Consumer Reports kudos for Subaru

[Hal Whelply]

I know it's not considered good form to reference Consumer Reports in some
circles (like most auto discussion groups), but you may want to take a look
at the April 2005 annual auto issue. For starters, check out p. 17, in an
article entitled "U.S. autos narrow the gap." The section titled "Asia:
Mainly positive, but with glitches," says, "Subaru showed significant
improvement. This year, with just 8 problems per 100 cars, it had the best
reliabillity rrecord of any 2004 make."

In the "Vehicle profiles" section, p. 72, the Baja and Legacy/Outback are
"Recommended" models, and the Forester is rated even higher as a "Top Pick."

Under "2005 Cars Ratings" on p. 35, the Forester is the top-rated among
"Small Sport-Utility Vehicles"; the worst they could say about it ("Lows")
was "Gated shifter." Under "Highs" is "Ride, agility, steering, controls and
displays, crash-test results, reliability."

 

[LT]

What's wrong with quoting the best unbiased review company in the world?
Under small SUVs they rate the Forester #1 followed by ...
RAV4, Vibe, Matrix, Baja, CR-V, Escape, Tribute, Element and others.
In the past, they rated the RAV4 or CR-V highest. Props to Sube....
LT
-----------------------------

 

[Ian Brown]

Under "2005 Cars Ratings" on p. 35, the Forester is the top-rated among

"Small Sport-Utility Vehicles"; the worst they could say about it ("Lows")
was "Gated shifter." Under "Highs" is "Ride, agility, steering, controls
and displays, crash-test results, reliability."

I love my Forester, however I would not rate the controls and displays as
"Highs".

In daylight it is impossible to tell what setting the aircon is set to,
those little green lights just dont show up, I suppose that's the penalty
for having such a huge sunroof and non-tinted windows. The speedo is also
hard to see, I usually have the headlights on, just to see my speed (lots of
speed cameras in England).

And it usually takes me about a minute to work out which button is for the
heated wing-mirrors, I always seem to press the headlight washers first,
which of course will be frozen up.

For the money I would have expected an MPG readout, and an indication of
which gear the car decided it was using, and don't even get me started on
the OEM radio.

However, the other controls are all top notch, including the cruise control.

Still the best small SUV on the market.

Ian.
Forester 04 XT AT

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

I THINK you might be able to hold down the off button and toggle that
display to a brigghter mode. Seems like my OBW does something like that.
Try it or check the manual.

Carl

 

[H]

I think Consumers Reports are excellent refs. I bought my first new Subaru
in 1986, an 86 GL Wagon based on Consumers Reports of the day claiming crash
worthiness and owner satisfaction. I bought my current 04 Forester for the
same (and other) reasons. I would never trust the industry voice
publications such as Car & Driver and the like.

 

[John Rethorst]

I think Consumers Reports are excellent refs. I bought my first new Subaru
in 1986, an 86 GL Wagon based on Consumers Reports of the day claiming crash
worthiness and owner satisfaction. I bought my current 04 Forester for the
same (and other) reasons. I would never trust the industry voice
publications such as Car & Driver and the like.

Depends. Wasn't it Consumer Reports, about a decade ago, that criticized a small
Jeep kind of car - Suzuki? - as tending to roll over. The testing agency then
showed videos showing the car being tested. The agency had added steel bars
extending out 10 feet or so from the middle of the left and right sides, with a
wheel at the end, to prevent the car from rolling over and injuring the driver.
Fine, but these bars changed the whole angular momentum (if that's the right
term) of the car, making the test car much less stable than the stock vehicle.

I've read other CR tests that similarly showed that the organization didn't have
much depth of knowledge of what they were testing. That's not too much of a
criticism, since they test everything in sight, but an editorial staff that
spends all their time testing cars would do better in some ways. Reliability is
not one of them, though: the agency just counts problems per year.

IAC, CNN's report on the CR report, at
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/04/pf/autos/bc.autos.survey.reut/?cnn=yes, says:

"The most reliable brand overall is now Subaru, which averages eight problems
per 100," Consumer Reports said.

which is just great.

