Consumer Reports HATES Elise!!!

[Lancia]

Please name the cars that are easy to control past the cornering limits.

[Devious]

Originally Posted by SKYVUE

2. Elise goes "wildly out of control when exceeded the limits".

Where did you get this quote?
"Cornering limits are very high, but the car is hard to control once past them." Is as close to your quote as I can find in the issue. Perhaps I am overlooking something.


Mr. Gibbs - Very true.
Have you ever exceeded the cornering limits in a Corvette? Not fun either.

[EliseScooter]

Originally Posted by SKYVUE

...There were two statements CR published that bothered me.
1. An Elise is "no better than a Miata as to agility".
2. Elise goes "wildly out of control when exceeded the limits"...

--SKYVUE

Please, if you are going to post a statement in quotes, make it a verbatim quote. It would appear that the article you are "quoting" from was posted a couple of spots up from yours. While neither of your statements are direct quotes, the second one in particular is pretty far from what was written.

[DocVijay]

Originally Posted by glb

You may not agree with CR's opinions and results, but it's the only publication that tries to give an accurate report, independent of advertising/marketing and based on facts gleaned from actual testing.

You are talking about the same CR that has had to retract reports because of the quality of their testing. I have two cousins who are expecting very soon. CR released a story about how unsafe car seats were and that some should be taken off the market, and my cousins both called me to ask about it (I have three, so of course I know EVERYTHING about kids...). A few days later they published a retraction because the methods they used to test the seats was seriously flawed and gave very inaccurate results.

CR is a waste of time.

[fpitas]

Originally Posted by DocVijay

CR is a waste of time.

I wouldn't say that. They have their problems, but if I'm looking for a mass-produced, mainstream consumer item I read what they have to say and usually gain some insight. Like various other people here said, if you want a refrigerator, a dryer, or even a utility-box car like a Camry they know about the subject. Outside of mainstream products though, you won't get much useful info, and you shouldn't expect to.

[LARRY]

The Elise isn't FOR most people.

Thank God.

[Tormac]

Originally Posted by glb

I disagree with many of you CR-bashers. I've been a subscriber/member since the 70s and will tell you there is no better source of info for the average consumer.

. . .

Tormac's statement makes no sense to me, as individuals cannot test products prior to buying. Their "opinons" are just that...

. . .

Sorry glb, my statement was not very descriptive; maybe I can do better in explaining what I have found to be standard in CR reporting. When I was in college I worked in a bicycle shop. My opinion of CR was formed in the early 90’s after reading reviews on mid level mountain bikes (approximately $500 bikes back then).

The CR reviewers were grossly wrong about basic things. In one review they complained that a particular Schwinn bicycle was not safe because in the smallest frame sizes the toe-clip overlapped the front tire. CR also complained that the Schwinn bike had cheaper derailleurs on it compared to a Diamondback brand cycle that they recommended instead.

The reason the Schwinn bike had the toe-clip overlap in its smallest size, and the Diamondback did not, was because the Schwinn had a wider range of sizes (21”, 19”, 17”, 15”) and progressively shorter top tubes, and changed their geometry for bicycle sizes, and), where the Diamondbacks had fewer sizes (21”, 19”, and 17”), and did not vary the geometry, and only changed the head tube length on the 21” sized bike. The Diamondback bicycles had cheaply made frames that tended to fit poorly, and had fewer size options. The Diamondback had more expensive Shimano derailleur on the bike where people could see them, and cut corners on critical parts of the bicycle that did no show, (Diamondback used a much cheaper bottom bracket and headset, but had upgraded the rear derailleur a notch). Schwinn had put their emphasis on better quality bottom brackets and headset, and a properly fitting frame, the most important parts of a bicycle. Diamondback had a bicycle designed by a marketing group with expensive parts hanging in noticeable places, and junk where it would not show. CR fell for Diamondback’s design hook, line, and sinker, and punished the Schwinn for offering a wider range of frame sizes, by claiming that their smaller sized frame was not safe because of the toe clip overlap (something that was common in enthusiast bicycles at the time, especially in the smallest frame sizes).

The shop that I worked for sold both Schwinn and Diamondback. Everyone in the shop agreeded that the Schwinn was the better product, but it was more difficult to sell the Schwinn, because of CR’s article that Diamond back had copied and included in their bike’s paperwork.

Reading the CR review it was obvious to someone with a high level of experience in mountain bikes that writers were not serious mountain bikers. The review had poor advice on what seat was more comfortable, or why it was important to buy a mountain bike with three water-bottle braze ons. My comment on CR being written “by tyros for tyros” stems from articles that I have read about bicycles. CR was giving advice that would be appropriate for someone buying a $100 beach cruiser to kick around on. But the advice was not appropriate for people wanting to get into trail riding and looking to buy their first real mountain bike. I have nothing against CR trying to give honest advice to neophytes about products that they have not had the ability to personally test, except that in the past I have seen CR give flat out bad advice. CR should not charge people for their expert opinion on subjects that CR are not experts on. I have not read the CR article on roadsters, and am not addressing this particular instance, but I am addressing CR’s reviews in general. I have found repeatedly that CR sells bad advice without hesitation, or pretends to be experts in field that they seem to have little experience in so CR has something to sell.

edited due to an unclear use of words

[Serebo1]

.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7XzBI2iN5UA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7XzBI2iN5UA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[glb]

Tormac –

Thanks for your response.

