could order a PHEV Ford Escape right now – I’m simply afraid to lock into car payments at the beginning of a recession.
You heard it here first: I predict the Volt development prototypes will be further delayed beyond June. The prototypes were already supposed to be out on the road testing, but then GM delayed them to Spring, where Putz Lutz made the infamous “Easter Egg on Toyota’s face” comment. Now most recently they’ve been delayed until June. Meanwhile, Toyota is quietly testing it’s PHEV prototypes and is getting some great publicity using a few of those prototypes as shuttles at the Detroit autoshow.
The USA Today article also hit the nail on the head; hybrid or not, the Prius at the core is STILL a good vehicle. Take away the hybrid system, and you STILL have a great all-round vehicle.
Will the Volt be a great well rounded vehicle when it hits the market? The Volt’s development seems to be VERY focused on the batteries and EV range. What about the interior room, practicality, refinement and all the other aspects of the car? I bet the Volt will be a smaller vehicle and will have less interior room and practicality than the Prius.
Donal: I could order a PHEV Ford Escape right now
Where?
If you go to Ford’s website, they have a hybrid Escape, but it’s not PHEV. In fact, there information specifically states “What’s more, the regenerative braking system recharges the NiMH battery each time you brake, so there is never any need to plug it in.”
If I am wrong, please send a link where I can order one, too.
(BTW – There is a difference between being able to order and being able to actually own and drive. Just ask the Tesla orderers.)
Edit – I’ll eat a few of my words, there is this press release from Ford on there Li-Ion battery PHEV research vehicles in SoCal. Still nothing in production. Link
The Death and Suicide watches get a lot of harsh words and that is unfortunate. I honestly hope that TTAC will have to suspend at least one of the Deathwatch columns, but until that time, we might as well not dance around the subject and approach it head on and call Detroit’s situation what it is.
Thanks to 1996Medition’s link, I see Ford’s street-worthy PHEV has beaten the Volt, too.
The Volt is just an also-ran. Lutz really should just keep his mouth shut.
I’ve actually felt like the Fandroids have been on vacation this week (or were all their comments canned). Seems like as soon as a few of us started talking real-world (whatever that is!) development times and GM started waffling on timelines for the Volt, they packed up and crawled off to Bobville (Fastlane) to commiserate.
It’s OK if someone wants to be a brandzoid, some of them are cool guys. But some never get the fact that most of us aren’t for or against any company, we just like or dislike what we see as we see it.
It’s not hate, we are just unconvinced.
Hang in there RF, Frank and the rest at TTAC.
A small island of not-exactly-sanity in a sea of gutless and/or sychophantic drivel calling itself auto journalism.
Well, got that off my chest.
I feel better. How bought you?
Cheerio,
Bunter
1996MEdition: Where?
LionEV will convert an Escape or Ranger to EV and will convert an Escape Hybrid to PHEV. Their website is awfully vague about how to order, so I emailed them and got the following response:
The Escape Hybrid, both the LionEV version and the standard Ford version, have turned out to be extremely popular. There are very few on any dealership lots in the US. They sell as soon as they roll off of the carrier. Ours are custom built to order by Ford. To order one just tell us the color you wish for interior and exterior, destination state, and we will put the order in for you.
Destination State tax is added to the price. Delivery is extra but since this is a PHEV you can also elect to pick it up in either VA or PA.
They want $37.5K, which is a lot more than I want to spend. I really need a highway car, not an around town car, so a Prius would answer my needs for a lot less money – but it is tempting.
http://www.lionev.com/Vehicles.html
http://www.lionev.com/LionEV_PHEV.html
It’s OK if someone wants to be a brandzoid, some of them are cool guys. But some never get the fact that most of us aren’t for or against any company, we just like or dislike what we see as we see it.
It’s not hate, we are just unconvinced.