 

[John A. Mason]

I THINK you might be able to hold down the off button and toggle that
display to a brigghter mode. Seems like my OBW does something like that.
Try it or check the manual.

Carl

This is true for both the radio and A/C controls on my '02 VDC H6. Holding
down the 'Off' buttons for 2 seconds will toggle the display from 'low' to
'high'. Very handy for rainy, misty days when you have to have your
headlights on but ambient light is still high.
John

 

[CompUser]

@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...

Depends. Wasn't it Consumer Reports, about a decade ago, that criticized a small
Jeep kind of car - Suzuki? - as tending to roll over. The testing agency then
showed videos showing the car being tested. The agency had added steel bars
extending out 10 feet or so from the middle of the left and right sides, with a
wheel at the end, to prevent the car from rolling over and injuring the driver.
Fine, but these bars changed the whole angular momentum (if that's the right
term) of the car, making the test car much less stable than the stock vehicle.

Wow...nice try, lol.

CU identified an unsafe design, period. Even
memos within GM and Suzuki, pre-release, showed
they recognized it as an unsafe design, and some
corporate voices spoke out against releasing it
without major changes.

Suzuki finally lost that case, after what, three
runs thru appeals, and probably fifteen years?

I know a guy who lost a daughter in a rollover of
one of those.

 

[John Rethorst]

Wow...nice try, lol.

CU identified an unsafe design, period.

I didn't say it wasn't. SUVs in general have a greater tendency to roll over.
It's also credible that Suzuki knew about it before the car's release. My point
was only that CU tested a heavily modified vehicle that was very much unlike the
vehicles offered for sale.

 

[jabario]

I take a lot of CR info with a grain of salt. They badmouthed the 95
Trooper even though the Trooper was rated as high quality as the
Landcruiser. They also did a hatchet job on the suzuli samurai. The
ford bronco II is the scariest vehicle I ever drove . Suvs arent
sports cars - if people overdrive thats too bad.

 

[Hal Whelply]

...Reliability is
not one of them, though: the agency just counts problems per year.

And what would you suggest as a better metric?

Seems to me that if Car A has an average of 5 problems a year, and Car B has
10, Car A is the best bet for reliability. Sure, probably a more
sophisticated methodology would yield deeper insights. But seems to me
that's a good, basic start.

In the case of EVERY car I've owned, CR's reliability indicators,
descriptions, etc., have been spot on.

HW

 

[John Rethorst]

the agency just counts problems per year.

And what would you suggest as a better metric?

Nothing at all. I like CR's reliability ratings.

 

[DragonRider]

Depends. Wasn't it Consumer Reports, about a decade ago, that criticized a small
Jeep kind of car - Suzuki? - as tending to roll over.

Suzuki Samurai was the vehicle and they did, unfortunately, kill it
from our shores. The biggest problem is that it was never meant to be
a freeway vehicle or to handle like a sedan. It was (and still is in
many countries) one of the best, cheapest, easiest off-roading
vehicles on the planet. I have friends with '88 model Samurai's that
can go places with just tire upgrades that I can't get my lightly
modded Wrangler to go. They weigh nothing, they go anywhere, they are
nearly impossible to kill, and they are cheap to keep on the road.
Too bad the idiot media killed them off by warning away the
uneducated. Then again, they did the same thing with Audi (unintended
acceleration = putting your foot on the wrong pedal and being
typically American "I can't possibly have done something wrong, I
can't make money that way!"), and even attempted the same on the Chevy
pickup's with the side-mounted tanks (Dateline still never regained
much credibility after that bottle-rocket fiasco).

The testing agency then
showed videos showing the car being tested. The agency had added steel bars
extending out 10 feet or so from the middle of the left and right sides, with a
wheel at the end, to prevent the car from rolling over and injuring the driver.
Fine, but these bars changed the whole angular momentum (if that's the right
term) of the car, making the test car much less stable than the stock vehicle.

