In article ,
) says...

I can't seem to find Consumer Reports February 2007 issue at the library.
They rated the best vacuums. Does anyone know the top 5 or so?

We have a Dyson. It is by far the best vacuum we have ever owned. We
quit using the Sears upright. We sometimes use the Sears cannister vac,
mostly for cleaning cars. It came with two power nozzles, one standard
rug style and one miniature upholstery nozzle with a handy little beater
brush. He upholstery nozzle could use a more powerful motor, but I
guess they didn't want housewives wrapping the curtains around the
beater bar.

We have an old Rainbow wet-dry vac from the '60s that I call R2D2
because it's a chrome dome. Everybody needs a wet vac around, but it's
about worthless for carpets.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

Cleanfan,

Take a look at "Vacuum ratings may surprise you" in the following link:

http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2007/02/26/

It's not the actual Consumer Reports article, but it points out some of
their findings.

Hope this helps.

Peter.


"Larry Caldwell" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
) says...

I can't seem to find Consumer Reports February 2007 issue at the library.
They rated the best vacuums. Does anyone know the top 5 or so?

We have a Dyson. It is by far the best vacuum we have ever owned. We
quit using the Sears upright. We sometimes use the Sears cannister vac,
mostly for cleaning cars. It came with two power nozzles, one standard
rug style and one miniature upholstery nozzle with a handy little beater
brush. He upholstery nozzle could use a more powerful motor, but I
guess they didn't want housewives wrapping the curtains around the
beater bar.

We have an old Rainbow wet-dry vac from the '60s that I call R2D2
because it's a chrome dome. Everybody needs a wet vac around, but it's
about worthless for carpets.

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

On May 16, 6:38 am, "Peter Bogiatzidis" wrote:
Cleanfan,

Take a look at "Vacuum ratings may surprise you" in the following link:

http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2007/02/26/

It's not the actual Consumer Reports article, but it points out some of
their findings.

It just goes to show that Consumer Reports doesn't always get it
right.

I subscribe to Consumer Reports primarily for its entertainment value.
I think it's primarily useful in alerting people to products they may
not know about, such as my Panasonic low-profile AC ( the best low
profile ever made) which I bought in the early 90's (now
discontinued.) But as a rule I don't trust their ratings. For example
when VCR's first came out, there were several brands that were
obviously identical except for minor cosmetics. Sometimes CR
would give them different ratings. (This was in the days when
products were judged on many more points than they are today.)
I think it is remarkable that nobody has successfully sued them.
That seems to attest to their highly positive (for whatever reason)
reputation. Several have tried including Suzuki (the celebrated
Samurai case) and Bose. In the latter, they downgraded a certain
Bose system because they said the sound appeared to "wander
around the room," clearly an impossibility. That is the kind of
dumb and groundless statement that I have caught them making
on more than one occasion. (Of course now we have the
baby car seat debacle where we find that CR really doesn't do
all their own testing.)
I'm not sure the problem is bad intent as much as limited
resources. They simply couldn't afford to have enough good
techs with specific expertise in each of the areas they cover,
so they obviously need to rely heavily on hacks with general
knowledge (or lack of it.)
I really wish I could get a good discussion going on this
group about CR. I think it would be very interesting to see
what people report. Again, however, just to be fair, they do
get it right on occasion. The Toshiba Regza 32" LCD TV
that I got for my GF at Christmas has turned out to be nothing
short of superb.
Frank

We have two meile vacuum cleaners and even though they are pricy, I wouldn't
consider another brand
wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 16, 6:38 am, "Peter Bogiatzidis" wrote:
Cleanfan,

Take a look at "Vacuum ratings may surprise you" in the following link:

http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2007/02/26/

It's not the actual Consumer Reports article, but it points out some of
their findings.

It just goes to show that Consumer Reports doesn't always get it
right.

TH wrote:
We have two meile vacuum cleaners and even though they are pricy, I wouldn't
consider another brand
wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 16, 6:38 am, "Peter Bogiatzidis" wrote:
Cleanfan,

Take a look at "Vacuum ratings may surprise you" in the following link:

http://clarkhoward.com/shownotes/2007/02/26/

It's not the actual Consumer Reports article, but it points out some of
their findings.
It just goes to show that Consumer Reports doesn't always get it
right.



Eureka has gotten good reviews.
BUT it depends on the model, which is true for all brands.

Lou

Bill wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:13:09 GMT, frank1492
wrote:


I subscribe to Consumer Reports primarily for its entertainment value.
I think it's primarily useful in alerting people to products they may
not know about, such as my Panasonic low-profile AC ( the best low
profile ever made) which I bought in the early 90's (now
discontinued.) But as a rule I don't trust their ratings.


I tend to agree with this. A good source of information, but their
specific recommendations can be suspect.


I really wish I could get a good discussion going on this
group about CR. I think it would be very interesting to see
what people report.


