Many cars flunk new type of crash test

[cpzilliacus]

L.A. Times:  Many cars flunk new type of crash test

When a car's front corner hits something, what happens? The driver often gets seriously injured, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's new crash test finds.

Results of a new crash test that focused on luxury cars are raising worries that most vehicles may not be able to provide protection from serious injuries in a common accident.

Such fancy nameplates as BMW, Mercedes and Lexus all earned "poor" ratings in a test that simulated what happens when the front corner of a sedan hits another vehicle or an object such as a tree or pole, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Just three of 11 luxury cars from the 2012 model year passed the new crash test, which looked at front-corner impacts, which are not well protected by vehicles' crush-zone structures.

If luxury vehicles are failing at a high rate, it is likely that most cars won't do well, said David Champion, who directs Consumer Reports' auto testing program.

[US71]

More from Consumer Reports:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/08/new-iihs-front-car-crash-test-promises-to-make-a-big-safety-impact.html

[bugo]

I don't trust Consumer Reports any further than I can throw them.

[US71]

I don't trust Consumer Reports any further than I can throw them.

And why is that? I've been reading them for years, as did my dad, and I can recall only one bad review .

[agentsteel53]

I don't trust Consumer Reports any further than I can throw them.

And why is that? I've been reading them for years, as did my dad, and I can recall only one bad review .

that seems to reinforce the point.  if all they do is give out good reviews, either they are not being objective, or everything is above average.

while I understand that many below-average products are culled before they have a chance to reach the market, I've had plenty of experience with shitty things to note that, indeed, some things are shitty.

[US71]

I don't trust Consumer Reports any further than I can throw them.

And why is that? I've been reading them for years, as did my dad, and I can recall only one bad review .

that seems to reinforce the point.  if all they do is give out good reviews, either they are not being objective, or everything is above average.

while I understand that many below-average products are culled before they have a chance to reach the market, I've had plenty of experience with shitty things to note that, indeed, some things are shitty.

And CR tells you if stuff is a piece of crap. What I was saying is I can only recall one review that they bungled: they gave an acceptable to a vehicle (Plymouth Horizon?) that 6 months later they said was a piece of crap... right after my dad bought one.

[kphoger]

I don't trust Consumer Reports any further than I can throw them.

And why is that? I've been reading them for years, as did my dad, and I can recall only one bad review .

that seems to reinforce the point.  if all they do is give out good reviews, either they are not being objective, or everything is above average.

while I understand that many below-average products are culled before they have a chance to reach the market, I've had plenty of experience with shitty things to note that, indeed, some things are shitty.

And CR tells you if stuff is a piece of crap. What I was saying is I can only recall one review that they bungled: they gave an acceptable to a vehicle (Plymouth Horizon?) that 6 months later they said was a piece of crap... right after my dad bought one.

To be fair, it's a little hard to tell repair history on a brand-new model.  When the same model is issued for several years in a row, they have some history to base their rating off of, but a brand-new model's "history" not as useful.

[Alps]

Consumer Reports is the NY Post of periodicals. You know it's not the Enquirer or Star, but it's unsettlingly far away from good journalism.

[agentsteel53]

Consumer Reports is the NY Post of periodicals. You know it's not the Enquirer or Star, but it's unsettlingly far away from good journalism.

then, what is the Enquirer of periodicals?

also, whatever happened to Weekly World News?  that one was by far the most fun one.  Bat Boy > Michael Jackson any day of the week.

[Takumi]

Weekly World News is now included in the Sun.

[WillWeaverRVA]

I usually disregard Consumer Reports for anything significant with regard to photography, at the very least. The Pentax K-5 received critical acclaim from many photography magazines and websites, but was given a scathing review by CR (basically, "buy a Canon or Nikon instead").

[US71]

I usually disregard Consumer Reports for anything significant with regard to photography, at the very least. The Pentax K-5 received critical acclaim from many photography magazines and websites, but was given a scathing review by CR (basically, "buy a Canon or Nikon instead").

I mostly use dpreview for cameras. That's a bit out of CR's purview.

[formulanone]

Consumer Reports does a decent job testing appliances. Precision equipment, not so much. They don't crash test the cars, even tough they may take a Louisville Slugger to a washing machine, but they're just reporting the IIHS results.

