Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Vans & Minivans 2008 Minivans 
1261 messages, Last post on Feb 27, 2008 at 7:47 AM
You are in the Vans & Minivans Forum. Your Host is Karens
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:07 am) They also pitted a Tundra with a 4.30 axle ratio against the Silverado with a 3.73 ratio, then gave the Tundra praise for having better acceleration. But the Silverado offers a 4.10 axle ratio as a no charge customer selection. Not only that, but they predicted that Toyota’s Tundra would have an above average frequency of repair rating. The Silverado? Too new to classify. The Toyota won the test. Surprise. It’s sorta like a boxing match were one of the competitors has his hands tied. In response to criticism of the “comparison” test, Consumer Reports has posted an explanation on its blog. It’s complete doublespeak, but you can judge for yourself: click here. Consumer Reports explanation boils down to saying that they selected trucks that used the powertrains most frequently purchased by consumers. Then, why do they call it a comparison test? As John Neff, who broke this story at Autoblog, notes, “Comparison tests, at least to us, are not about comparing what people buy, they’re about advising what people should buy based on an equal comparison.” An equal comparison is not what Consumer Reports has done. Moreover, instead of admitting they used a flawed design for their testing, they’ve elected to defend their choices on the basis of a criterion utterly irrelevant to the purpose of the test. The test wasn’t biased merely in the vehicles selected. Giving the Tundra a predicted above average reliability rating while saying that the Silverado is to new to rate is plan ludicrous. The Tundra, as Neff points out, is an all new vehicle produced at a brand new plant. The engine Consumer Reports selected for its test is the one that breaks camshafts, seemingly at random. The Silverado is a new chassis and body, but the drivetrain in the truck is one that has been on the market for some time. And it is the Silverado that’s too new to rate? It’s the truck with the 20 engines, so far, that have had to be replaced because their camshafts broke shortly after delivery that gets the “above average” rating for reliability? Yup. That’s the way Consumer Reports did it. http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/consumer-reports-never-to-be-truted-ar4156- 9.html
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:16 am) I happen to work in the auto industry here, and actually know how it works. Domestics OEM DESIGN (more engineering/technical jobs) and SOURCE (more tooling, design work for the actual tools) products here....creating more jobs HERE. Not just slap some parts together using engines from Japan or trannys from China. Second, the profits would go to some filthy rich shareholders. If you're asking if I care whether Bill Ford, Jr. is worth 7 trillion dollars or 8 trillion dollars, the answer is no, I could care less. Apparently you do care enough to spout off insane numbers like trillion. It's not your business or mine what boards want to pay their CEO or shareholders, we're still a free capitalistic country, and even if they're paid "trillions", do your really think that money just sits in some bank account doing nothing for this country? It does trickle down and lifts all boats here!
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:07 am) As soon as they got enough data to show the new Tundra has glass shafts and was not reliable, they down rated it and published a front page story on Toyota's woes. Same for the 6 speed auto in the Camry V6, another model that is now rated below average and was also mentioned in that front page, headline grabbing article. They even took a further step - for all new Toyota models they will wait until they have enough reliability data before they recommend them. That's a pretty big slap in the face. What bias? I read CR pretty well, but didn't see that front page story. What issue was it in? I still have some back issues of it. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:07 am) |
|
|
Replying to: dennisctc (Feb 26, 2008 9:53 am) It's a global economy. GM is building V6 engines for the Equinox in China. GM-DAT (Daeweoo, basically) is building Aveos in Korea, the best seller in the segment BTW. Chrysler builds cars in Canada and Mexico, and they tote these as being "domestic". Gracias, amigo, for the jobs. Is the Grand Caravan really a domestic if it's built outside of the USA? They don't hesitate to paint PT Cruisers with american flags to help sell these "domestics". Ford builds the Fusion in Mexico. Did you know that the Camry is the only car represented in NASCAR racing that is built in the US? Ironic, no? Automakers have to be efficient to survice, so this is inevitable. They do and indeed should source the parts from the most efficient source. If they don't, someone else will and they will lose sales. Heck, you should head over to the Mistubishi Outlander threads. Those guys pitch the "Made in Japan" status of that model as a distinct advantage. I don't, but those folks do. Any how, we could argue forever, but it won't change a thing. What will bring customers back is good product. GM has hits with the Malibu, the Lambda crossovers, and most of the Caddillac lineup. CR gave all of them glowing reviews. Ford and Chrysler would be wise to follow that business model.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 9:51 am) More recently the Tundra recommendation was criticized - any reader/subscriber would have known the full story. Because of their bias against domestics. I've brought this up many times and Mary has done a great job of summarizing it. Did you not get this month's issue? Where the Caddy CTS whops up on BMW and Mercedes? Is that bias too? Ohh so a few token pictures makes up for years and years of bias? You subscribe, OK, I believe you, but do you really read it? No, I only look at the pretty pictures in it!! Duh!