I've seen plenty of spirited discussion about CR on the net over the
years. It commonly goes something like this:

(in a camera group) "CR is way off base on its camera ratings, but
it's a good place to pick a dishwasher"

(in an appliance group) "CR knows nothing about dishwashers, but it's
a great place to pick a car"

(in car groups) "CR knows nothing about cars, but I bought my camera
according to one of their ratings"

etc...

It seems the more you know about the products, the less confident you
are about the ratings. Of course, there are lots of people who follow
CR closely and don't have any complaints about it.



My take on them is like this: they're a good place to go for info on a
product if you are not an enthusiast of whatever you're looking for and
don't care to be. e.g. you're just a general, average consumer and you
need a car. Read CR, buy a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord. Done. But if
you're a "car guy" you know that there's way better products on the
market for what you look for in a car - but an enthusiast's priorities
are not aligned with those of the average consumer. Me, I'll keep my 20
year old Porsche, thanks, but your average person would be writing angry
letters to CR when they find out that a timing belt service is $1500...
(well, to be honest, I thought about writing a letter to Stuttgart
myself, what the hell were they thinking driving the water pump off a
long ass timing belt like that? And on an interference engine, too?)
However, your average consumer does not care so much about handling,
acceleration only a little, and above all they want reliability, low
maintenance cost and a good dealership experience. They also probably
won't bother keeping a car more than 10 years (or even 5) so ultimate
durability is of little concern to them. So a Camry or Accord is good
for them, but maybe not for me. The short-term thing is *my* biggest
reason for not reading CR, I prefer to make long term commitments to my
vehicles and CR takes a very short-term, JD Power-esque view of rating
"quality." Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes, get abysmal ratings from CR because that seems to go hand in hand
with niggling little initial quality issues (more emphasis on design
than build quality?)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:13:09 GMT, frank1492
wrote:

I subscribe to Consumer Reports primarily for its entertainment value.
I think it's primarily useful in alerting people to products they may
not know about, such as my Panasonic low-profile AC ( the best low
profile ever made) which I bought in the early 90's (now
discontinued.) But as a rule I don't trust their ratings.

I tend to agree with this. A good source of information, but their
specific recommendations can be suspect.

I really wish I could get a good discussion going on this
group about CR. I think it would be very interesting to see
what people report.

I've seen plenty of spirited discussion about CR on the net over the
years. It commonly goes something like this:

(in a camera group) "CR is way off base on its camera ratings, but
it's a good place to pick a dishwasher"

(in an appliance group) "CR knows nothing about dishwashers, but it's
a great place to pick a car"

(in car groups) "CR knows nothing about cars, but I bought my camera
according to one of their ratings"

etc...

It seems the more you know about the products, the less confident you
are about the ratings. Of course, there are lots of people who follow
CR closely and don't have any complaints about it.

My gripe with them is that they usually do a good job of describing
what features what models have (which is useful), but they often don't
explain the advantage/disadvantage of having/lacking a certain
feature.

For example, they will rate lawnmowers and they will tell you which
ones have big rear wheels. But they won't tell you why you would want
to have big rear wheels (why would you?).

Or they will rate refrigerators and tell you which have humidity
controls on the drawers. They won't tell you how well they actually
control humidity, nor will they tell you whether this really makes
much difference. (much difference in what, besides humidity, I don't
even know).

Now I just made up those examples and they may not be true, but they
illustrate the idea.

It reminds me a lot of the help files for most software. If you know
what you want to do, and what it's called, they will usually tell you
how to do it. But if you just know what you want to accomplish, you
are often on your own figuring out what feature or combination of
features to use. If you just read through the help file, you get the
same deal as with CR. You will learn how to apply dithering to your
photos, for example, but get no explanation as to when you would want
to do this and what to expect.

Often I find the personal reviews of items on Amazon more helpful.
But it's a pain wading through all the obvious crap and noise to find
the helpful, informed comments. (Kind of like reading Usenet!)

Still, I guess I get just enough useful info from CR to keep my
subscription.

Paul F.

In article , Paul Franklin wrote:
My gripe with them is that they usually do a good job of describing
what features what models have (which is useful), but they often don't
explain the advantage/disadvantage of having/lacking a certain
feature.

For example, they will rate lawnmowers and they will tell you which
ones have big rear wheels. But they won't tell you why you would want
to have big rear wheels (why would you?).

Or they will rate refrigerators and tell you which have humidity
controls on the drawers. They won't tell you how well they actually
control humidity, nor will they tell you whether this really makes
much difference. (much difference in what, besides humidity, I don't
even know).

Now I just made up those examples and they may not be true, but they
illustrate the idea.