I’d like to believe what you’re saying, but there are bashers on this site who never fail to take an opportunity to bash a GM/Ford/Chrysler product, even when the original article has absolutely nothing to do with these products. This goes beyond being an unconvinced enthusiast and only adds to the perception that TTAC and its readers have a vendetta against Detroit. This has nothing to do with the editorial direction of this site, btw.
quasimodo,
Yeah there are folks here who have their biases and not just against Detroit iron. Overall though, the quality of thought here is way higher than many other enthusiast sites.
I mean if you’re going to let the posters of a site convince you of a site’s intent, then you can only conclude that Yahoo promotes illiteracy, Edmunds promotes 14 year old wet dreams for Beemers, etc.
For the most part I find this a place where criticism can be expressed reasonably intelligently. And that’s the key for me, criticism instead of just cheerleading.
I’d like to believe what you’re saying, but there are bashers on this site who never fail to take an opportunity to bash a GM/Ford/Chrysler product, even when the original article has absolutely nothing to do with these products.
Fine, but there are tons of import bashers also. So what? It’s all farts in a barrel. TTAC isn’t responsible for all the lost jobs in Detroit. The anger is all misdirected.
there are bashers on this site who never fail to take an opportunity to bash a GM/Ford/Chrysler product
These words “bash” and “bias” are regularly misused and abused on automotive forums. And I frankly, I’m tired of this frequent bastardization of the English language that fanboys use to attack those who disagree with them.
When I see accusations of “bias”, they are usually made by those who are pissed off because others disagree with them. Those who allege “bias” throw about the term haphazardly as a substitute for the cogent rebuttal that they can’t offer. They figure that making accusatory statements about bias is some kind of substitute for offering an intelligent defense or critique in response.
Which is probably why Mr. Farago tends to delete these, because the fingerpointing without facts to back it up is often just a distraction that is put up by the fanboy in order to avoid addressing the substance of the topic. The claims are typically the internet equivalent of “nanner nanner”, which just drags down the discussion to schoolyard level.
It really boils down to this: Most brand loyalty is utterly delusional BS. Most of those who are quick to accuse others of “bias” are the most biased people in the room, kneejerk reactionaries who elevate brand loyalty above logic and, more often than not, common courtesy.
Online, I rarely see hardcore devotees of mainstream vehicles who don’t lean heavily in the camp of the uneducated. If I want chest-thumping automaker propaganda, I’ll visit the websites of PR agencies, not this one.
Well I’ve been accused of being on both sides of that proverbial equation. I’m probably not the only one here who has been stereotyped and hamstrung by the fingerpointers out there. God knows I’ve probably said a few things that rankled a few eyebrows over the course of time. Some of which were probably my own fault.
Then again. If I didn’t have an opinion on these matters, why the heck would I even be posting here?
As Officer Barbarady from South Park is fond of saying, “All is fine! Nothing to see here! Move along!”
And if he were standing in back of an Aveo, Focus, Sebring, new gen Xb, Sentra, Element, Galant, Spectra, Forenza, base model Jetta, Mercedes R-Class, VW Phaeton, or that Malaysian car whose name escape me at the moment… he would be right!
Proton or Perodua?
My bias: most the year spent between driving one of two 4cyl RWD imports for several each was in a mid-90’s rental Cavalier.
HA!!!
You said flamers.
Isn’t that bashing a certain group of people who’s common description is a synonym for ‘happy?’
Seriously though, most people who swim against the tide here don’t believe the media hype that Japanese = good and American = bad when it comes to automobiles. I’m sure we can all see the blunders made in our industry of choice, but for me its all about the product.
A good product will earn praise. A bad product will not.
Many of us also see the far reaching economic consequences of the decline of a strong manufacturing base in our country. Personally, I don’t want to see our economy based on baristas and Big Macs. And no matter what BS the import fanboiz push no import brand will move enough manufacturing here to replace jobs lost by the domestic manufacturers.
Here’s to Detroit’s revival!! My fingers are crossed!!
I agree Toyota not only made a Hybrid but a good car in the Prius.
The next Prius IMO will still be better car than the Volt regardless of the technology. Plain and simple Toyota doesn’t mess around and lets their product do the talking.
