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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.