Although you point out a few examples where they give extra prefernce to
some features that *maybe most* I suspect *might* find "lesser benefit"
from, I say take most data with at most a grain (or a few) of salt
unless the data is verifiably withstanding some tests of truth, such as
being stated/claimed by both CR and a source of hotrod cars, source of
high performance cars that are such from the factory, or by both CR and a
source of SUVs!

SNIP mainly to edit for space

- Don Klipstein )

Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes,



Ha Ha. Well, you're honest, you love your Porsche. But, in general,
German cars are terrible compared to Japanese cars for durability.
That's not some CR editor's biased or ignorant opinion. Those ratings
are based on actual owners' experiences. Mercedes' reputation went out
the window years ago, as did that of VW. Sure, I loved the handling of
my Audi, but spending $500 month to keep it running didn't turn me on
all that much. Now I'm stuck being "bored" with my Toyota Avalon.
170,000 miles and it never even hiccups. Just too bad I can't wind it
out to 140 mph, or make it to the top of a short steep freeway entrance
at more than about 80. But then the pesky roads are full of speed
limits, anyway.

"Smitty Two" wrote in message
news

Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes,



Ha Ha. Well, you're honest, you love your Porsche. But, in general,
German cars are terrible compared to Japanese cars for durability.
That's not some CR editor's biased or ignorant opinion. Those ratings
are based on actual owners' experiences. Mercedes' reputation went out
the window years ago, as did that of VW. Sure, I loved the handling of
my Audi, but spending $500 month to keep it running didn't turn me on
all that much. Now I'm stuck being "bored" with my Toyota Avalon.
170,000 miles and it never even hiccups. Just too bad I can't wind it
out to 140 mph, or make it to the top of a short steep freeway entrance
at more than about 80. But then the pesky roads are full of speed
limits, anyway.

Agreed on the reliability of Japanese cars, but there are examples with
great performance as well. My 2003 Mitsubishi EVO VIII (a modified Lancer)
has 4 door practicality and all-wheel drive, as well as 0-60 in less than 5
seconds, and a top speed of nearly 160. At the time it was tested in one of
the mags (Road & Track, I think) the 60 to 0 time was the BEST they had ever
achieved with ANY production car, thanks to the huge Brembo brakes (same
company that supplies Ferrari). I've never pushed it much in terms of top
speed, but the go-stop-turn performance is thrilling. The goofy looking
huge spoiler nearly put me off, but I've gotten over that ;-) I bought it
new 4 years ago, got about 30K on it now, not a huge figure but I've had
zero problems with it so far. Even gets respectible mileage, 24 or so on
the highway (albeit a fairly dismal 18-19 around town). The Subaru WRX STI
is another in this vein.

Dan

On May 17, 11:27 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes,

Ha Ha. Well, you're honest, you love your Porsche. But, in general,
German cars are terrible compared to Japanese cars for durability.
That's not some CR editor's biased or ignorant opinion. Those ratings
are based on actual owners' experiences. Mercedes' reputation went out
the window years ago, as did that of VW. Sure, I loved the handling of
my Audi, but spending $500 month to keep it running didn't turn me on
all that much. Now I'm stuck being "bored" with my Toyota Avalon.
170,000 miles and it never even hiccups. Just too bad I can't wind it
out to 140 mph, or make it to the top of a short steep freeway entrance
at more than about 80. But then the pesky roads are full of speed
limits, anyway.

My point was, what *I* consider durability is not what CR considers
durability - they don't take a long term enough approach (and really,
they can't, because you won't know how vehicles hold up after several
hundred thousand miles until a decent number of them have racked up
that kind of mileage.) I'd feel a lot better about buying, say, an
old VW with 200K miles than I would a Toyota or Honda - in fact, I
have; the best car I ever owned was an old VW Scirocco that I bought
with 180K on the clock and when I sold it at about 240K it still
showed good and even compression on all cylinders and ran like a
scared rabbit (get it? heh)

nate

On May 18, 12:26 am, "Dan" wrote:
"Smitty Two" wrote in message

news






Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes,

Ha Ha. Well, you're honest, you love your Porsche. But, in general,
German cars are terrible compared to Japanese cars for durability.
That's not some CR editor's biased or ignorant opinion. Those ratings
are based on actual owners' experiences. Mercedes' reputation went out
the window years ago, as did that of VW. Sure, I loved the handling of
my Audi, but spending $500 month to keep it running didn't turn me on
all that much. Now I'm stuck being "bored" with my Toyota Avalon.
170,000 miles and it never even hiccups. Just too bad I can't wind it
out to 140 mph, or make it to the top of a short steep freeway entrance
at more than about 80. But then the pesky roads are full of speed
limits, anyway.