All you diesel lovers, lost in all the press last year was Toyota’s purchase of Isuzu. This was an important event as Isuzu is a leader in diesel engines(Durmax is a Isuzu engine). Look for diesel engines in Tundras and FJ’s soon. Ya, Toyota has got that segment covered to!
BTW, Ford under license uses Toyota’s previous generation hybrid system.
The automotive business is tough game but even tougher when you go up against a company as detailed as Toyota.
I don’t see how GM can sell the Volt (or any of their other hybrids) with high volume AND some profit anytime soon.
To reach volume with the Prius, Toyota has been investing for a decade. They have developed their supply chain, much of it in-house. They have absorbed large R&D expenses. They have sold products at a loss or with a small margin. They have won customer trust and confidence. After all that they are finally getting ready for the 1 million hybrids/year milestone.
How can anybody compete with that?
GM? They just toss a purchase order at A123 and cross their fingers. In the meantime they have almost no hybrid volume.
Deserved payback for killing the electric car.
Toyota is riding a wave right now. Just like any company at the forefront of ‘innovation’, they are reaping the benefits of the here and now.
Although I believe Toyota’s reputation has been incrementally built over the last thirty years, I still am very skeptical of their overall ability to stay on top for the long term. The Black Swans of the future are absolutely unpredictable and in the automotive world, unusual circumstance has an awful lot to do with success.
For example… if $3 gas became a reality in the mid-1990’s, GM may have indeed become the so-called leader of the industry. The EV was a pretty neat vehicle and perhaps with a $100 barrel on the temple of the consumer’s mind, GM may have been able to expand their technology while Toyota would have been stuck at square one. I believe GM also may have been a bit more hesitant on ditching some of their better names in favor of the nameless dozens they have conjured up since. Contrary to the idiocy of current automotive marketing, most folks will only consider a car if they believe there is some enduring goodness about that product. When GM shelved the dozens of good names with strong histories, they effectively eliminated all those consumers who had a favorable perspective on their bread and butter offerings.
As for Ford. If the Ford family had a leader within their ranks with a scintilla of common sense, perhaps they wouldn’t have fired Alex Trotman and hired that arrogant BS’er Jacques Nasser to run things. Perhaps Ford’s relationships with suppliers and dealers wouldn’t have nosedived into the proverbial toilet over these last seven years and maybe, just maybe, the profits would have been reinvested in the Ford/Lincoln/Mercury lineup instead of the propping up of numerous mediocre manufacturers.
Chrysler’s downfall is perhaps the saddest. If Bob Eaton and his cohorts hadn’t given in to the ‘bigger is better’ mantra of the times, it is quite possible that Chrysler would still have over 20% of the American market today. Their research and development competencies were top notch and even to this day, it’s hard to find a manufacturer who can offer such stunning vehicle concepts and strong departures from past works. I still believe that no automaker in the world progressed in a more remarkable fashion than Chrysler did from 1992 to 1997. All that R&D money wound up in the hands of Daimler. Now Chrysler may indeed be the first to enter Chapter 11 or what can kindly be called, radical surgery.
The world of ‘maybe’, ‘what if’ and ‘possible’ doesn’t really exist. Today Toyota is the king of the mountain… and judging by the size and blandness of their current offerings, it may not be too long before a far stronger and swifter competitor becomes the new challenger.
Folks, I drove a Toyota for 12 years. Both of my parents drive a Toyota, my one brother drives a Toyota, and the other now drives a ‘leased’ Cadillac.
What I believe I’m seeing now is the absolute zenith of the ‘anti-Detroit’ media mentality. IF the domestic manufacturers can build products that have greater appeal to the public, they will sell.
This goes beyond being an unconvinced enthusiast and only adds to the perception that TTAC and its readers have a vendetta against Detroit.
We have absolutely NO vendetta against Detroit. Or any other “domestic” manufacturing cities, for that matter. We DO, however, have a vendetta against the total CRAP they turn out continuously.
Steve:
What I believe I’m seeing now is the absolute zenith of the ‘anti-Detroit’ media mentality.
What anti-Detroit media mentality? By and large, the media is right in SYNC with whatever spin the Big 2.8 produce.
