Consumer Reports: Porsche 911 beats 'Vette and Viper

[daltvater]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/08/30/cr_supercars/index.html

[1967 R50/2]

Using Consumer Reports as a guide to buy this type of vehicle is absurd.

It's not about reliability, fuel economy and value...it's not even really about performance. It's about EMOTION. Still, I'm glad to see the writers acknowledge that point to some degree:

"The Viper was rated as "Poor" in most "Comfort and Convenience" areas including "Ride," "Noise," and "Front seat comfort."

Still, Champion said, "I really liked the Viper""

[hytem]

Looks like the Boxster might be a terrific buy for the money.

The 911 is still King of the Hill.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Although Porsche is flagrantly not standing behind the Boxster engine and RMS failures. . . I've read an awful lot of posts of engines blowing up (especially on the earlier, non-S models) and Porsche basically saying, "sorry it's out of warranty - cough up $8,000 for a new engine". Some of the cars well under 100k miles too.

Of course if you DO buy one and the engine blows up, you could just do what Wayne's doing. . . If you've got deep pockets.

[kaisen]

"The Lotus Elise, the cheapest car on the list, ranked last because of its extreme nature. The Elise's ride is extremely harsh and getting in and out of the tiny, low-slung car is difficult.

If pushed behind its high handling limits, the Elise resists attempts to get it back under control."

"We thought it was a little too tricky for most people to drive," said Champion.


Of course, most people won't ever drive one anyways.

Consumer Reports is completely bunk. Their data collection is skewed, and their reporting methods are VERY misleading. If you'd use this report to decide which sports car to buy, you are doing so only to justify a pre-held opinion.

E

[EdT82SC]

I don't think they're ratings are skewed or misleading. They are just using a rating system designed for Camrys and minivans to a sports car. The sports cars don't quite fit. The information is still valid, but just not relevent. Like the joke about the guy floating around in the baloon lost asks the guy on the ground where he is, and the guy on the ground says, "In a baloon".

[gaijindabe]

This thread is worthless without pin-ups from Ladies Home Journal...

[kaisen]

Originally posted by EdT82SC
I don't think they're ratings are skewed or misleading. They are just using a rating system designed for Camrys and minivans to a sports car. The sports cars don't quite fit. The information is still valid, but just not relevent. Like the joke about the guy floating around in the baloon lost asks the guy on the ground where he is, and the guy on the ground says, "In a baloon".

http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/shortcomings.php

Seven Serious Problems with Consumer Reports

I admire Consumer Reports as much as anyone. For decades they were the only source of vehicle reliability information. And even today they are the best source.

But even the best is not nearly good enough. In at least seven ways Consumer Reports' data collection methods or modes of presentation mislead or underinform consumers.

1. "Serious problems"

Consumer Reports' ratings are based on the number of "serious problems" reported by its members. I have searched in vain through their annual auto issues for a definition of what counts as a serious problem.

2. Relative ratings

Consumer Reports rates each model relative to the average vehicle. As a result, the absolute number of problems a vehicle will experience remains unclear. Does an "above average" vehicle "never break?" Is a "below average" vehicle "always in the shop?"

In the absence of hard numbers, people tend to assume that the best vehicles are better than they are and that the worst vehicles are worse than they are. I recently had a vigorous discussion with the owner of a Japanese SUV. As proof of his vehicle's superior reliability, he noted that it had been the highest rated brand in Consumer Reports' 2005 auto issue. This rating was based on 2004 vehicles, which were less (usually much less) than a year old at the time. His brand's cars had had eight "serious problems" per hundred vehicles. While this was less than half the eighteen problems per hundred domestic brand vehicles, the absolute difference was just one-tenth of a serious problem per car. Another implication: few (if any) vehicles are likely to have even one serious problem this early in their lives.

This did not--and does not--strike me as anything to get wound up over. The real problem: very few people who glance through the magazine think about the absolute numbers behind the relative ratings.

3. Ranges

Consumer Reports' rates models on a five-point scale from "much worse than average" to "much better than average" using their well-known red and black dots. More than half of domestic brand vehicle models earn an "average" rating, while many Hondas and Toyotas earn an "above average" rating. (With the average getting ever better, "much better than average" ratings have been becoming increasingly rare.)

