riredale

I'm not sure I understand the anger and/or frustration here. A new car is introduced. All one can say for the moment is that it is likely to have characteristics similar to other products from the company. Road test will eventually come out and will be mostly subjective based on the reviewer's impressions versus other similar cars. Readers will eventually weigh in with more concrete reliability data.

I'd much rather have CR data and opinions than not. If I'm buying a coffeemaker I also look at Amazon feedback. The more the merrier.

LeX2K

This doesn't make sense, CR gets their data from 400,000 subscribers how would them driving the car change the data in the slightest? And to repeat myself NEW cars are rated based on past models and the history of the brand, the only way to do it. If you don't like this then just ignore but I've yet to see a more reliable source.

Duck05

Their process bases "predicted reliability" for all new cars using previous similar models. Only when they buy and test a vehicle at their testing facility in Connecticut do they score and rate against other cars in the slotted class. And, the survey data they collect every year is used extensively.

Better than nothing ......

Toys4RJill

Completely agree. Another attention grabbing scheme from CR. They used to be good, buy they are junk now.

tex2670

It USED TO be their policy that they won't predict reliability of a new car. I have subscribed to CR for decades, and it's definitely gone downhill. They've pushed so much content online, for an additional fee.

Toys4RJill

Yup, completely downhill. I think they now review 4-5 different segment cars in each issue. In the past it would be 4-5 cars from within segment.

tex2670

I'm not a fan of that--I do like seeing the same class cars side by side. But even worse is that the reviews have been shortened so much that they really provide little to no information. They have re-formatted the mag at least 3 times in the past 6 years. I was about to let my subscription lapse, when they changed again fixing some of the mistakes, and I couldn't bring myself to do it. I'm on the fence each year.

mmarshall

Yeah...after reading the paper-copies for some 50 years since I was in high school, I think I'm going to let my paper-subscription run out this year. Considering that me and my brother share an account-password to their on-line data, the monthly paper-magazine is redundant.....and doesn't contain that much information. Usually, after I'm done reading it, as I do with Road & Track (whose paper-subscription I'm also about to give up), after blanking out my name and subscription-data, I just donate them to my local library's free-take-home shelf.

Toys4RJill

Yes, they did change it. The reviews by CR suck IMO. They are not informative and they are not interesting. I really don't like the videos they do. Worst part of it all is that they wait months after everyone has published their reviews. Issue I have is that they can tailor their reviews to the way everyone else has. In contrast, a review from let's say Autoblog (who are no longer very good) will release their review day and date like everyone else. This way there is influence to what has been previously written. I understand that CR so says they buy their cars, but IMO that outweighs releasing the reviews months after everyone else has. It is interesting to note that the LC500 they used for their first impression was "rented" from Lexus and not bought. So they do stuff to make sure they are in the headlines when they want to.

Htony

Every thing is about $$. True review of anything is impossible. The author will starve then. Even academics can't publish their research result truthfully. Then no one ever will give research fund to the author. Look at all the magazines, most are ads. there is nothing much worth reading.

mmarshall

I think you are going off a little on a tangent, Jill. Subjectively, you've got a perfect right to say that you dislike CR's reviews....that's your prerogative, and it's true that few reviewers, even at CR, can compete with somebody like Alex Dykes. But, to say that CR waits for other reviews, and then either tries to play copy-cat or tailor them to CR standards....no, with all due respect, I can't agree with that. CR has long had its own style of auto-reviews, and has basically stuck to them for years, though, in retrospect, they are usually a less enthusiast-oriented type of review and less-concerned with the maximum, all-out performance figures like you find in the enthusiast mags. Like when I myself review a vehicle, CR is generally more concerned with its daily-drive characteristics, what it would probably be like to live with on a daily basis, and what you actually get for your money. Even the enthusiast magazines do that to some extent...with the "Four-Seasons" long-term tests they do with vehicles provided to them by the manufacturers, which measure reliability, economy, DD experience, and other factors,

I do agree, however, wth the earlier comment that CR's earlier system of test-driving several different vehicles (competitors) in each class was better than the *****-nilly, haphazard way they publish their reviews now. For instance, having the Camry, Altima, Accord, Malibu, Passat, and Fusion (with comparable drivetrains and trim-levels) all tested and reported on in the same article is more informative than having each car tossed in at random.

Toys4RJill

I am sure CRs subscriber base is nowhere near what it once was. This is why they resort to attention getting schemes.

MattyG

Go back to the top of this thread and see how it was started and apparently why it was started. To bash CR. Look at what was posted completely out of context. And then look at who chimes in. When I see what's NOT being posted then I want to know more.

Here is what CR actually said in its Tesla 3 review. This is their disclaimer that the OP did not want to post.



https://www.consumerreports.org/car-...3-reliability/

What part of the English language are people having a problem with? They told you what they think based on what they know, and they've said they will test the vehicle when they get a hold of one. And they won't go to a fancy hotel and restaurant dining driving tour to do it. If people are having a problem with new media vs old media or "my youtube review gets more hits than yours", well I don't know of anybody that makes a major decision based on online reviews other than to supplement what they would like to read from JD, CR or car mags.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Lol at your assertion i didn't want to post that. Hadn't seen it, but reading it makes CR look even more ridiculous.

how does CR know what components are shared between the 3 and other Tesla models?

so what i have a problem with is stating a 'predicted reliability' with no review, no subscriber survey data, and probably no knowledge of what 'components' are shared... i expect the 3 is almost entirely new to meet cost and manufacturing goals... while CR likely has some archaic view of shared parts on assembly lines between chevy's and buicks or something.

LeX2K

Every auto maker shares components it is impossible, not to mention impractical and expensive to make exclusive parts for a given model this goes against the very thing that makes cars affordable, mass production. In the case of Tesla they will share many electronic components/controllers, batteries, motors the list will be extensive.