Yes, Detroit take an occasional shellacking from enviro-conscious commentators– for not building fuel efficient vehicles, for perpetuating SUVs through legislation, for dragging its heels– but, you know, there’s more than a grain of truth in that.
And take it from a guy who scans the mainstream press and automotive press EVERY DAY, in the main, Detroit gets a free ride.
But not here. What management has done to these companies is shocking, and deserves exposure. And that’s the truth.
You have a good point. The monthly mags and daily newspapers in the industry tend to be very favorable towards Detroit (with a few interesting exceptions). The cash flow that they receive from the Big 2.8 is indeed influencing the kindly words that are used for some of the downright lousy vehicles that have been released.
However… I would say there exists a very strong anti-Detroit bias at certain media sources (and academia) that has a far broader effect on the public’s perceptions. Especially for those folks who are not auto enthusiasts and simply want an A to B vehicle.
Consumer Reports and National Public Radio tend to be the strongest practitioners of the craft with the former doing everything from changing criteria at will (My 1991 Celica GT-S received a ‘well above average’ for acceleration when new even though it’s 0-60 score of 10.5 seconds was below the industry average), to taking out entire categories such as ‘cost of repair’ that formerly favored the domestics.
About a year ago I read a review of full-sized trucks in CR. The Toyota Tundra review had extremely glowing adjectives that made you think that this vehicle would revolutionize the pickup industry. The Silverado received far less glorifying language even though the ratings of the vehicles were quite similar in the end. You would NEVER know that the two were comparable by reading the actual reviews. Of course, you receive the nice rear end kicker of Toyota’s usually having ‘x’ reliability vs. Chevy’s ‘y’ reliability and the obvious conclusion in the end. It seemed to me at least that CR was making any type of excuse to recommend the Toyota over the GM product.
To their credit (and the public’s outcry), they are starting to move away from that historical practice. I heard a few months ago that they will no longer recommend a certain model due in part to it’s manufacturing heritage. But the perception of bias within Consumer Reports has been stretched on for over 20 years now and I have no doubt it has negatively effected their ability to attract CR’s subscribers.
I like NPR… but their automotive news is virtually from a Lenninist stand point. It’s particularly sad from my perspective that I can’t even find an article from NPR that has been even slightly complimentary to the Detroit manufacturers over the past several years. It’s ironic as well since the Big 3 offer their employees many of the same benefits that NPR’s audience cosiders especially important (excellent health care, strong retirement benefits, etc.)
Finally, you have the crap that’s routinely put forth by bubble-gum followers of the auto industry such as Business Week and the New York Times. Within 30 seconds I was able to pull up a BW article that offered these gems…
“Here we go again. After years of quality improvements from Detroit,”
“those companies have been dining on Motown’s market share for decades now. Sure Detroit is close, by the numbers anyway. But consumers won’t believe that Detroit is as good as Honda and Toyota”
It’s laughable for me that ‘Detroit’ is always the stereotypical punching bag for these so-called journalists. Hell, with a mentaility like this, even if they win… they lose. How reasonable is that?
The one aspect I like about TTAC is that they’re reportng on EVERYTHING. The decline of Toyota’s products that I see at the auctions is being reported by a wide variety of folks here. If memory serves me correct, Toyota went from having 11 of the 19 spots for J.D. Power’s vehicle dependability in 2006… to only 4 in 2007. TTAC was at the forefront when it came to bringing the issue up.
At the same time this place has pulled no punches in calling the Aveo, Sebring, Focus, and GM minivans inferior products. Unlike the CR’s and NPR’s of the world, you also actually acknowledge the vital importance of the fun factor too. The fact that a Jaguar can get a five star rating at TTAC, and a Toyota can get a two star rating, speaks volumes for the journalists ability to look well beyond the nameplate attached to the given vehicle.
Is TTAC highly critical? Yes.
Highly Biased? Definitely not. This site reflects a lot of what I already see at the dealer auctions. The good cars endure and are few in number at the sales. The bad ones become junk, rental car fodder, or get stuck in wholesale heaven.
