Some years ago Consumer Reports magazine did a tire comparison test, but couldn't determine any performance difference
among the brands. So they rated the tires based on tread wear and cost.
Bridgestone came first.
Bridgestone is now a well-respected tire manufacturer. But in those early days in North America, you wouldn't trust a Bridgestone
tire nailed to your dock to keep your boat from getting scratched.
Yet Consumer Reports rated them tops.
In one of its reliability surveys, the magazine claimed that the body and paint of a six-cylinder Chevrolet Monte Carlo were
significantly different I can't remember if they were better or worse from the eight-cylinder version of the same car.
Could the V8 have been enough faster to peel the paint off?
In another road test, a tester threw a Dodge Omni into a sideways skid, took his hands off the wheel then said the car went
out of control.
Well, pretty much by definition if you take your hands off the wheel, a car is out of control.
Consumer Reports bases its entire existence on its independence. As a non-profit organization and with its publications and
website not accepting any advertising, it feels no pressure to withhold bad news if necessary.
It also buys all the vehicles it tests, picking them up anonymously at eastern seaboard dealerships.
So when the opportunity to visit CR's car test facility at the former Connecticut International Dragway southeast of Hartford
cropped up, I jumped at the chance.
I wanted to know: How do these guys come up with this stuff?
I had a feeling that things have changed at CR when I found out that senior test engineer Jake Fisher owns a first-generation
Toyota MR2 sports car, which he races and rallies, and that Auto Test Center senior director David Champion is a dedicated
car freak and no slouch behind the wheel either.
Both Fisher and Champion acknowledge the lingering image that CR is staffed exclusively by propeller-beanie-wearing nerds
whose only interest in cars is how many one cubic foot boxes you can fit into a trunk.
They still measure trunk capacity, of course. And they still survey their membership about the reliability of the cars they own,
although with over a million magazine and Web subscribers filling in reliability forms, and with much more careful statistical
analyses ensuring such anomalies as the Monte Carlo aberration don't happen again, it's easier to have faith in those results.
But Consumer Reports is also well aware that people buy cars for lots of emotion-loaded and subjective reasons, like styling,
fit and finish, ride, handling and performance. Their tests now attempt to reflect these characteristics.
Staff writer Mike Quincy notes that he feels it will take Consumers Reports less time to add some interest and flavour to their
reports than it will for car buff books (he mentioned Car and Driver, but just as an example) to generate the sort of credibility
and statistical basis for their conclusions that CR enjoys.
Champion has worked as a development engineer in the car industry at both the sharp (Nissan) and blunt (Land Rover)
ends of the reliability scale.
With CR providing consumers and, if they are prepared to listen, the car companies themselves, with reliable information
about how good the products are, why don't the car companies learn better?
Why don't the poor-scoring companies clean up their act?
"Motivation, money and focus,'' summarizes Champion. "New-car development is where everyone wants to be; fixing existing
products isn't as much fun, and it's hard to get good people to work on that.''
Are the Japanese car makers really that much better at it, as the reliability results seem to indicate?
"Absolutely,'' says the British-born Champion. "Our ratings and our subscribers' reports back that up.
"They just seem to have a more thorough approach. They also seem to have a more reliable supplier base.''
Aren't domestic and European contenders closing the gap?
"No question,'' says Champion.
"Our surveys indicate that when new, there isn't much difference between the manufacturers any more.
But as the cars age, especially five years out and longer, we see Toyota and Honda particularly doing well,
Ford is about average for all makers and about equal to BMW.
The other domestics and Europeans trail, and Volkswagen is worst of all.''
Of course, the older data reflect how well the cars were built then; perhaps the closer clustering we see now will continue
into the future as well.
`We just report the data.
We can't always explain it!'
I asked Fisher if my personal experience with VWs that a lot of the problems seem to stem from electrical connectors
is supported by the data.
"I think so,'' he said.
"My old MR2 is caked in mud, salt and years of crud. I once dug down into the wiring harness, pried open a connector,
and the contacts were as clean as new.''
Champion noted that the Range Rover used the same electric seat switches as the Mercedes-Benz S-Class, where they
were dead reliable.
"But Range Rover put them on the centre console, where crumbs, dirt and coffee could find their way in.
And the contact surfaces were horizontal rather than vertical like on the Mercedes.
"So stuff that would slide right off the Mercedes switches would accumulate in the Range Rover, and they would eventually fail.''
Still, all mothers do have 'em, said Champion, recalling on old British expression.
"At Nissan, we had over 26 major issues with the '96 Pathfinder. Rear suspension bushings, engine control modules, vibrations,
all sorts of things.
"We told the company it would take about a $70 million (U.S.) program to address them all. They swallowed hard, and said `go ahead'.
And they tried hard never to let that happen again.''
Some statistical anomalies still show up in CR's data.
Mercury, for example, ranks eighth overall in quality, while Ford, with essentially identical products, lies 16th.
"We're not sure why,'' admits Champion. "Perhaps Mercury builds fewer variations, all aimed at up-scale customers,
while Ford offers a broader range. More complexity means more chance for error.
"We just report the data, we can't always explain it!''
How about differences with J.D. Power customer satisfaction data, which seem to indicate the gap between the domestics
and the Asians is closing faster than CR's data?
"Again, I can really only comment on our numbers,'' replied Champion. "But J.D. Power does look at more things, like how
good the cup holders are.
"Our reliability survey covers just that reliability, like how many times you've had to take the car back to the dealer for
something gone wrong, as opposed to regular maintenance.''
Can the North American auto makers and Europeans ever catch up?
"No reason why not,'' says Champion. "For one thing, the improvements in reliability we've seen across the board in quality
over the past decade seem to have plateaued in the last year or two, across all makes.
"We don't know if this is because of the added complexity of cars more features can mean more to go wrong.
Or maybe we've hit some sort of economic barrier.
"Marginal improvements now might cost so much that prices would have to rise, and it simply might not be worth it.
But it does suggest that some extra effort might allow a bit of catch-up.
"Also, look at Hyundai. Nine or ten years ago, they were a joke. They took it upon themselves to build better cars, and back them
up with a 10-year warranty (in the U.S. only).
"Now you see a car like the new Sonata, which is every bit competitive with Camry and Accord.
And the Azera we haven't put one through our testing program yet, but on initial acquaintance it's a lovely car.
"It's all about product, quality and support, which translates into reliability. That's what consumers want and that's what they buy.''
Okay, you losing manufacturers in the Consumer Reports quality game. There's your blueprint.
How hard can it be?
