Consumer Reports Spends Its Juice, Badly

[akirby]

Again, it's not the conclusion so much as the criteria they used to get there, especially when it conflicts with their other reviews and scoring rules.

[RichardK]

I do not trust Consumer Reports and would not follow their ratings. However, that said, I subscribed earlier this year just to find out what they are saying in detail. It is interesting to note how the reliability ratings are determined. Way down in fine print it says a car is considered worse than average with a problem rate of more than 3% and better than average with a rate below 2%.

 

That is not much of a spread, yet they make sensational comments when a vehicle comes out worse than average. They even admit in the same paragraph that trouble spots in some areas are very low. However, they continue to make mountains out of mole hills.

[jpd80]

Most likely it's a case of leadership deciding that a goal is so important - in this case, the widespread acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles - that it arrogantly ignores the danger of throwing away its reputation as a source of impartial product reviews.

 

The problem is that CR has not taken the readers on a journey of discovery by explaining their reasoning on

how and why the cars scored better than the maximum... that's where they really goofed.

 

It's like they were prepared to look past some deficiencies because the car checked the performance and range boxes.

and resolved that the entry price is similar to that paid for other conventional performance luxury vehicles.

 

More explanation of the leasing advantages the Tesla has over other HP luxury vehciles may have been helpful..