@ Steven Lang
Well said!
Steven Lang:
I argued that Toyota’s patient and consistent investment in hybrids has made them king of the hill in hybrids. GM chose to be inconsistent and kill the electric car.
How can you say there is an anti-Detroit bias if the facts are so glaring?
Why would anybody want to be anti-Detroit if there’s not a good reason to be so (I’m talking as an ex-GM customer)?
I can’t even find an article from NPR that has been even slightly complimentary to the Detroit manufacturers over the past several years.
I wasn’t aware that any news organization had an obligation to report positive news about anything or anyone. Looking for nice things to say about companies that are losing money would be an act of bias, when the facts speak for themselves.
If NPR reports that GM wrote down $39 billion at the third quarter, that’s just a fact. If it reports that Toyota is gaining market share while GM is losing it, that’s just a fact. If it reports that hybrid sales are increasing while SUV sales are declining, that’s just a fact.
I don’t know how those sorts of nasty data points are supposed to be prettied up. More importantly, I don’t know why anyone should be obliged to. They are what they are; if Detroit want happier news, then they either need to start making money or else squirrel together whatever money they have left to buy a TV network.
As for CR, it is not an enthusiast publication, but one written for consumers who prioritize the purchase of a reliable appliance. They’ve done well in this regard, and should be used with that in mind. It is a rare breed in the car review business, a publication that is relatively indifferent to flash and horsepower. Apparently, that isn’t a problem, because it is the single most popular source for car purchase research in the US. “Fun factor” is a top priority for only a small group of consumers — “enthusiasts” are, by definition, a minority.
EJ, you can make the same argument that Toyota underinvested in the North American subcompact market during the 1990’s compared with the Big 3.
You would be right.
Does Ford deserve the exact same kudos for being at the forefront of the SUV market throughout the 1990’s? If memory serves me correct, Toyota and Honda were very far behind the curve in that market and it cost them billions in profits. The same was largely true for minivans and in the case of Toyota, midsized pickups. But I wouldn’t want to use that past to determine the present quality of Ford’s offerings…. or Toyota’s and Honda’s.
You can’t make any informed opinion about an automaker, or their products, by one isolated incident. I believe the door of subjectivity DOES swing both ways. To compensate for it, I try to isolate the ‘brand’ from the product as best as I can when I critique a car. I believe TTAC does a very good job of doing that as well.
As far as the manufacturers go… none of them are nearly as good as their PR flaks try to make them out to be. I don’t think any of them are truly ‘superior’ enough to make even the majority of their products the best in class.
To me that’s a good thing. You learn a lot more in this business by imitating and improving on what others already do well, than you do by rowing your own boat and wearing blinders.
When will people stop complaining about the allegedly favorable treatment the Tundra receives?
Edmunds’ take on the Tundra
It gets a lot of favorable comment because of what amounts to a visceral reaction; the thing is a beast. CR’s not alone on this.
And what “public outcry” about CR dropping its usual recommendation of the Camry? CR did it for a reason: Toyota dropped the ball on the Camry V6/6-speed. Seems to me CR acts rationally. What’s the problem? This bolsters my confidence in CR. I plan to continue to pay attention to CR; their recommendations align very well with my experience.
And the press’ response to the Volt has been ridiculously favorable. Many reports make it sound like GM is currently selling a Volt that outperforms the Prius in every regard. And the fanboys are worse. GM’s FastLane blogs are full of congratulatory messages for cars that don’t exist.
The big loser in the EV/PHEV/hybrid noise, of course, is poor Ford, which has been building a modest but reliable Escape hybrid for years and gets few, if any, accolades for it. They haven’t done much, since, but Ford doesn’t have the resources that GM or Toyota has.
Pch101, anyone can bash a company to their hearts content. It’s a VERY easy thing to do when a company is struggling. Ten years ago I could have easily argued that Nissan’s products were total pieces of trash that were not worth their weight in scrap metal. Throw in a few facts about their closing plants, billions in losses and enormous debt. Toss in several sarcastic remarks about the Sentra and Infiniti division, and presto! It would have been ready for public digestion.