"Average" means within twenty percent of the average, so 80 to 120 on an index with 100 being average. "Better than average" ranges from 121 to 140. So if one vehicle is "average" and another is "better than average," then the difference between them can range anywhere from a single point--totally insignificant--to 60 points--very significant. The red and black dots appear simple to understand, but they conceal far more than the convey. As a result, many readers of the magazine understand far less than they think they do.

4. Only averages

The reliability of all vehicles has been steadily improving. Currently, even the average eight-year-old domestic brand model is reported (on page 17 of the 2005 auto issue) to have fewer than one-and-a-half "serious problems" per year. Yet most people would not buy such a car because they fear it will have "lots of problems."

While perceptions are undoubtedly distorted by Consumer Reports' emphasis on relative ratings, another factor is likely involved: people are afraid of getting a lemon, an unusually troublesome car or truck. Even if the average is the same for two models, the chances of getting a lemon could be far higher for one than the other. People might fear that even as the average rate of problems for domestic vehicles comes down the odds of getting a lemon remain uncomfortably high.

Based on Consumer Reports' reported results there's no way to know one way or the other, as they only report averages. To my knowledge, they have never discussed the odds of getting an unusually good or bad example of a particular model.

5. Survey (in)frequency

Consumer Reports sends out an annual survey asking people to report problems that occurred during the entire previous year. This is too long a period to expect people to accurately remember what happened.

6. Stale information

Consumer Reports mails out surveys each spring, then first reports the results the following November. As a result, when a new vehicle is introduced in the fall its reliability isn't reported until over a year later. This is a long time to wait for someone interested in a hot new design; by the time its reliability is known it will no longer be hot.

In a related issue, the vehicles reported on aren't as old as Consumer Reports suggests. For example, while "three-year-old vehicles" are, on average, three years old at the time the auto issue appears, they were only about two years old when the problems were reported, and only about one year old at the beginning of the period being reported upon.

7. Fossilization

The last serious problem at least partially explains the others: Consumer Reports, once an innovator, has ceased to innovate. They have been reporting results much the same way for decades. The year-long lag between the surveys and the auto issue is likely an artifact of the past, when computers and the Internet were not around to speed the process. The same goes with continuing to rely on an annual survey.

[cowtown]

Unless you're looking at Camry vs. Accord, you don't get car buying advice from Consumer Reports for the same reason you don't ask the clerk at Home Depot about electrical wiring.

He's vaguely aware of the products in the store; maybe he's even had a training class about products in the electrical aisle. And that's enough to sell 99 out of 100 average customers the product they need when they ask for it. But you're the other 1 guy.

[EdT82SC]

I don't read anything there that says CR skews or misleads. The guy doesn't like the way they collect or present their data, but I don't have problem with it. You can't predict how good a Camry is going to be based on the model from 5-10 years ago that is starting to have serious problems because they have redesigned the car by then. All you have to go by is last year's model, and only then if it wasn't redesigned for this year. As far as the five ratings categories think of them as letter grades when you were in school. And you were probably graded on a curve relative to the other students in your classmates as well. As far as survey infrequency I think they kind of have to do it that way. How many people are going to go to the CR website every time their car or oven or TV goes on the blink to report problems. Very few. So they impose once a year, and get a lot broader sampling. And they do all their surveys for all products at once, and those results are used in articles throughout the year. Again so they are imposing only once a year. They may not be perfect, but they do provide a lot of useful information.

[Tervuren]

Its obvious, that the final ratings are based on a car that delivers comfort, practicility, and reliability - what MOST consumer want from a car. That doesn't mean their conclusions are wrong. Just that "best" is different.

My car is loud, my mom's is loud, I get in Dodge Caliber, and its like "@_@, where are teh engine sound!!111oneoneone" I love a suspension and steering that tells me when there are bumps, others want to not notice when they are driving over a poor surface. I soo want to try on an Elise, I love a barebones car. It may be a bit small for my large skeletal frame, I don't know.