More Proof That Consumer Reports Is Horsesh*t
 

What a load this is.

The entire methodology by which they measure "quality and satisfaction" is faulty.

Case in point: How can Honda be so high, while Acura is so low? How many people from each brand were surveyed? Is it because Honda sells more cars than Acura that Honda ranks higher - because more people "reported in"?

CR ought to be embarrassed by the scam they're running, and the people employed there ought to be ashamed that they're working for such a rag.

I simply don't believe anybody's quality survey anywhere anymore. :shame:

What a worthless "survey".

Anyone expected something different from Consumer Reports?

I found a picture of the Employee Parking Lot outside of Consumer Reports HQ:

http://www.usaccordclub.com/images/clubp.jpg

While I do agree in general about CR and their automotive "expertise", in all fairness to CR, this wasn't a real quality survey. It specifically states it was a PERCEPTION survey. The whole purpose was to see what manufacturers the public sees as the standard. The fact that Acura scored so low has nothing to do with CR, well maybe a little since they selected the survey base. But the fact remains that the American public sees Honda and Toyota and instantly assume they are the best vehicles. In all honesty, what percentage of automotive consumers, do you think, know that Honda owns Acura?

Reality is an agreed perception.

Every CR employee has the perception that Honda's are the best. Thus, in their world, it is a reality.

Our mustangs are horrible quality anyway. The trunk light constantly falling out, stupid rattles everywhere, carpet that doesn't fill the entire foot well, gas filling issue. But we put up with it. Every enthusiast should be humble.

Yes, but on what plane of reality is this agreement taking place?

And who determines the agreement?

And on what level of consciousness - or is it shared consciousness?

Metaphysics aside, CR's survey does demonstrate the breadth and depth of these measurement criteria and their fundamental flaws. What is quality, for example? Is it measured by fit and finish of internal and external body panels? Is it measured by prestige and styling? Is it measured by reliability? What constitutes reliability, anyway? And how much of any of this is influenced by personal bias, or the quality of one's vision, or half a dozen other factors?

See the problem with these "perception and quality" surveys? They're pretty much bullsh*t unless they are precisely quantified and calibrated using proven scientific methodology - which CR most definitely doesn't do.

Says you, I find the quality to be pretty good in my car.

Says me too. I love the car and wouldn't trade it for anything (don't tempt me w/ a Ford GT), but the quality is average, for all the reasons stated above and then some. I'm not saying it's bad, but it is average... and for Ford, that's pretty good considering some of their past perceived reputation.

Who says Honda themselves doesn't send in a few thousand perfect surveys a year. In Japanese business practice, I would be surprised if they didn't use this over-hyped editorial magazine to every advantage. 10,000 subscriptions only costs as much as a couple TV ads.

But then it is no longer a perception survey.

And when you have the mentality that a Toyota owner will replace a transmission at 50k miles and still think its reliable, its hard to say what it all means.