For me, it would have been the wrong thing to do. Fox News can be ‘Fair & Balanced’, CNN can be… what it is, but NPR as well as Consumer Reports do have an obligation to provide a more objective perspective to their audience.
I believe bashers on either side of the proverbial fence are effectively screwing the general public. When you throw fear at the forefront of every debate, you end up with poor choices that are only unique in their overall blandness. It happens in politics. It happens in the business world, and it most certainly happens with cars.
NPR as well as Consumer Reports do have an obligation to provide a more objective perspective to their audience.
I don’t understand these references to NPR. I am an avid NPR listener, and I know that aside from “Car Talk”, which I don’t particularly enjoy, they spend very little time discussing cars at all. Which is not surprising, being that “All Things Considered” and “Morning Edition” are general news programs with a focus on politics, economy and culture, not cars. In short, it’s an American version of BBC World Service. So I don’t see how they could be “biased” about something that they pretty much ignore.
As for Consumer Reports, it’s so painfully objective that it hurts. They care about the stuff that the rest of them don’t — whether the rear seats fold flat, the trunk is easy to load and, God forbid, whether the vehicle is likely to start in the morning.
Nobody does a better job of assessing these details, it’s just a shame that the process of reading a description of a car’s grocery hauling abilities could be so much more dull than loading those bags into the car. Add to this that it has the best reliability survey in the country, and I can understand why people read it. I know that I do, even if I don’t always end up following the advice (sometimes to my regret.)
Steven Lang:
Detroit did make a ton of money on their truck/SUV platforms over the last decade. But they gambled away their future by relying only on one platform.
The Kyoto treaty was created in 1997. How about having some sort of response to that? How about helping customers who like other platforms? Those people constitute 80% of the market now and Detroit is scrambling to serve them.
@Pch101:
I hear that CR’s reliability survey has come under fire the past few years, and not just by Karesh. People say that it’s a self-selecting sample, and that CR won’t reveal its readership’s cars because it would skew heavily to the imports, thus calling the results into question. Some cars don’t even get enough owner samples to get a rating.
Steve Lang: “Toyota and Honda were very far behind the curve in that market [trucks and SUVs] and it cost them billions in profits.”
Sure. But they weren’t ready for that market. Their strategy was to work on the passenger car market and ease into others. Looks like it’s working.
CarShark: “I hear that CR’s reliability survey has come under fire the past few years, and not just by Karesh.”
I look at Karesh’ site, too. I like it. However, CR gets many responses, probably far more than TrueDelta at this time. TrueDelta doesn’t even seem to have the Impala up, yet. There’s power in numbers. When CR doesn’t get enough, they say so. What’s your objection?
When there’s something better than CR available, people will use it.
I hear that CR’s reliability survey has come under fire the past few years…
Yes, I read gripes and complaints on fanboy forums attacking CR. And I think we’ve established what I think of fanboys.
…and not just by Karesh.
I take no issue with True Delta, per se. As does any credible survey, it has its value and limitations.
But I do take issue with Mr. Karesh’s attempt to elevate his product by denigrating others, when no survey is perfect and when the flaws of other surveys don’t do one whit to make his survey any better.
People say that it’s a self-selecting sample
I think that you meant to say “Fanboys squeal that it’s a self-selecting sample.”
The reality is that ALL surveys are self-selecting. If a pollster contacts you for feedback on whatever topic, you can choose to spend hours on the phone with them, telling your life story, or you just can hang up without a word. About the only survey in the USA that isn’t self-selecting is the US Census, because they can arrest and fine you if you choose to ignore it. And even that data has some noise in it.
CR is the best survey going because it has the largest response pool, by far, of any automotive reliability survey. All things being equal, data accuracy correlates with the size of the survey pool, so in this case, size does matter.
The survey doesn’t ask for opinions or rankings, but for a reporting of whether repairs were required in a variety of categories. So unless you think that CR readers get the best Civics and worst Cobalts sold in America, the data should be pretty reliable, given the size of the pools. Why CR readers would have vastly differently luck with a particular kind of car than would the rest of the population defies explanation.