I would assume that certain intricacies are missed by CR, as they are writing to a mass audience. This is what led to the initial post here.

Obviously, they can’t test every size, every model, every option on each product. And, they cannot be “experts” in every field. But, overall, I feel they do a great job.

It’s helpful that CR often tells you what to look for when comparing products; this leads to better consumer decisions.

I’d estimate that CR has saved me a couple of thou, and from buying bad products with good reputations (e.g. Snapper, Charmglow), over the 30 years I’ve subscribed.

Whenever someone I know buys their first residence, I tell them to subscribe. I often give a sub as part of a housewarming gift.

I feel there is no better source of product info anywhere. To me, it is the most valuable pub I receive.

[MikeC]

Consumer Reports is for the common man, not the enthusiast. And that goes for anything they test.

They lost me years ago when they critisized the Miata for having a "giggely sportscar-like ride".

[shay2nak]

all i know is that i love my car and i'm lucky to have one. that's all that counts.

[glb]

Originally Posted by DocVijay

You are talking about the same CR that has had to retract reports because of the quality of their testing. I have two cousins who are expecting very soon. CR released a story about how unsafe car seats were and that some should be taken off the market, and my cousins both called me to ask about it (I have three, so of course I know EVERYTHING about kids...). A few days later they published a retraction because the methods they used to test the seats was seriously flawed and gave very inaccurate results.

CR is a waste of time.

This seems nonsensical to me. CR has run 1000s of tests, with trouble only on a few.

So, are you contending that lack of perfection 100% of the time cancels out all their good work? Wouldn’t that strike you as absurd?

If someone watched me (and, likely, you) work, would they see the occasional error? Should we be fired for that, no matter how good we are 99% of the time?

Moreover, they did print a retraction. How often I’ve wished that other entities would do the same. (Bush, Cheney for example.)

And, the retraction wasn’t buried somewhere hard to find. (Which is what should happen to my two examples, above.)

Last, does a (corrected) error when testing car seats nullify all there other tests? I think not. A speed calculation glitch doesn’t affect testing of washers and a/cs.

[glb]

Originally Posted by antinym

Here's what I see.
A bunch of lotus fanatics defending their idol against a logical blasphemer.

Back to the beginning of this post - I think it's funny to see the blind passion wail away against the sea of conservative rationalists.

Step back, and realize you're preaching to the choir.

Point made excellently.

[Rugbyduck]

Originally Posted by Westrock

Everyone loves to look at and admire these cars, but I think every few could actually live with one of these. Thats probably why there are so many for sale with like 1200 miles and they can't move them off the lot for nothing.

If I were not so opposed to the "ignore" function...you'd be the FIRST to get my vote! As far as I am concerned, you don't deserve a Lotus! WAAAAH!!! 40K and a manual softtop?? WTF? Do you not get it? Go buy something else and let those who own one critique it! Talk about my "mama"?? I can...but don't you! God I hate ignorant people!

[glb]

Originally Posted by Lancia

If they are honest, how do you explain their ignoring of major brands to include weird off brands?
Or comparison charts that would get you a failing grade in any science or statistical class anywhere?
If they don't know how to do valid testing, they could surely hire someone to tell them.
Their tactics and statements regarding the very complex area of handling cross way over the line of irresponsibility as far as I can tell.
There is a point at which you are responsible legally and ethically for what you should have known, if the excuse is ignorance.
How can you get any useful information from them?
I can rarely find products I'm interested in listed at all.

My first priority is reliability in the performance range I want.
I ask people who repair these products and who use them.

Much has been written about the problem of writing about cars you carry advertising for.
There have been articles written explaining how to translate and read between the lines in these magazines.
Independent lines are always more useful, such as Grassroots Motorsports or Buckaroo.
I can still get more useful information about a car from road and track than cr.

I haven't read the Lotus article.
Does all it say is the car breaks loose abruptly?
How abruptly?
What does that mean?
All light mid-engine cars do everything abruptly.
That's what they are for.
No warning? Really?
Is that helpful?
Is it tires?
Suspension tuning?
Bad geometry?
Do different tires change the predictability?
Is there a recall?

Is it another Susuki style 'If you push something hard enough, it will fall over' kind of statement?

I remember when all the stories about extended vans were going on, it was observed that most people drove them within their limitations.

Sort of a "Hello! Physics Still Apply!" story again.
Do they think it handles more erratically than other mid-engine cars with a similar weight distribution and mass?
Or more abrupt than a Camry?

Do they have any clue how to drive such a car in a corner?

Remember the Corvair tests that are so famous?
It came out later that they were faked.
They were twitching the car to break the rear end loose.
Does everyone make it through the corner at the same speed, even in the same car?
I can't even buy that they are just bumbling.