Agreed on the reliability of Japanese cars, but there are examples with
great performance as well. My 2003 Mitsubishi EVO VIII (a modified Lancer)
has 4 door practicality and all-wheel drive, as well as 0-60 in less than 5
seconds, and a top speed of nearly 160. At the time it was tested in one of
the mags (Road & Track, I think) the 60 to 0 time was the BEST they had ever
achieved with ANY production car, thanks to the huge Brembo brakes (same
company that supplies Ferrari). I've never pushed it much in terms of top
speed, but the go-stop-turn performance is thrilling. The goofy looking
huge spoiler nearly put me off, but I've gotten over that ;-) I bought it
new 4 years ago, got about 30K on it now, not a huge figure but I've had
zero problems with it so far. Even gets respectible mileage, 24 or so on
the highway (albeit a fairly dismal 18-19 around town). The Subaru WRX STI
is another in this vein.

Dan

You're a lucky man; from all I've heard Mitsus are the exception to
the rule when it comes to Japanese cars - the rep among gearhead
circles is that Mitsus are really fun cars to drive and also really
fragile and expensive to repair. A possible exception would be the
DSM cars (Eclipse/Laser/Talon) but those have been out of production
for quite some time.

nate

On May 18, 7:52 am, jim evans wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 18:14:50 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Bill wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 20:13:09 GMT, frank1492
wrote:

I subscribe to Consumer Reports primarily for its entertainment value.

My question to all the people who dismiss CR's ratings is. How do you
decide what product to choose if you don't know much about them? Ask
your neighbor?

I've been a photographer all my life and the CR ratings of cameras are
MUCH better than looking at the ads, and in general are good choices
for someone who isn't into photography. An involved photographer
wants features and abilities the novice will never use and will likely
confuse them making the camera more difficult to use.

Several times I've heard "professional" painters badmouth their top
rated paints and praise their bottom rated ones. They actually run
fairly extensive tests of durability on paints. I simply don't
believe their worst performing paint is better than their best
performing, but I see the equivalent of these comments on CR ratings
all the time.

The statement that CR is only good for 'brand new' cars simply isn't
true. They have more than a hundred thousand subscribers' experiences
with cars listed for the last 8 years. A car isn't likely to have bad
reliability for 8 years and become better than average after that.

They have these subscribers'/users repair experiences for almost every
major product - TVs, refrigerators, washing machines, and on and on.
....

That's a fair and somewhat interesting question -- how do I decide
since I find I disagree w/ CR's ratings so frequently? In considering
it, I've come to two conclusions --

First, I really buy very little that I don't already have strong
opinions upon and likes/dislikes so that I rarely have a quandry in
selecting a product -- I already know what I want so just go get it.

On the second where there is some uncertainty, in thinking about what
I've done over the last several years, I find I have made a final
selection between competing products somewhat like the other poster
noted by comparing online user comments at Amazon or similar forums.
Products w/ quite a number of DOA's or other comments are avoided and
otherwise I simply select based on what I want/see in the literature I
can get.

I will agree that the one place where CR still does have some
credibility w/ me is in the long-term repair histories -- but again,
in many instances they're either so generic as to be meaningless or my
personal experience doesn't seem to match the overall data. So, I
might avoid a particular model from a particular manufacturer, but if
I have used that manufacurer's products for quite some time w/
satisfaction, I'm not likely to switch until I have a personal
experience that.

On one specific issue, paint testing -- the problem there is that
while CR's tests may be perfect and there of some value, in the real
world it's similar to real estate's mantra of "location,
location, ..." -- it's all in the "preparation, preparation,
preparation." The best paint poorly applied on an improperly prepared
surface will peform more poorly than almost the worst paint well-
applied on a good surface. Hence, the anecdotal stories...

In general, I've come to the conclusion that CR is, for the most part,
more interested in selling CR than anything else...anybody else
getting the stupid "testing results as news" on their local news
casts? Talk about a waste of air time and lazy reporting...I've
wondered but never bothered to ask--are these sponsored?

In article . com,
N8N wrote:

On May 17, 11:27 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes,

Ha Ha. Well, you're honest, you love your Porsche. But, in general,
German cars are terrible compared to Japanese cars for durability.
That's not some CR editor's biased or ignorant opinion. Those ratings
are based on actual owners' experiences. Mercedes' reputation went out
the window years ago, as did that of VW. Sure, I loved the handling of
my Audi, but spending $500 month to keep it running didn't turn me on
all that much. Now I'm stuck being "bored" with my Toyota Avalon.
170,000 miles and it never even hiccups. Just too bad I can't wind it
out to 140 mph, or make it to the top of a short steep freeway entrance
at more than about 80. But then the pesky roads are full of speed
limits, anyway.

