Anyone concerned with Consumers "not recomended rating"?

[DoomsdayJesus]

Again, for anyone saying CR is old farts filling out surveys, you simply chose to type before knowing what you're talking about. Page 3.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/a...ting/index.htm

Edit: Yeah this looks like geriatrics breaking pencil leads as they angrily fill in bubbles, and not a professional organization buying two cars for testing at their privately owned track:
http://video.consumerreports.org/ser...=1779346044001

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by BRZfan

My quip about the car is that it lacks torque at the standing start in first gear. I would rather have more torque and a with lower gear ratio (or is it higher) and therefore a longer first gear. As it is, I can't wait to get out of first. It's like a Jeep Wrangler. That's why a "close ratio" trans would be my preference. The clutch pedal engagement location is one that can be adaptable.

Just keeping up with traffic (at stop) requires a 6000 rev push just to keep up with a hockey mom in her Buick Enclave getting four kids and their hockey gear to the rink on time. The kids are saying, "Wow!, Mrs. Sierpinski, you beat that red Porsche".

Those two are mutually exclusive. More torque = shorter gear. Less torque = taller gear. If you feel 1st is too short, you can always start in 2nd at a light. Our 2nd is about the same as 1st in a Z06, in terms of relative gearing.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by LeeMaster

I dont know man, I crashed my car at 70 mph and was able to walk away from the accident without even a scratch or any broken bone. How can anyone not recommend this car after what had happened to me?

You'd probably walk away just as fine if you crashed a <insert brand/current model here> at 70 mph too.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by feedbag

The amount of cognitive dissonance in this forum is astounding.

CR says that the twins have a lot of issues. Instead of saying "yup, they sure do!", the entire forum decides to dump on CR. Ridiculous. Maybe they're not a magazine for enthusiasts, but they're not wrong either.

Precisely.

Everyone is forgetting that "fun factor" is not a consideration for CR's rating of a given product, or in this case, a car. They consider the car itself, it's value, and it's reliability.

Quite frankly, we ALL purchased the car for the fun factor or uniqueness. 25-27k can get a a SUBSTANTIALLY faster or bigger or practical or more reliable car. We didn't buy to get a good value. We bought fun.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by ZXTT95

Umm, no, I think they've reported that according to their readers, in the case of the BRZ, there are more than twice as many things to complain about as the average car. Like it or not, these are BRZ owners checking boxes in a survey.

Every car has the same opportunity to get the same checkboxes marked on their surveys.

If the BRZ owners are being more vocal...

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Everyone is forgetting that "fun factor" is not a consideration for CR's rating of a given product, or in this case, a car. They consider the car itself, it's value, and it's reliability.

That's in direct contradiction with the review they gave that I just posted.

http://video.consumerreports.org/ser...=1779346044001

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayJesus

That's in direct contradiction with the review they gave that I just posted.

http://video.consumerreports.org/ser...=1779346044001

Their review has no correlation with their willing to give the car a "recommended" or "not recommended" rating in their charts. A review is simply a review.

[DoomsdayJesus]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Their review has no correlation with their willing to give the car a "recommended" or "not recommended" rating in their charts. A review is simply a review.

I was saying they clearly knew what people were buying these cars for. They weren't ignoring the "fun factor," and had a lot of nice things to say about it. I know video reviews are never the full story, but it does let you know they aren't just driving them around a parking lot and figuring out how it compares with accords and camrys. Consumer reports does this all the time though, and when issues are resolved they put the rating right where it should be.

I know you of all people would agree that the first year model of this car has more than it's share of problems, and the "not recommended" is probably warranted considering they're simply informing people that they can expect to have their new car spending some time in the shop in the first couple years.

[SirBrass]

Yeah.... no it's not. Not at all. Not with that disparity between two identical cars who had the same issues.

All major issues have been resolved and warrantied, except the crickets which is hardly a reliability issue, just an annoyance issue for some.

[DylanFRS]

I don't believe it their ratings look at whether it was fixed under warranty or not. And honestly, they shouldn't. If a car has problems and they get fixed under warranty, that doesn't make the car reliable. The car is still unreliable.

You can say things like crickets shouldn't matter but they do. The reliability number is reflected by how many times the car gets taken in for work. So those people that have gone in and had their pumps replaced 4 times already, how do you think that reflects the reliability of the car?

[Acree]

Originally Posted by CSG Mike

Precisely.

Everyone is forgetting that "fun factor" is not a consideration for CR's rating of a given product, or in this case, a car. They consider the car itself, it's value, and it's reliability.

Quite frankly, we ALL purchased the car for the fun factor or uniqueness. 25-27k can get a a SUBSTANTIALLY faster or bigger or practical or more reliable car. We didn't buy to get a good value. We bought fun.

Personally, I purchased the BRZ Limited because I expected the top of the line car from Subaru would have the best interior I could get in this car. The truth is, I have so many freaking rattles in the car, I've been seriously considering selling it. It drives me nuts.

[SirBrass]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

I don't believe it their ratings look at whether it was fixed under warranty or not. And honestly, they shouldn't. If a car has problems and they get fixed under warranty, that doesn't make the car reliable. The car is still unreliable.

You can say things like crickets shouldn't matter but they do. The reliability number is reflected by how many times the car gets taken in for work. So those people that have gone in and had their pumps replaced 4 times already, how do you think that reflects the reliability of the car?

If it was b/c the car was genuinely not reliable to drive, that's one thing. But the crickets were not a reliability issue, just an annoyance factor.

WHY a car goes into the shop matters just as much that it did.

And as the car has its little issues worked out and warrantied, it goes from "reliable but pay attention to TSBs" to "reliable enough for most idiots that drive to think it's reliable."

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by SirBrass

If it was b/c the car was genuinely not reliable to drive, that's one thing. But the crickets were not a reliability issue, just an annoyance factor.

WHY a car goes into the shop matters just as much that it did.

And as the car has its little issues worked out and warrantied, it goes from "reliable but pay attention to TSBs" to "reliable enough for most idiots that drive to think it's reliable."

Consumer Reports is for the Average Consumer. The Average Consumer doesn't look past the crickets, taillight condensation, road noise, and rattles for the "driving experience" like you do.

Now if you want to debate whether or not the car should be in Consumer Reports at all, that is another story. It is Consumer Reports, not Top Gear.

[SirBrass]

Then the average consumer is an idiot and needs to smarten up when he or she buys using something like Consumer Reports to educate them better on what actually matters when buying a car, not pander to their current level of ignorance.