Dick Campagna wrote:
> > From: Jane or Larry Elliott <elliott@serv.net>
> > To: dakota@ait.fredonia.edu
> > Subject: Re: Ram/Dakota 4x4 and Consumer Distorts
> > Date: Thursday, September 04, 1997 10:06 PM
>
> (stuff snipped)
>
> > I've also heard the same thing about Toyota V-6's, at about 60k
> miles
> they
> > puke big time. Don't hear about that in Consumer Distorts do we
> boys and
> > girls?
>
> Jane or Larry (did you flip a coin to see who would read this?) -
>
> I challenge you both to put your money where your collective mouths
> are.
> If you think that _Consumer Reports_ *distorts,* take them to task and
> sue
> them. Or are you afraid to fail? The reliability charts are not
> their
> opinions. They are the results of their surveys of hundreds of
> thousands
> of subscribers . . . not a couple of friends, neighbors,
> acquaintances, or
> newsgroup members.
>
> You conveniently didn't mention that the '95 Toyota Tacoma Pickup 4WD
> is
> listed on page 69 of their 1997 Annual Auto Issue (April each year) as
> one
> of the '89 to '95 *Used Cars to Avoid.* And on page 71, there's a
> solid
> black mark, which means *Much Worse Than Average,* alongside the
> listing
> for the '95 Toyota Tacoma Pickup 4WD. There was insufficient data to
> rate
> the '96. If you weren't in such a hurry to rant on this newsgroup,
> you
> would've had time to read the whole magazine. What's the matter? Did
> a
> Toyota pickup driver steal your first girlfriend?
>
> To add insult to injury, guess what else is listed as '89 to '95 *Used
> Cars
> to Avoid?*
> * '94 Dakota 2WD (major problems with automatic transmission and
> integrity
> (e.g., seals, weather stripping, air & water leaks, wind noise,
> rattles &
> squeaks));
> * '92-'94 Dakota 4WD (major problems with fuel system, automatic
> transmission, electrical, brakes, exhaust, paint/trim and hardware
> (e.g.,
> windows, doors, seat mechanisms, locks, safety belts, sunroof, glass,
> wipers). .
>
> _Consumer Reports_ accepts no advertising and, as matter of fact,
> will sue
> anyone who advertises that their product was *Rated #1 in Consumer
> Reports,* for example. Don't forget that I'm referring to _Consumer
> Reports_, only, not _Consumers Digest_
>
> I'd appreciate your comments.
>
> Consumer reports, the magizine which does not accept advertising. Of
> course you fail to mention their method of gaining publicity. I don't
> know if you're old enough to recall when the L body (Omni/Horizon) was
> introduced in 1978, but CR deemed it UNSAFE because they claimed the
> sterring wheel would oscillate if an emergency lane change was made at
> 50 mph and THE DRIVER TOOK HIS/HER HANDS OFF THE STEERING WHEEL. When
> it was pointed out that no one would make an emegency manuver and then
> take their hands off the wheel CR became very quiet. Also no one else
> could produce this in the Omni/Horizon cars.
What about Suzuli ? Wasn't it CR that was found "cheating" on the roll
over tests ? They did sue and did win.
If you want to obtain your reliability information from CR it's your
prerogative but as a reliability engineer I prefer more sound source
than those that use the "it's my opinion" disclaimer in fine print.
KW
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:52 EDT