1. I’ve seen no evidence of major brands being ignored.

2. Can you tell us what’s wrong with their comparison charts? Seem fine to me.

3. I’ve also asked people who use and/or repair products. Got a load of misinformation that way, as the sampling size is useless.

4. Yes, you are likely to find better info on a track car elsewhere. So, isn’t that obvious?

5. Cars that lose their back ends are inherently harder to “retrieve” than those that understeer off the road. Moreover, there is often less warning in these situations compared to understeering cars.

6. I don’t think the Boxster has the same perceived problem w/snap oversteer.

7. I’d like to see a (switchable) stab control system on the car. Great for wet. I have yet to find a way to brake wheels individually.

8. Given the number of spins posted on ET, many of us must not “have any clue how to drive such a car in a corner”.

Look, I love my Elise, but I recognize its faults and limitations. And, I don’t irrationally attack those who point out its foibles.

Perhaps you should read the article.

[TheAntiRiced]

Originally Posted by antinym

Here's what I see.
A bunch of lotus fanatics defending their idol against a logical blasphemer.

And on a Lotus site no less But agreed, people are defending their favorite toy here.

Originally Posted by antinym

I own an exige, and I didn't buy it on any of the aspects of which consumer reports bases their opinions. Compared to a "normal car" the exige/elise fails in most areas of practicality, reliability, gas mileage, storage, maintenance, and safety.

I agree on the practicality and storage fronts, but so far in my 15,000 miles of use, this car has been the most trouble free new car I've ever owned, get's good gas mileage and given the photos and stories I've seen, doesn't seem to be unsafe to me.

As a point of reference, My neon had to have head gasket and master cylinder replaced within the first 15k miles and the Volkswagen TDI I owned had repeated electrical problems within that same mileage set. We don't even want to talk about the BMW 5 series that was declared a lemon by 25k miles under Florida law, nor should we discuss the abysmal build quality of the '92 jaguar that had to be towed back to the dealership during the test drive (a lucky miss on that one, no wonder the incentives they were offering were so high)

Now maybe I've just got bad car luck, but so far the only "failure" I've had on my lotus was to have one speaker grill pop out and the air conditioning know fall off, both of which were trivial fixes.

Guess what I'm saying is, yeah this car isn't omnipotent, but don't sell it short either. I'd be willing to wager my Lotus will last many years with relatively little maintenance. I also am pretty sure I'm getting better gas mileage then 80% of the cars I'm sharing the roads with today.

[glb]

Originally Posted by ScaldedDog

My experience with Consumer Reports greatly conflicts with any car that is not from Japan. They reported that the Datsun was a great car for example. It was so bad that Nissan pulled the name from the market.

They greatly under report reliability, safety and the maintenance and repair costs for Japanese cars compared to US makes.

What evidence have you that compels you to make these statements?

Nissan didn't change its name due to a string of bad products, IIRC.

CR 's reliability ratings have been accurate on EVERY car I've owned since the 70s. Japanese, German, it didn't matter.

We subscribers fill out lengthy questionnaires. So, do you contend that this data is then massaged by CR?

In my experience, owners of high $ German cars (& Rovers) tend to play down their difficulties. If these owners follow that trend when filling out their surveys, I'd say that these cars had "under reported" reliability issues. (Except that the sampling is so large, it'd be unaffected.)

Safety? They get their data from Ins Inst, NHSTA and ins cos. Are you claiming that CR then lies about the data?

Perhaps you've not yet come to grips with the superior reliability of most Asian makes.

Level with us. You bought a 7-Series or S-Class, didn't you? (Long black stripe continued on next page....)

[Chris D.]

Originally Posted by Devious

I am a regular CR subscriber. The following is from the latest issue, and nothing I wouldn't expect:

Avoidance Maneuver
Model.............................. mph
1 Porsche 911 Carrera S..... 59.5
2 Mini Cooper Conv. S........ 57.5
Mazda MX-5 Miata............. 57.5
Porsche Boxster 2.7........... 57.5
3 Dodge Viper SRT10.......... 57.0
Honda S2000.................... 57.0
Lotus Elise........................ 57.0
Nissan 350Z (convertable)... 57.5
Volkswagon GTI................. 57.0

Actually, this part of the review did surprise me. I would expect the most nimble cars to excel in an avoidance maneuver test. Yet, I've never heard anyone describe a Viper as being more nimble than a Lotus.

Overall, I would suggest that CR should stick to reviewing mass production cars. There is no way they will ever get enough data on the Lotus (although I did rate mine the last time they surveyed) to provide reliability ratings.

[Rydiak]

In case it hasn't been said yet in this thread, I see the CR review as a good thing. It will keep the average idiot away from the unique item that is the Elise and preserve its allure. Otherwise, the car could end up like the Camry with everyone and their mother owning one.

[DocVijay]

Originally Posted by Rydiak

Otherwise, the car could end up like the Camry with everyone and their mother owning one.

If the Lotus weren't so impractical and the production so limited, I'd agree with you.