Just looked at the current Consumer Reports magazine featuring the best and worst cars. They hammered the Xfire in review saying that it is back from its hiatus, but has poor seating, poor driver visibility, underpowered (standard crossfire), and a rough ride. BUT, it was stamped as being a best buy. The reliability was listed as excellent as well.

 

That's just a goofy magazine all around if you ask me. Some of their testng protocols and findings just don't make any sense.

 

That is the way CR writes their reports. You have to read a bunch of their reports to get the hang of it. I read that report and it was a major factor in my decision to buy a Crossfire. If you want a laugh look at the reliability of the used BMW 7 series and MB 500/600 series! The bottom line is most people buy cars based on a visceral feel. They want it because it hits something inside them not what CR says.

 

I don't think I would ever use CR as a guide to buy a new car. Except maybe as a last ditch desperate attempt to break a tie (which would never happen, I know what I like), I would then use the reliability ratings. It is nice that they say the Crossfire is reliable though, but then we already knew that.

 

All of the Editorial reviews you read are pretty much crap.
here are a few reasons they don't mean a thing to me..

Wards Automotive ... They ranked the G35 Engine as one of the Top 10 engines ever made for 4 or 5 years in a row. What they failed to test or mention was that from 2005-2007 the engines (when mated to the 6-spd) burn oil at a rate of 5quarts every 3000miles. I killed two engines and Nissan eventually repurchased the car. I know of 300+ people on the G35 message board alone that have the same problem. When I brought this to Ward's attention I was told thank you, but they weren't going to do anything about that because they don't test the cars that "in-depth"..

Road&Track.. They ran a comparison between the GM Acadia, Acura MDX, and the Mazda CX-9.. The Acadia was more comfortable, had more space, more features, a more refined interior and a nice looking exterior, but it lost.. Why? Well, because it didn't get to 60 as fast of course.. Last time I checked most people were in the market for a SUV with 3 rows of seating because they wanted to go drag racing..

Read every review you've ever come across and it's pretty much some a$$-hats lame opinion about a car that they really decided they didn't like before they drove it.
The only cars that get tested for what they're really built for are cars like the Miata, and Solstice. They're cheap, so the magazines often buy one for long term testing and they're all so fun to drive that the reviewers can't really decide which is better. The MX-5 Miata won in 06 because it had more trunk space and felt a little more composed while cornering. This is true and valid.. It didn't lose because of "where the cupholders are" or something rediculous as that...

So, long and short of it is... Take the reviews with a grain of salt (or whatever the saying is)because they're pretty much someone elses opinion and odds are he's not alone in that opinion, but more often than not that opinion doesn't account for the vast majority.

 

The only items they complain about are subjective. Other than the seats (IMO) I think they nailed it. Seems like a good review to me.

 

If you view cars as transportation appliances then Consumer Reports is the magazine for you. They test cars much like they test microwave ovens, toasters or sweepers. They are not "car nuts" and are totally clueless regarding sports or performance cars in general.

Slim

 

I agree with that sentiment that was also hit upon by a couple of others. If I'm buying a vacuum cleaner or a dishwasher, I might take the time to see how things stacked up. But cars ... Pass.

Mike

 

Exactly!

If you're in the market for a basic sedan like a Camry or perhaps a minivan, CR provides some useful info.

 

Not sure how to describe Cons. Reports other than to say that just about everything I buy, they don't like. I can't be that wrong.

 

Over the years I have found the Consumer reports makes great reading material when using the bathroom. Especially if I run out of toiet paper. On the other hand, their ink tends to smear...

 

My parents had a subscription to Consumer Reports back in 1969 and I still remember reading a comparison article about all the "Pony Cars" of that era. I think it included the Camaro, Firebird, Cuda, Mustang, Cougar,and the AMX. (Why they couldn't find a Javelin to test I'll never know)
Now since I was in the market for a new AMX, I thought I'd check out what they had to say.
I remember they were impressed with the AMX's performance, but it did have one the biggest engines of the bunch. They also liked its handling, but complained that it road much too harsh. (by today's standards it would be on par with an SRT6's ride compared to a Limited)
But their biggest complaint about the car was that even though it had the most luggage capacity, it didn't have a back seat.
It's funny, I never heard anybody ever complain about a Corvette not having a back seat....HELLO! I think that's why they're called "Sports Cars".
I pretty much never paid a whole lot of attention to what they had to say about cars after that. (other than to see which cars had the most "black" circles instead of "red".

 

I have only looked CR for reliability ratings, which seem to be fairly accurate. But as for their opinions, they are pretty much worthless. For most cars, their road test numbers are WAY off from the other car magazines. Maybe they get your typical American (or my grandmother) to test the cars.

 

Which quite frankly is the right thing to do if you're trying to give advice to the typical American. Typical Americans don't drop the clutch at 6k and spin tires for the first 20'.

As others have said, CR tests cars as if they are appliances...which, quite frankly, for a heck of a lot of people, they are.

Read Grassroots Motorsports or something if you want the view of a true enthusiast.

 

Dude, that is hilarious! I got rid of (sold it back to dealer) a 10k mile loaded G35 Coupe 6MT that I had special ordered from Infiniti mainly because My car had the oil consumption issue. I was already having the oil consumption tests conducted on my car, and the dealer told me Nissan was aware of the problem and was working on a fix. They told me the car was perfectly fine, and to just keep an eye on the car. I decided that was B.S. and I didn't want to go through the whole process of tests, engine swaps, etc. etc. One of the main reasons I wanted a G35 after months of research was the fact that it had one of the highest rated V6s in the world supposedly. What a bunch of crap! A $40,000 new car shouldn't suck oil like that and I shouldn't have to have the engine replaced.

 

at least motorcycle magazines don't complain about lack of trunk space... o wait.. they do.,..

 

Yeah?
My Aprilia is kinda lacking in trunk space.. or should I say Wass.. bye carbon can..

 

Don't forget Consumer Reports said the ford tarus was a good car.
Uh... what were they smoking?

 

mine is big enough for me it fits a pack of cigarretes quiet well...

 

I only bring what I can fit in my pockets. No storage whatsoever, don't need it in the twisties.