If you think about it, those somewhat heavy (required to sustain the
weight and prevent the roll) bars are also very low which HELPS to
lower the cars center of gravity and as each bar is about equal and
equally spaced it shouldn't have any real affect on the stability.


The way I look at it, I don't let the media make any of my car buying
decisions unless they are going to be writing the monthly checks for
it. If they want to do that then they are welcome to tell me what
kind of car to buy.

 

[Edward Hayes]

Statistically CU used base their reports on an minimum of 500
respondents per model which is sooooooooo much better than asking your
neighbor or salesman. Does anyone KNOW the number of respondents
today or is it still am minimum of 500 and if less than 500 it goes
into the " insufficient data." column.

 

[Generic]

I didn't say it wasn't. SUVs in general have a greater tendency to roll over.
It's also credible that Suzuki knew about it before the car's release. My point
was only that CU tested a heavily modified vehicle that was very much unlike the
vehicles offered for sale.

Suzuki sued CU and lost. CU made a big deal about their 'victory' years
later, and still brings it up.

I think both sides had a point. The car was fine for its intended purpose,
but risky in how it was used on the street. The CJ-5 and Bronco II were
criticized for the same reason but I'd be comfortable driving any of them as
they were meant to be driven. Tall and narrow vehicles fill a legitimate off
road niche.

-John

 

[P T]

When it comes to cars, I like CR. Their auto issue is a handy compendium
of facts and relatively unbiased opinions. They pay site has more info,
I think, which I found useful when I selected my Forester last August. I
trust their reliability data too.

I find their ratings of small objects less useful. My brother won't buy
a hammer or drill without memorizing what CR has written, but I don't
think their critiques are very important for something I only use once
or twice a year. Furthermore, it can be very difficult to find their
preferred choice in a product or appliance, considering how often
manufacturers change their product lines.

Finally, for some products I pay no attention to CR. I have been
upgrading my 20 year old stereo. CR had little or no useful info for
these products. I found research at sites such as avsforum.com and
hometheaterforum.com and similar sites to be the place to glean the
opinions of true connoisseurs.

Opinionated Pete

 

[Ian Brown]

This is true for both the radio and A/C controls on my '02 VDC H6. Holding
down the 'Off' buttons for 2 seconds will toggle the display from 'low' to
'high'. Very handy for rainy, misty days when you have to have your
headlights on but ambient light is still high.
John

I stand corrected, my forester does do this, (only taken me 6 months to find
this out) however it doesn't seem to remember that I want it bright and I
have to re-brighten it every time I start the car, but yes it's certainly
visible now

Thanks, Ian.

 

[CompUser]

@news.nntpservers.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...

Suzuki sued CU and lost. CU made a big deal about their 'victory' years
later, and still brings it up.

The case was only finally closed last year,
believe it or not!

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

SELF hi-5 !!!

Carl

I stand corrected, my forester does do this, (only taken me 6 months to find
this out) however it doesn't seem to remember that I want it bright and I
have to re-brighten it every time I start the car, but yes it's certainly
visible now

Thanks, Ian.

 

[Adam Helberg]

Depends. Wasn't it Consumer Reports, about a decade ago, that criticized a small
Jeep kind of car - Suzuki? - as tending to roll over. The testing agency then
showed videos showing the car being tested. The agency had added steel bars
extending out 10 feet or so from the middle of the left and right sides, with a
wheel at the end, to prevent the car from rolling over and injuring the driver.
Fine, but these bars changed the whole angular momentum (if that's the right
term) of the car, making the test car much less stable than the stock vehicle.

I've read other CR tests that similarly showed that the organization didn't have
much depth of knowledge of what they were testing. That's not too much of a
criticism, since they test everything in sight, but an editorial staff that
spends all their time testing cars would do better in some ways. Reliability is
not one of them, though: the agency just counts problems per year.

IAC, CNN's report on the CR report, at
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/04/pf/autos/bc.autos.survey.reut/?cnn=yes, says:


which is just great.

Suzuki and Sharper Image(with their useless air ionizer) both lost their lawsuits
against Consumer Reports.

Adam