My point was, what *I* consider durability is not what CR considers
durability - they don't take a long term enough approach (and really,
they can't, because you won't know how vehicles hold up after several
hundred thousand miles until a decent number of them have racked up
that kind of mileage.) I'd feel a lot better about buying, say, an
old VW with 200K miles than I would a Toyota or Honda - in fact, I
have; the best car I ever owned was an old VW Scirocco that I bought
with 180K on the clock and when I sold it at about 240K it still
showed good and even compression on all cylinders and ran like a
scared rabbit (get it? heh)

nate

Nate, I respect your opinion, and I believe your personal experience.
But, I don't see "durability" as being all that nebulous or subjective.
The word means what it means. CR takes an unemotional, scientific,
statistically based approach to it. That's based on their "frequency of
repair" reports from hundreds of thousands of owners, over many, many
years. You can say you like the styling of this car or that car, or the
handling, or whatever, but I disagree that there are two different
measures of durability.

Not everyone sees durability as the main or even as a significant factor
in car choice, but since I do, I'll side with CR because I believe in
the scientific validity of their methods.

As far as toasters, TVs, and vacuum cleaners, the major problem there is
all the private model numbering that's going on. The same item will sell
in five different big box stores under five different model numbers.
It's gotten so it's almost impossible to find the model that CR
recommends. And it's the reason those stores can offer "low price
guarantees." Technically, you'll never find that model in any other
store, so of course you won't find it at a lower price.

On May 18, 9:36 am, jim evans wrote:
On 18 May 2007 07:00:39 -0700, dpb wrote:

On the second where there is some uncertainty, in thinking about what
I've done over the last several years, I find I have made a final
selection between competing products somewhat like the other poster
noted by comparing online user comments at Amazon or similar forums.

I agree, and do this too. But, if given both a CR rating and online
user comments, though I consider both, I normally give the CR rating
more weight.

I, otoh, can't think of the last time I've looked at CR -- it's just
not a resource I think of as useful in general.

Oh, and one other reason -- for the most part, the things I buy most
frequently they simply don't rate. I don't buy much at all in the
consumer electronics or other high-volume goods and have strong enough
opinions on things like cars, etc., that I'm not influenced by others'
opinions, anyway.

Farm equipment and the kinds of tools for woodworking and so on I do
buy are beyond the level of what they look at.

On one specific issue, paint testing -- the problem there is that
while CR's tests may be perfect and there of some value, in the real
world it's similar to real estate's mantra of "location,
location, ..." -- it's all in the "preparation, preparation,
preparation." The best paint poorly applied on an improperly prepared
surface will peform more poorly than almost the worst paint well-
applied on a good surface. Hence, the anecdotal stories...

I agree with you, but I think their paint ratings are the best
information available.

I think the _best_ information available is looking at the actual in
depth product data from the manufacturers. Things like pigment
concentration levels, etc., that normal consumers never bother to look
for or understand if they do...the problem w/ their ratings when the
subject came up on a usenet thread some time ago and I looked at them
in some detail was that the same paint from the same manufacturer in
subsequent reports could get a widely different rating. Hence, the
same problem as others have noted on other products -- either the
ratings are inconsistent and/or flawed or the products themselves
aren't consistent enough to make the generalization of much value
unless you can find the specific paint tested and ensure it is
actually the same formulation as that tested -- which may not be
possible to determine. Then, one has the problem of transferring the
conditions of the test to the conditions under which one is going to
be using it -- they test may or may not be valid or have any direct
bearing. It's the same old thing of "statistically significant" -- if
the conditions aren't the same, extrapolating the results is risky.

The best one can say is that under those conditions, with their
preparation and application, the results they reported are such and
such. Whether that is useful is, imo, hard to say definitively.

Talk about a waste of air time and lazy reporting...I've
wondered but never bothered to ask--are these sponsored?

CR has no sponsored advertising or publications. Their support comes
entirely from their subscribers.

Wrong frame of reference. I'm wondering if _CR_ is sponsoring the
playing of these infomercials on the "news" casts or if it is simply a
sign of laziness and/or cost-cutting on the local stations' part to
use cheap pre-canned programming rather than having to actually do
something on their own.

On May 18, 12:03 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
In article . com,





N8N wrote:
On May 17, 11:27 pm, Smitty Two wrote:
Vehicles that have proven very durable, like many German
makes,

Ha Ha. Well, you're honest, you love your Porsche. But, in general,
German cars are terrible compared to Japanese cars for durability.
That's not some CR editor's biased or ignorant opinion. Those ratings
are based on actual owners' experiences. Mercedes' reputation went out
the window years ago, as did that of VW. Sure, I loved the handling of
my Audi, but spending $500 month to keep it running didn't turn me on
all that much. Now I'm stuck being "bored" with my Toyota Avalon.
170,000 miles and it never even hiccups. Just too bad I can't wind it
out to 140 mph, or make it to the top of a short steep freeway entrance
at more than about 80. But then the pesky roads are full of speed
limits, anyway.