And in fact, if you were to rank JD Power VDS results with CR, you’d find that they are generally fairly consistent with each other. I have yet to see a car that did very well in JD Power’s 3-year survey that did very poorly in CR’s longer-term rankings, and vice versa. That consistency tells you that both of them are onto something. Used intelligently and in connection with other information, both are useful and both should be used with discretion.
Some cars don’t even get enough owner samples to get a rating.
Which is an indication that someone at the research department of CR took a statistics class and applied those lessons to his job. That’s exactly what any survey should do — a response pool below 25-30 would be inadequate for anything more than anecdotal comments. Except for within the cloistered fantasyland of fanboy forums, anecdotes are not data.
Steve Lang: “Toyota and Honda were very far behind the curve in that market [trucks and SUVs] and it cost them billions in profits.”
“Sure. But they weren’t ready for that market. Their strategy was to work on the passenger car market and ease into others. Looks like it’s working.”
Toyota had been making SUV’s for nearly 20 years at that point. They had the 4Runner on the lower end and the Land Cruiser on the higher end. Both models were firmly entrenched offerings in North America by the mid-1990’s. They also had been making trucks for over 50 years at that point. I don’t see how ‘they weren’t ready for that market’ is a qualified statement.
“CR is the best survey going because it has the largest response pool, by far, of any automotive reliability survey.”
You need a lot more than size to ensure an accurate survey. CR has addressed some of their bias issues and will most likely continue to do so. Hopefully the first part of your statement will be correct in the times to come. But CR has largely been a victim of the type of the ‘groupthink’ that comes with attracting a very narrow audience.
As far as CR recommendations vs. J.D. Power, 40% of CR’s top picks were Toyota products.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2007/04/top-picks-for-2007-4-07/overview/0704_top-picks-2007.htm
Toyota only received roughly half the percentage of awards with J.D. Power’s recent durability study (4 out of 19) and was actually outperformed by Ford which was the most awarded manufacturer by that measure.
“The J.D. Power and Associates annual Initial Quality Study (IQS), released Wednesday, showed long-time leader Toyota Motor Corp.continuing to lose ground in the study, with its high-volume Toyota brand slipping behind Honda Motor Co. and barely outpacing Ford’s Mercury brand. Ford was the most-awarded company on a vehicle-by-vehicle basis.”
You also have Buick now tied with Lexus as the overall leader in the 2007 durability study. Who knew? You definitely wouldn’t even bother if you read the following introduction from CR…. which has absolutely nothing to do with the actual product they reviewed.
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2007/03/from_the_logboo.html
Pch, I have no qualms with recommending the Toyota Corolla for a TBAG award based on how it performs for those who value it’s attributes. In fact the majority of my list was composed of ‘imports’ for our most recent survey. But I definitely think that if you simply demonize those who disagree with you (by calling them fanboys for instance), you’re going to miss out on an awful lot of exceptional opportunities in the marketplace.
It’s your call. Judge a vehicle by it’s merits or simply slam it for not having the ‘right pedigree’. I prefer to be fair. In fact, it helps me get a far greater bang for my buck.
ya gotta love Fark.com headlines “GM says new fuel requirements will add $6000 to the prices of their cars. Toyota engineers point and laugh”
This just in……..look for an announcement around Feb.8th. For the first time in history Toyota will have outsold GM. You heard it here first!
But I definitely think that if you simply demonize those who disagree with you (by calling them fanboys for instance), you’re going to miss out on an awful lot of exceptional opportunities in the marketplace.
I don’t see the correlation. Previously, I noted that products and their manufacturers should be viewed with as much objectivity as possibility, which is the last thing that the average diehard fanboy will do.
I’m not demonizing anyone. But I am certainly going to mock the blithering juvenile cheerleading that I see from some of the more vocal members of the fanboy crowd. Particularly when it is often a thin disguise for racism and xenophobia, as it frequently can be.