You are here: Forums Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans

Luxury Performance Sedans

10007 messages,  Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 7:40 AM

You are in the Sedans Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens

What is this discussion about? Lexus GS 430, Acura RL, BMW 5 Series, Volvo S80, Audi A6, Infiniti M35, Infiniti M45, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Cadillac STS, Sedan

#2283 of 10007 Re: merc1 [jjacura] by markcincinnati May 19, 2005 (1:09 pm)
Replying to: jjacura (May 19, 2005 1:06 pm) Say it ain't so. Replies to this message: jjacura (May 19, 2005 6:35 pm)
#2284 of 10007 Re: JD Power [cmybimmergo] by bartalk3 May 19, 2005 (2:22 pm)
Replying to: cmybimmergo (May 19, 2005 12:39 pm) CR has a bias against anything that costs more? Don't we all have the same bias? Why pay more for something that's no better than something that costs less? That's just common sense.    When the best is also the most expensive, they say so: For example, they say that the Lexus 430 is one of the best cars they ever tested, along with, I think. the Mercedes S and the old BMW 5 Series. Not exactly cheap transportation. Replies to this message: cmybimmergo (May 19, 2005 3:08 pm) markcincinnati (May 20, 2005 7:05 am)
#2285 of 10007 Re: JD Power [bartalk3], [kyfdx] by cmybimmergo May 19, 2005 (3:08 pm)
Replying to: bartalk3 (May 19, 2005 2:22 pm) Hokay, I knew you were going to say this. I did qualify my statement by stating that it's been awhile since I've followed them. And yes, to some extent we all look for a bargain when practical. (I pick up pennies in the street, too.) That said, I have read CR ratings time and again that dismissed certain items solely because the good folks at CR felt they were too expensive. In at least some of those cases, I was very familiar with the products in question, and I felt they were well worth the extra expense.
#2286 of 10007 cmybimmergo by lexusguy May 19, 2005 (6:25 pm)
CR is useful for certain things and not so much for others. I agree that for things like washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. they are a great resource. As for autos, the reliability info is nice, and I like the fact that they push car makers to make safer cars by not recommending cars that dont do well in government or insurance crash tests, and testing for things like roll over of trucks and SUVs long before the government started that (the Suzuki Samurai that CR went to court over is a good example of this).   Still, its just information from CR subscribers. I find it funny when people get bent out of shape or think there's something sinister or an agenda behind it (like CR hates domestic auto for example). Its just info. Take it or leave it. Replies to this message: bartalk3 (May 19, 2005 6:36 pm) cmybimmergo (May 19, 2005 7:08 pm) ksoman (May 20, 2005 7:51 am) jjacura (May 20, 2005 2:11 pm)
#2287 of 10007 Re: merc1 [markcincinnati] by jjacura May 19, 2005 (6:35 pm)
Replying to: markcincinnati (May 19, 2005 1:09 pm) "Say it ain't so. "    ...and some of us leave our biases behind...gulp...
#2288 of 10007 Re: cmybimmergo [lexusguy] by bartalk3 May 19, 2005 (6:36 pm)
Replying to: lexusguy (May 19, 2005 6:25 pm) I agree CR is useful for some things, less useful for others. For high-end hobby equipment, for example, stereo equipment, cameras, camcorders, etc. CR is less useful.   The reason is their audience is mainstream middle-class families with youngish kids, not people who want to buy $2,000 digital cameras, $3,000 camcorders, or $5,000 loudspeakers, etc. Replies to this message: cmybimmergo (May 19, 2005 7:08 pm) ksoman (May 20, 2005 7:51 am) jjacura (May 20, 2005 2:11 pm)
#2289 of 10007 bartalk3 by lexusguy May 19, 2005 (6:54 pm)
"For high-end hobby equipment, for example, stereo equipment, cameras, camcorders, etc. CR is less useful."   I would say pretty much useLESS. Just a single score with little to no information is no way to shop for things like digital cameras, especially when there are so many different factors that weigh more with different people. CNET is very useful for entry to mid-level electronics. Beyond that, you have to go to the pros.
#2290 of 10007 Re: cmybimmergo [bartalk3] [lexusguy] by cmybimmergo May 19, 2005 (7:08 pm)
Replying to: bartalk3 (May 19, 2005 6:36 pm) The reason is their audience is mainstream middle-class families with youngish kids, not people who want to buy $2,000 digital cameras, $3,000 camcorders, or $5,000 loudspeakers, etc.   Exactly. Hence the bias. But I agree that it's like anything else...you take out of it what is useful to you, and disregard the rest.
#2291 of 10007 CR by syswei May 19, 2005 (7:21 pm)
Bias? Maybe that's the right word, or maybe not. CR like any person or publication have certain criteria that they go by, which may not align with a particular reader's. They may feel that safety and reliability are relatively important while some readers may place greater importance on style and handling. No one is right or wrong, people just assign different weights to various factors. But at least, since they don't accept advertising at CR, their opinions on various products can be assumed to be free of commercial influence.
#2292 of 10007 Re: JD Power [bartalk3] by markcincinnati May 20, 2005 (7:05 am)
Replying to: bartalk3 (May 19, 2005 2:22 pm) I am not a Consumer Reports expert. I would consult them on some things and I might even check out their FOR automotive ratings -- if I didn't have to buy the magazine.   If CR actually has a bias against things that cost more, well that would be a strike against them. I would hope they have a bias for things (e.g., cars) and their relative value.   To bring this back to LPS cars, my personal "value" bias was (past tense) such that I could not find cars that were of higher value than Audis. Of course my narrow (yes I admit it) qualifiers included that whatever I was looking at automotive must be AWD (so the field was certainly narrowed.)   But as I have stated, I priced an Audi A6 4.2 sport and found it within a few dollars of a 6 cylinder 5 series (and the Audi had a lower lease price and full maintenance -- which at the time the BMW did not). For the life of me -- at THAT time -- I could not understand why anyone would take a 6 cylinder RWD BMW when for slightly less money they could have an 8 cylinder AWD Audi of approximately similar dimensions. Please note I said, in effect, "that was then, this is now." Audi, and perhaps others, has "lost that lovin' feelin'" insofar as the value proposition is concerned.   CR may have thought -- then and/or now -- that the Audis were unreliable and would be "in the shop" a lot. Frankly that didn't happen to me and CR saying that such and such a car was in the bottom 25% of automotive reliability didn't alter my perception of value one bit.   Now, today, we have several excellent AWD LPS cars from which to choose. Audi, in my opinion, let its recent publicity go to its head, so to speak. Their temporary status as "Best Car in the World" has caused them from what I can tell to sharply increase the cost of ownership of their vehicles. With all the great and wonderful competition out there, the rapid run up in this aspect of Audi ownership forced folks like me to look elsewhere to vet the value proposition.   Some people stayed the course, some went to BMW, Lexus or to Infiniti (which is what I did). CR is a resource. For me it is an incidental resource when it comes to automobiles -- I hope they look for value not just automatically begin to lean more negative (pertaining to cars) as the price goes up as if to say "no car is worth -- fill in the blank."   Anyway the current crop of cars offers consumers the best and most choice I can remember in some 35+ years of driving. If CR withered away, I wouldn't even notice, at this point.

You are here: Forums Sedans Luxury Performance Sedans