My point was, what *I* consider durability is not what CR considers
durability - they don't take a long term enough approach (and really,
they can't, because you won't know how vehicles hold up after several
hundred thousand miles until a decent number of them have racked up
that kind of mileage.) I'd feel a lot better about buying, say, an
old VW with 200K miles than I would a Toyota or Honda - in fact, I
have; the best car I ever owned was an old VW Scirocco that I bought
with 180K on the clock and when I sold it at about 240K it still
showed good and even compression on all cylinders and ran like a
scared rabbit (get it? heh)

nate

Nate, I respect your opinion, and I believe your personal experience.
But, I don't see "durability" as being all that nebulous or subjective.
The word means what it means. CR takes an unemotional, scientific,
statistically based approach to it. That's based on their "frequency of
repair" reports from hundreds of thousands of owners, over many, many
years. You can say you like the styling of this car or that car, or the
handling, or whatever, but I disagree that there are two different
measures of durability.

Not everyone sees durability as the main or even as a significant factor
in car choice, but since I do, I'll side with CR because I believe in
the scientific validity of their methods.

To me, "durability" means that the product in question will last as
long as possible - i.e. it will always be cheaper to repair it if it's
broken than to replace it. Something like an old tractor; it may have
small issues, but it will keep going and going indefinitely as long as
it's kept up. IME German cars are the *only* vehicles for which this
is true, at least among cars made in the last 30 years. Any other
vehicle - eventually there's going to be a failure that will cost more
to repair than the value of the car.

CR by definition cannot assess this in their new car reports simply
because they want to get their reports on the newsstands before the
products that they're reviewing are replaced by newer, redesigned
models. Even their used vehicle reports only go back a couple years
or so, so people can assess off-lease vehicles. To my mind, *any* car
ought to be able to go 200K miles or so which is likely all that the
vehicles reported to CR have gone. What I care about is what happens
*after* that - sure I expect to repair/replace starters, alternators,
struts, etc. but what condition will the rings and bearings be in at
300K miles? How well does the upholstery hold up to "road warrior"
use? How about rustproofing, am I going to have to junk the car after
only 15 years because it needs major sheetmetal repair? that is the
kind of info that I really care about but is currently available only
anecdotally.

I guess from the above you can pretty much tell that I'm not your
average car buyer


As far as toasters, TVs, and vacuum cleaners, the major problem there is
all the private model numbering that's going on. The same item will sell
in five different big box stores under five different model numbers.
It's gotten so it's almost impossible to find the model that CR
recommends. And it's the reason those stores can offer "low price
guarantees." Technically, you'll never find that model in any other
store, so of course you won't find it at a lower price.

so true!

nate

On May 18, 11:33 am, N8N wrote:
....
To me, "durability" means that the product in question will last as
long as possible - i.e. it will always be cheaper to repair it if it's
broken than to replace it. Something like an old tractor; it may have
small issues, but it will keep going and going indefinitely as long as
it's kept up. IME German cars are the *only* vehicles for which this
is true, at least among cars made in the last 30 years. Any other
vehicle - eventually there's going to be a failure that will cost more
to repair than the value of the car.
....

That's true for any German car, too. Remember, even the 100-year
shay _eventually_ wore out.

While I'll agree it's possible to keep almost anything operational
almost indefinitely, it certainly gets to a point that except for
collector's value, the resale value will be smaller than any major
repair. The other difficulty, of course, gets to be replacement parts
for anything that isn't at least relatively common...the advantage of
Ford/Chevy/andnowToyota, etc., ...

Anecdotally, a buddy back years ago bought an old Mercedes cheap
because he also had been become convinced they were indestructable.
After two years of many very high-priced repairs, he understood fully
the reason the original owner had parted with it so cheaply...

On May 18, 11:03 am, Smitty Two wrote:
....
... I don't see "durability" as being all that nebulous or subjective.
The word means what it means. CR takes an unemotional, scientific,
statistically based approach to it. That's based on their "frequency of
repair" reports from hundreds of thousands of owners, over many, many
years. You can say you like the styling of this car or that car, or the
handling, or whatever, but I disagree that there are two different
measures of durability.

Not everyone sees durability as the main or even as a significant factor
in car choice, but since I do, I'll side with CR because I believe in
the scientific validity of their methods.

Well, CR's approach may be unemotional, but I'm not convinced that it
is either scientific and I'm quite sure it isn't really statistically-
based other than in the vernacular meaning of statistics as a
collection of numbers. That they process some reported data and
produce tables of statistics is indisputable, but other than that it's
impossible to determine from their published data anything about the
actual validity of the results.

It is, for example, _NOT_ a designed statistical sample nor are the
data collected in a uniform, regulated sampling regimen.
Consequently, there can be both reporting errors in relative frequency
and in accuracy of reports. I'll agree there's probably some general
trends that can be inferred for the most popular vehicles, but beyond
that to infer much more than that is, imo, calling the sow's ear a
silk purse.

So, my opinion is they dress up a happenstance collection of
haphazardly reported results, much of which is likely opinion, and
call it a "scientific" study. IMO, there isn't much credence or real
"scientific validity" in their methods...