They only perform rather basic "road tests" to collect some data; mostly phlegmatic responses, never describing much of anything with emotional, sporting, nor breaking any journalistic boundaries, compared to an enthusiast and specialist magazine. They do focus on projected total cost of ownership or owner surveys, for example. Which is fine enough for some people.

Corner impacts with a large solid objects can be a rough ride, because there's less energy dissipation upon impact, since there's now a smaller frontal area to absorb the impact (you're better off transferring the energy in a direct head-on collision, the way the average vehicle is designed). Vehicles have been designed in the past twenty years to absorb a direct frontal hit or side impact, so ideally the front or sides will more or less equally deform in all directions, and disperse mass to reduce post-impact momentum.

Of course, these accidents are produced in a laboratory setting, and all the internal and external variables in a real-world collision cannot possibly be factored into consideration of an "ideal crash". You sometimes get some auto nameplates that more or less "design for the types of impact", to sell more vehicles because they get a 5-star rating. That still bodes well for its occupants, probability-wise, but it's not a perfect system.

then, what is the Enquirer of periodicals?

Details or Lucky. Maxim follows quite closely, but it at least has roughly 10 minutes of entertainment value among the bathroom jokes.

[Brandon]

I don't trust Consumer Reports any further than I can throw them.

Most agreed.  They use a reader feedback loop that turns into a circle jerk.

[agentsteel53]

they may take a Louisville Slugger to a washing machine

how is that part of the usage model of a washing machine?  I am not going to buy Washing Machine A over Washing Machine B because A stands up to wanton abuse better.  the washing machine is supposed to sit in a room and wash clothes; there is no real-world reason why it should be tested for impact survival. 

if the installation guy drops the thing on the way to putting it in your laundry room, then you're probably owed a new one.  if you install it yourself and drop it, you should've gotten a professional to do it for you!

[J N Winkler]

My family has subscribed to Consumer Reports for years partly because the methodology underlying their reviews is very good in some product sectors, and partly because we believe that independent consumer advocacy is important for safe and usable product design.  That doesn't mean we believe everything they say is gospel.  My latest favorite misstep of theirs relates to dishwasher design--they maintain that dishwashers are now so good that they can remove any food stain without pre-rinsing, which is flatly contradicted by our own experience with a dishwasher we purchased in 2011 (which was a model they recommended).

The testers at Consumer Reports are generalists.  They are reasonably good at identifying trends in product design and explaining them to lay readers who don't follow developments in a given product sector but want a good user experience and value for money.  Because they are independent, they can call a spade a spade, and in autos they were among the first to decry bad ideas like center-mounted gauge clusters and in-car entertainment centers.  But they are poorly equipped to deal with short product cycles (hence, their laptop reviews are essentially worthless), fine segmentation of the market in terms of features and price (another reason their laptop reviews are valueless), and types of product for which specialized testing is necessary to expose differences that are meaningful for the serious customer (the reason I would not trust their digital camera reviews to choose a digital point-and-shoot for specialized applications like available-light document photography in records offices).  Also, because they privilege their subscribers above the general public in building their online ratings databases (probably to prevent corporate entryism), they are poorly equipped to crowd-source, which is fundamental not just to Amazon.com's customer reviews but also to forums attached to laptop and digital camera review sites.

[formulanone]

they may take a Louisville Slugger to a washing machine

how is that part of the usage model of a washing machine?  I am not going to buy Washing Machine A over Washing Machine B because A stands up to wanton abuse better.  the washing machine is supposed to sit in a room and wash clothes; there is no real-world reason why it should be tested for impact survival. 

if the installation guy drops the thing on the way to putting it in your laundry room, then you're probably owed a new one.  if you install it yourself and drop it, you should've gotten a professional to do it for you!

I was exaggerating a little on the side of hyperbole. I still stand by the magazine comments, however.

[kkt]

So if you don't use Consumer Reports, what do you use to find out what cars are reliable?  The buff book car magazines never talk about reliability or depreciation, and get cherry-picked cars to review.  Your circle of family and friends?  Click and clack?  Consumer Reports may not be perfect, but they have a larger sample that's more free of bias than any other source that's likely to be available to consumers.

