Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uw-june
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!uw-june!emma
From: emma@uw-june (Joe Pfeiffer)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Sticker Price vs. Dealer Cost ...
Message-ID: <1284@uw-june>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 12:15:32 EST
Article-I.D.: uw-june.1284
Posted: Fri Apr 20 12:15:32 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Apr-84 09:32:30 EST
References: <737@houxm.UUCP>
Organization: U. Washington, Computer Sci
Lines: 22

I've been seeing enough about Consumer Reports recently that I think
I'd better say something.  We had a discussion about that magazine in
this forum about a year ago.  The most important thing to recognize is
that they know nothing about cars.  Remember they once declared the
Omni "Unacceptable" because when driving at 50 mph, turning the wheel hard
over, and releasing it, the car didn't recover by itself.  They once
ran a comparison test between a Toyota Celica, a Dodge Charger, a Ford
Mustang, and a Chevy Camaro.  Since the Dodge had a 4, they tried to
make the test fair by running the 4-cylinder engines in the Ford (not
the turbo 4) and the Chevy.

Their repair ratings, which I referred to then as the only trustworthy
information in the magazine, were mentioned by another netter as
something else they get wrong.  Seems they only count repair incidence,
not cost to repair.  So a turn signal lens that falls off counts as
much as a transmission rebuild (note that for a while, they were
factoring with cost.  They've cut that out).

At that time, I summarized by saying that I might use them to buy a
toaster, but never an automobile.  One of the responses I got then was
from a person who had complaints about their toaster evaluations.

-Joe P.