But, of course, fostering the _appearance_ of such is all important to
their success, as are the white lab coats are their "scientists" in
the TV spots they produce...

On May 18, 1:44 pm, dpb wrote:
On May 18, 11:33 am, N8N wrote:
... To me, "durability" means that the product in question will last as
long as possible - i.e. it will always be cheaper to repair it if it's
broken than to replace it. Something like an old tractor; it may have
small issues, but it will keep going and going indefinitely as long as
it's kept up. IME German cars are the *only* vehicles for which this
is true, at least among cars made in the last 30 years. Any other
vehicle - eventually there's going to be a failure that will cost more
to repair than the value of the car.

...

That's true for any German car, too. Remember, even the 100-year
shay _eventually_ wore out.


True dat, but my dad's WW2 era Farmall is still going strong

While I'll agree it's possible to keep almost anything operational
almost indefinitely, it certainly gets to a point that except for
collector's value, the resale value will be smaller than any major
repair.

Sure. That's really the point I was trying to make... I don't care
about the niggling little problems, but I want some sort of assurance
that, say, the engine or transmission won't have to be opened up for a
good long time.

The other difficulty, of course, gets to be replacement parts
for anything that isn't at least relatively common...the advantage of
Ford/Chevy/andnowToyota, etc., ...


Or from another tack any car with a rabid enthusiast base, preferably
one that uses the particular car that you have for racing - that
ensures a good supply of aftermarket parts.

Anecdotally, a buddy back years ago bought an old Mercedes cheap
because he also had been become convinced they were indestructable.
After two years of many very high-priced repairs, he understood fully
the reason the original owner had parted with it so cheaply...

Let me guess... it was a Diesel and the old mechanical injection pump
eventually went Tango Uniform?

nate

On May 18, 1:11 pm, jim evans wrote:
On 18 May 2007 10:55:12 -0700, dpb wrote:

That they process some reported data and
produce tables of statistics is indisputable, but other than that it's
impossible to determine from their published data anything about the
actual validity of the results.

It is, for example, _NOT_ a designed statistical sample nor are the
data collected in a uniform, regulated sampling regimen.
Consequently, there can be both reporting errors in relative frequency
and in accuracy of reports.

And your better source of well designed statistically tight data on
repair histories is . . .?

Don't know, never had any real reason to pursue it -- but that's not
really the point.

Their data is of some value, just don't take it to be much more than a
collection of anecdotal evidence...it was the apparent acceptance of
the appearance CR is trying to produce of thinking far more is in the
reports than really is that I was geting to.

(And, yes, I'm a cynic when it comes to CR -- as I've said before, I
think the prime interest in CR is promoting CR -- not that they don't
have a right to make a business doing whatever, but one has to
remember they're simply that, not a benevolent minister to the
uninformed.... ).

"N8N" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 18, 12:26 am, "Dan" wrote:
You're a lucky man;

Why, thank you.

from all I've heard Mitsus are the exception to
the rule when it comes to Japanese cars - the rep among gearhead
circles is that Mitsus are really fun cars to drive and also really
fragile and expensive to repair.

Not sure where you're getting your data, or which unspecified "gearhead
circles" you surveyed, but in keeping with the theme of this thread I should
point out that in 2005 (most recent data I found in a casual search) CR
ranked Mitsubishi 7th out of 36 makes in terms reliability, topped only by
Scion, Lexus, Toyota, Subaru, Honda & Acura, in that order. When you
consider that these 6 brands are actually only 3 companies, placing 4th
ain't bad. It ranked above ALL US & European marques, as well as Infiniti,
Suzuki, Mazda, & Nissan.

A possible exception would be the
DSM cars (Eclipse/Laser/Talon) but those have been out of production
for quite some time.


Yeah, hard to imagine how removing Jeep & Plymouth from the mix (DSM was
Mitsu, Eagle & Plymouth) would DEGRADE quality... Car preference tends to
be a subjective area with much irrational "brand loyalty" and anecdotal
accounts. I can point you to a number of online EVO enthusiast groups where
the cars are quite fiercely supported. All I know (again) is I've had NO
trouble with mine and it's an absolte blast to drive, and in testing it
outpreforms quite a number of cars which cost MUCH more.

I for one think the CR data are just one thing you look at. Not the only
thing, maybe not last word, but worth considering.

Dan

On May 18, 12:55 pm, N8N wrote:
On May 18, 1:44 pm, dpb wrote:

On May 18, 11:33 am, N8N wrote:
... To me, "durability" means that the product in question will last as
long as possible - i.e. it will always be cheaper to repair it if it's
broken than to replace it. Something like an old tractor; it may have
small issues, but it will keep going and going indefinitely as long as
it's kept up. IME German cars are the *only* vehicles for which this
is true, at least among cars made in the last 30 years. Any other
vehicle - eventually there's going to be a failure that will cost more
to repair than the value of the car.

