SaabCentral Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
Probably a combination of Saab improving quality and Consumer Reports changing the way it rates cars. For the first time they're actually using REAL evidence!!! I never thought I'd see the day when CR says Saab is a recommended buy and Toyota is a piece of crap. :cheesy: (Note that several Toyotas are now on the CR "unreliable" list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Everything rated shows "much better than average" for the 2007 MY except squeeks/rattles and Cooling.
Cooling gets an average rating, most likely due to the black plastic cooling tank reservoir issue.

Otherwise, this would have been much better than average across the board. The MY 2003 ratings are abysmal. All categories much worse than average except Engine Major.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,873 Posts
Nickshu said:
Probably a combination of Saab improving quality and Consumer Reports changing the way it rates cars. For the first time they're actually using REAL evidence!!! I never thought I'd see the day when CR says Saab is a recommended buy and Toyota is a piece of crap. :cheesy: (Note that several Toyotas are now on the CR "unreliable" list.
What do you mean by "REAL evidence"? How have they changed their study?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
759 Posts
saabexprt said:
They've stopped rating cars based solely on historical ratings of other models within the brand. These ratings should be a result of an "actual" test or data, not an assumption.
Exactly, so for example if Honda made a totally new model of car, they no longer simply call it "excellent reliability" just because it's a Honda. They now search for real data on the car before rating it. They got into too much trouble doing this in the past, case in point is the Toyota Camry V6. Rated as excellent, but when they went back and looked at the real data 2 years later they realized that the car had tons of major issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,873 Posts
Nickshu said:
Exactly, so for example if Honda made a totally new model of car, they no longer simply call it "excellent reliability" just because it's a Honda. They now search for real data on the car before rating it. They got into too much trouble doing this in the past, case in point is the Toyota Camry V6. Rated as excellent, but when they went back and looked at the real data 2 years later they realized that the car had tons of major issues.
Ah I see...

I recall them saying as you mentioned that the "all new redesigned Camry" is recommended because the previous generation was good.
And just the opposite such as the "new 300 is good but since previous Chrysler products have had poor reliability we can't recommend". That garbage right?

CR has always been a liberal, commy, organization which I've often disagreed with.
At least they should divulge the methods of data collection and interpretation. The whackos won't even give sample size.
Although their data is the largest collected it's their methods are quite questionable and therefore not reliable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Cosmicflash said:
Ah I see...

I recall them saying as you mentioned that the "all new redesigned Camry" is recommended because the previous generation was good.
And just the opposite such as the "new 300 is good but since previous Chrysler products have had poor reliability we can't recommend". That garbage right?

CR has always been a liberal, commy, organization which I've often disagreed with.
At least they should divulge the methods of data collection and interpretation. The whackos won't even give sample size.
Although their data is the largest collected it's their methods are quite questionable and therefore not reliable.
First of all, I'm not a true believer in CR, but find your conspiracy/communist theories hard to believe. You pose an interesting question about failure to provide sample sizes, collection methods, etc., but have no proof that they are skewing the results one way or the other.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
353 Posts
DanS said:
First of all, I'm not a true believer in CR, but find your conspiracy/communist theories hard to believe. You pose an interesting question about failure to provide sample sizes, collection methods, etc., but have no proof that they are skewing the results one way or the other.
I'm not so sure it's skewing that need be a concern as much as poorly developred research designs. The sample is anything but random, so it's size it relatively irrelevant. Consumer Reports is a good source of entertainment, but of little value outside of that. If I followed all of their suggestions, I'm not sure I'd own any of the things I currently do.

As far as the commi things goes. It is published by the Consumer[']s Unions, which is an adcovacy group. It's also a non-profit that gloats about earning 160 millions dollars in revenue. I'm not sure why they would feel sharing that piece of information in the context that they do necessary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,873 Posts
bntroberts said:
I'm not so sure it's skewing that need be a concern as much as poorly developred research designs. The sample is anything but random, so it's size it relatively irrelevant. Consumer Reports is a good source of entertainment, but of little value outside of that. If I followed all of their suggestions, I'm not sure I'd own any of the things I currently do.

As far as the commi things goes. It is published by the Consumer[']s Unions, which is an adcovacy group. It's also a non-profit that gloats about earning 160 millions dollars in revenue. I'm not sure why they would feel sharing that piece of information in the context that they do necessary.
Off topic but yes they are a liberal advocacy group. They have been extremely liberal in their views over the years but have got better recently.
Just look at their board of directors--it's a joke, the liberal elite of the Northeast.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top