|
|
|
Replying to: dennisctc (Feb 26, 2008 10:19 am) You let that myth (CR not reporting that issue) slide right by. Maybe you do just look at the pretty pictures. 
|
|
|
Replying to: marine2 (Feb 26, 2008 10:09 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: maryh3 (Feb 26, 2008 9:53 am) Keep in mind, though, that the quick Tundra with the bigger engine and the shorter axle ratio still got better mileage than the tall geared, small engined Silverado. You say the Tundra "won" but that's not how CR does it. They give individual ratings, and the Silverado scored well, so I wouldn't call it the loser. To answer this question why do they call it a comparison test? I don't think they do that. In fact they include older ratings from models they tested before, which aren't even present to be compared. Often times the highest rated model isn't even evaluated in that particular issue! So there is no winner, in those cases. The current issue covering sport sedans is an example. The CTS scores higher than BMW or Mercedes yet it's still not the winner for the class. The engine Consumer Reports selected for its test is the one that breaks camshafts, seemingly at random Correct, the glass camshafts I mentioned. As soon as CR had enough data, they rated the Tundra "Below Average" for reliability and removed their recommendation. They don't have a crystal ball, but when data became available they made the correction. That article would have you think they still recommend the Tundra to this day. They no longer do.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 26, 2008 10:11 am) It's a global economy. GM is building V6 engines for the Equinox in China. GM-DAT (Daeweoo, basically) is building Aveos in Korea, the best seller in the segment BTW. Chrysler builds cars in Canada and Mexico, and they tote these as being "domestic". Gracias, amigo, for the jobs. Is the Grand Caravan really a domestic if it's built outside of the USA? They don't hesitate to paint PT Cruisers with american flags to help sell these "domestics". Ford builds the Fusion in Mexico. Did you know that the Camry is the only car represented in NASCAR racing that is built in the US? Ironic, no? Automakers have to be efficient to survice, so this is inevitable. They do and indeed should source the parts from the most efficient source. If they don't, someone else will and they will lose sales. Heck, you should head over to the Mistubishi Outlander threads. Those guys pitch the "Made in Japan" status of that model as a distinct advantage. I don't, but those folks do. Any how, we could argue forever, but it won't change a thing. What will bring customers back is good product. GM has hits with the Malibu, the Lambda crossovers, and most of the Caddillac lineup. CR gave all of them glowing reviews. Ford and Chrysler would be wise to follow that business model. GM, Ford and Chrysler have to build some vehicles in Canada and Mexico or they wouldn't be able to compete at all. The foreign makers come over here and build new plants with tax breaks given them by the state. They hire new employees that are not ready to retire, don't have five weeks vacation coming to them. They pay them a lower wage, get a break on medical because they are younger and don't have to pay medical to retirees. Can you even imagine the profit advantage they have on domestic makes right from the start? One reason they can usually offer more on their vehicles than American manufactures can. To say Chrysler, or Ford doesn't put anything back into the American economy because they are losing money is far from the truth. Where do you think all that money goes? It's in higher employees wages and pensions, which that employee spends on goods and services right here. It pays taxes for police and firemen. It pays taxes for schools, city, county and state workers. It goes for furniture, food and airplane tickets. Where do you think that money goes to pay that health care for both employees and retirees? To Americans. Where do you think that profit goes that the foreign makers make? That profit that they don't have to pay out in taxes, health care, vacations pensions, etc? Most of it goes right back to their country, to create jobs for them. Chrysler builds Dodge/Chrysler minivans in Canada. But they also build them in St. Louis. Mine was built in Canada, with a 83% N. American content. Engine and transmission built in the USA. With that big a content, most of that money stays here creating jobs for us, not Asians, or Europeans. There is a big profit advantage these foreign manufactures have on American manufactures that they can't over come. Because they are locked into those contracts with employees. They don't get big tax discounts on their factories. Maybe if some tried to see the problem, they would be more understanding.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Vans & Minivans 2008 Minivans
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2011 Toyota Sienna
2011 Honda Odyssey
2010 Chrysler Town and Country
2007 Dodge Caravan
2008 Hyundai Entourage
2010 Mazda MAZDA5
2009 Kia Sedona
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