...

That's true for any German car, too. Remember, even the 100-year
shay _eventually_ wore out.

True dat, but my dad's WW2 era Farmall is still going strong

No Farmalls left, but they were traded in -- last Farmall (LP-gas 560)
went for the Case 930. But, hardly a fair comparison to consumer
automobile/truck when consider the construction techniques and
performance characteristics. Very few tractors of that vintage are
used in the "all day every day" mode any more. May be used pretty
regularly and mow a little, have a bucket and/or blade, but rarely are
they the real workhorse.

Oldest still have here is the JD 4440 which is now a small tractor
whereas it is half-again the hp (@ roughly 125 of the Case which was
about as big as they got at 85-90 when we got it...my, how times have
changed from 4 to 6 to 8 and now 12 row planters and from 12-14'
chisel to 36' or larger. Of course, we've mostly gone to low- or no-
till so not so much continuous field work other than planting anymore.

....
Anecdotally, a buddy back years ago bought an old Mercedes cheap
because he also had been become convinced they were indestructable.
After two years of many very high-priced repairs, he understood fully
the reason the original owner had parted with it so cheaply...

Let me guess... it was a Diesel and the old mechanical injection pump
eventually went Tango Uniform?

It was diesel, but long enough ago I don't recall any particular
problem much other than seems like there were a lot of what should
have been minor little things like switches and so on. Problem was
each one would be like a $75 part and then have to tear the whole
interior apart to replace it...

dpb wrote:
On May 18, 12:55 pm, N8N wrote:

On May 18, 1:44 pm, dpb wrote:


On May 18, 11:33 am, N8N wrote:
... To me, "durability" means that the product in question will last as

long as possible - i.e. it will always be cheaper to repair it if it's
broken than to replace it. Something like an old tractor; it may have
small issues, but it will keep going and going indefinitely as long as
it's kept up. IME German cars are the *only* vehicles for which this
is true, at least among cars made in the last 30 years. Any other
vehicle - eventually there's going to be a failure that will cost more
to repair than the value of the car.

...

That's true for any German car, too. Remember, even the 100-year
shay _eventually_ wore out.

True dat, but my dad's WW2 era Farmall is still going strong


No Farmalls left, but they were traded in -- last Farmall (LP-gas 560)
went for the Case 930. But, hardly a fair comparison to consumer
automobile/truck when consider the construction techniques and
performance characteristics. Very few tractors of that vintage are
used in the "all day every day" mode any more. May be used pretty
regularly and mow a little, have a bucket and/or blade, but rarely are
they the real workhorse.

Oldest still have here is the JD 4440 which is now a small tractor
whereas it is half-again the hp (@ roughly 125 of the Case which was
about as big as they got at 85-90 when we got it...my, how times have
changed from 4 to 6 to 8 and now 12 row planters and from 12-14'
chisel to 36' or larger. Of course, we've mostly gone to low- or no-
till so not so much continuous field work other than planting anymore.

...

Anecdotally, a buddy back years ago bought an old Mercedes cheap
because he also had been become convinced they were indestructable.
After two years of many very high-priced repairs, he understood fully
the reason the original owner had parted with it so cheaply...

Let me guess... it was a Diesel and the old mechanical injection pump
eventually went Tango Uniform?


It was diesel, but long enough ago I don't recall any particular
problem much other than seems like there were a lot of what should
have been minor little things like switches and so on. Problem was
each one would be like a $75 part and then have to tear the whole
interior apart to replace it...


yeah, you'll have that. To own an older German car you have to be
comfortable doing component level repairs and maybe a little nuts. Once
I found out what new power window switches cost for a BMW for example I
discovered that most of the nonfunctional ones could easily be
disassembled by some judicious prying with a pocketknife or jeweler's
screwdriver, the contacts cleaned with a pencil eraser, and the switch
reassembled to work fine for another year or ten...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

My problem with CR is that they usually test the "yuppy" priced products.

They may rate Mercedes as the best station wagon,
but that hardly affects the greater population.

Too many of their tests are between products out of my price range.







On Fri, 18 May 2007 07:52:25 -0500, jim evans
wrote:
I've bought many products based on CRs, and the disappointments are
much fewer than products I had to decide without their advice.

So, for you folks who think CR's a joke, just keep asking your
brother-in-law. I'll ask the people who have actually tested many
brands of refrigerators (not just the two they've owned), and the
100,000 plus people how well all the different brands they've owned
held up.

-- jim

rj

On May 19, 1:53 pm, "RJ" wrote:
My problem with CR is that they usually test the "yuppy" priced products.

I think there's no doubt that's their prime audience...
....

Too many of their tests are between products out of my price range.
Or, if not price, products of no interest...

Or, what happend to "rugged individualism"?