No longer approved

The 2012 Honda Civic has been removed from consumer reports reccomended buy list. My how things are changing.

in other news, iceracer has been added to the GRM board reposters list

Before the repost police arrive, it is pretty much because they decontented everything. VW did the same with the Jetta and got hammered by CR, but the Jetta has been a big sales success.

Dammit. Like I've said before, there is no more efficient enforcement agency in the world than the repost police. It is incredible.

Has Honda pulled advertising or something? I've never given an ounce of credibility to CR for anything with and engine.
Years ago they tested the TJ Wrangler. They pissed and moaned about the choppy ride, the noise level and fuel economy. Uh, morons. It's a short wheel-base vehicle with stiff springs. It's gonna ride choppy. Uh morons. Everything above the belt line save the windshield is fabric, it aint' gonna be a tomb inside. Uh, morons, it's a 4X4 with large aggressive tires and the aerodynamics of a lunchbox, it ain't gonna sip fuel.
They didn't reccomend it
So, if they test drove an Enzo would they complain about the lack of luggage for 5, or the fact that it's just too fast? They have no idea that every car isn't built with the same vanilla driver in mind. They should stick to timing how long it takes a given microwave to cook a burrito and that's it.

DrBoost wrote: They should stick to timing how long it takes a given microwave to cook a burrito and that's it.

That deserves to go in the magazine.

CR is hysterical when it comes to cars. The only one I recall reading was one for the Fourth-Gen Camaro, which was hysterical. It's like they took a Martian and asked him to drive one. No clue at all.

I don't expect them to tell me anything useful with respect to driving dynamics. I wrote off the enthusiast-specific info when they marked down a mountain bike for it's excessively noisy Panaracer Smoke tire (perhaps the best tire in its day).

What I do pay some attention to is their reliability data. It's hard to find that sort of historical data aggregated in one place. It's only good over a limited span, but it beats nothing.

That part seems to me to be analogous enough to burrito-timing for them to be more or less in their element.

Agreed with Ransom - they can keep their editorial opinions to themselves, but the reliability data is useful to see trends. It's not very specific data, but at least if I see a bunch of black marks in a category I at least know to look into it.

Matt B wrote: Agreed with Ransom - they can keep their editorial opinions to themselves, but the reliability data is useful to see trends. It's not very specific data, but at least if I see a bunch of black marks in a category I at least know to look into it.

Of course, the Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo stuff somehow makes it in there too... backed up by data, uh huh.

tuna55 wrote:

Matt B wrote: Agreed with Ransom - they can keep their editorial opinions to themselves, but the reliability data is useful to see trends. It's not very specific data, but at least if I see a bunch of black marks in a category I at least know to look into it.

Of course, the Honda Passport/Isuzu Rodeo stuff somehow makes it in there too... backed up by data, uh huh.

Yeah, that was pretty much the last time I opened a CR on any subject - even actual appliances.

I started a thread on this weeks ago....basically (as I said back then) the new Civic has obviously been cheapened beyond the point of acceptability....for many consumers. Look at the dashboard of a 2011 and compare it to the nearly identical dash in a 2012....they are basically the same, but the 2012 dash is SOOOO much uglier with a lot of grey plastic.

Supposedly, the newer Civic doesn't stop as well as the old one either. I'm guessing Honda managed to find an even cheaper source for tires for the new Civic. As someone who has owned 3 Civics, and driven nearly 5 or 6 more...at least, I wouldn't run out and buy the new one unless it was a choice of Civic or Corolla. Both Hyundai and Kia build better looking cars so I imagine the next 4 or 5 years will be bad ones for the Civic.

Matt B wrote: Agreed with Ransom - they can keep their editorial opinions to themselves, but the reliability data is useful to see trends. It's not very specific data, but at least if I see a bunch of black marks in a category I at least know to look into it.

Unfortunately, it seems the reliability data has moderate issues with repeatability when you compare multiple corporate twin cars. It's hard to tell if the problem is low sample size, bias on the part of individual owners, a different mix of options between cars, or what - and CR doesn't release enough data to give a clear idea of what is going on or why.