[JREwing78]

I'll echo the "generalist" theme to their reporting. They're not so great at specialized devices like computers, particularly when they change frequently. Their car reviews are pretty flavor-free, but they tell it like it is. Their reliability surveys may not be perfect, but they're head-and-shoulders above anyone else in the field (JD Power's surveys have little to do with reliability).

The IIHS is in the business of finding new ways to justify the premiums their sponsors (the insurance industry) are paid. Get too many cars registering good crash scores? Make the test tougher. It's one reason why subcompact cars are frequently now 3000 instead of 2000 lbs, and why full-size pickups are now 5500lbs instead of 4000lbs.

[agentsteel53]

So if you don't use Consumer Reports, what do you use to find out what cars are reliable?  The buff book car magazines never talk about reliability or depreciation, and get cherry-picked cars to review.  Your circle of family and friends?  Click and clack?  Consumer Reports may not be perfect, but they have a larger sample that's more free of bias than any other source that's likely to be available to consumers.

various crowdsourcing?  google stuff like "[make, model, year] reliability".

before purchasing my latest car, I did some research and found that the 2001 Ford Taurus is adequately reliable, with the first major component to go generally being the transmission.  I accepted the risk and bought the car.  has served me well ever since!

[Alps]

So if you don't use Consumer Reports, what do you use to find out what cars are reliable?  The buff book car magazines never talk about reliability or depreciation, and get cherry-picked cars to review.  Your circle of family and friends?  Click and clack?  Consumer Reports may not be perfect, but they have a larger sample that's more free of bias than any other source that's likely to be available to consumers.

various crowdsourcing?  google stuff like "[make, model, year] reliability".

before purchasing my latest car, I did some research and found that the 2001 Ford Taurus is adequately reliable, with the first major component to go generally being the transmission.  I accepted the risk and bought the car.  has served me well ever since!

That piece of shit? Dies at 110K and every 4K thereafter.

[kphoger]

specialized devices

Which I wouldn't choose based on a magazine anyway.  I would ask someone I know and trust, who actually uses them.

I like reading Consumer Reports, but have never bought anything based on their recommendations.  Our car was the only van on the lot we could afford; Consumer Reports likely hated it, and we've certainly replaced a lot more parts on it than if it were a Toyota, but it does OK.  The most useful thing on their car reviews comes once a year (at least it used to) in their all-models issue:  the used car ratings for all models for the past few years.

They do sometimes take issue with rather minor things.  They all but called Saab anathema for putting the ignition switch on the center console.  Like, who buys a car based on the position of the ignition switch?

[agentsteel53]

That piece of shit? Dies at 110K and every 4K thereafter.

not dies, just has some minor thing go wrong, which can be fixed for $100-200.

[corco]

The main problem with Consumer Reports is for longevity it relies on past data (this is a problem with any longevity study).

Whereas a 1998 Camry was almost certainly a better car than a 1998 Taurus, a 2012 Camry is not that much better than a 2012 Fusion, at least by initial reliability studies by organizations like JD Power that disregard past products.

The relative difference between foreign and domestic cars has really narrowed in the last few years unless you're Chrysler, but Consumer Reports is so dependent on past data and last-generation product to make their judgment on current product that it's tough to know what they're talking about. Anything made by Ford or GM today is as good as anything made by Toyota and Honda, as the domestics have caught up just as the foreign jobs have started cost cutting (if you buy a new Corolla over a new Focus, for instance, you're paying for a brand name and nothing else- had you even tried to test drive the Focus I can nearly guarantee you would have gone that route). That may not have been the case in the 80s and 90s, but it is the case today, and it's going to take Consumer Reports a few more years to catch up with that.

I'd use Consumer Reports for sure if I was buying a used car- I could use this year's Consumer Reports to find out the best 2004 model year car I can buy, but JD Power is the way to go for new cars.

[formulanone]

They all but called Saab anathema for putting the ignition switch on the center console.  Like, who buys a car based on the position of the ignition switch?

If you place your coffee in the cupholder next to the ignition switch, you may have a problem in time. Saabs are odd, Saabs are strong, Saabs are weird, Saab was treated like a cheap whore by GM, and thus Saab itself is dead.