CR tests cars with objectivity, meaning amoung other things, they don't test them like they are enthusiasts. I've been to their testing facilities, and can say with confidence that while they aren't perfect, they are the best out there. I recently rented a 2012 Focus. A couple days later I got the CR issue that tested that and the Civic. They reflected perfectly my observations about the Focus. Driving dynamics may not be their strong suit, but if you were looking for a new car, wouldn't it be helpful to know that some people had a hard time with their leg bumping the center console? With that information, you'd likley pay more attention to that when you looked at that car. I honestly don't get all the hate for CR. Show me someone who does it better.

Have you heard of Grassroots Motorsports? They will test just about anything the manufacturers drop off ;)

In reply to John Brown:

And with all due respect, they don't do it as comprehensively as CR. Plus, they do it from the perspective of an enthusiast, like they should. CR doesn't cater to enthusiasts, it caters to consumers. That in itself doesn't make them wrong.

ransom wrote: I wrote off the enthusiast-specific info when they marked down a mountain bike for it's excessively noisy Panaracer Smoke tire (perhaps the best tire in its day).

[threadjack] Dart front, Smoke rear. Still got 'em in the garage. One of these days i'm going to put them on my stumpjumper and see how they compare to the roll-x tires i'm currently running. [/threadjack]

hmmmmm...

Have you guys ever checked out the reliability tab on MSN Autos? I've found some good info there on some known trouble points of used cars.

Check out the info on a '92 Miata. Look over some other cars you guys know well. I find the site is usually spot on with known issues.

bravenrace wrote: CR doesn't cater to enthusiasts, it caters to consumers. That in itself doesn't make them wrong.

You are correct, sir. However, CR's vaunted objective credibility takes a mortal hit when they review a pair of badge-engineered twins (the Rodeo/Passport is a fine example, but there are others) and gives high marks for reliability to their favored brand (cough HONDA cough) and low marks to a non-favored brand (Isuzu, who actually designed and manufactured the trucklet in question for both brands). It's literally the same truck from the same assembly line... yet Honda gets lots of those stupid little "above average" circles, while the Isuzu doesn't.

That's completely leaving out the difference in desirability criteria between types of buyers. I got past that easily. I want fun, they want ironclad reliability. I turn a wrench or two, they're scared to open the hood. Different people look for different things. That part is a non-issue for me - but the famous scientific method they allege to use is really nothing but a different set of preconceived notions.

John Brown wrote: Have you heard of Grassroots Motorsports? They will test just about anything the manufacturers drop off ;)

As long as it's a Mazda or BMW. (I joke, I keeed.)

CR's reliability results a generally concurrent with what I already know to be true. Their "Manufacturer's reliablity based on # of complaints per 'x' vehicles" seem pretty damned accurate.

Chances are, I'll never be shopping for a brand new 911. If I am, you can guarantee the words "Well, Consumer Reports said...." will come out of my mouth when explaining why I picked it. But when shopping for a new econobox, I want the A/C to blow cold and for it to not leave mamma & baby stranded. I'll be the judge of how it handles, how likely interior bits are to fall apart, how easy it is to work on, etc.

For that purpose, I think it's a good starting point. And yes, the interior on our fit sucks, and will continue to suck all the way to 300k+ miles while your chevy aveo is a less-than-scrap-price starting point for a V8 swap.

The CR hate is tiresome particularly when it comes from people who haven't picked up an issue in a decade or two.

In reply to Duke:

I've heard this claim numerous times, but it simply isn't true. CR had the Rodeo and Passport rated as below average in reliability.

Otto Maddox wrote: The CR hate is tiresome particularly when it comes from people who haven't picked up an issue in a decade or two.

my father in law foists them upon us regularly, even today.

In reply to tuna55:

My dad has always done that too. After a while, I figured out there actually was some useful information in there. I still don't carefully read the car reviews. I do look at the reliability and overall ratings. They are good as a very general indicator of what to avoid.