

| Subject: | Re: CRASH WORTHY?? |
| From: | Sam Scholten |
| Date: | Fri, 1 May 1998 09:21:53 -0700 |
---George Jannini <georgejoann@juno.com> wrote: > > Sam, RE dissing CU, you wrote, > > << IIn their test of an '84 Vanagon, they accused the Vanagon of > "side-to-side rocking". I have an '84 myself, and have never experienced > this. Has anyone else? >> > > Yup. My van will oscillate in the wake of a semitrailer if you get too > close. This says to me either to either back off the gas for a bit or > pass. > PASS!? Seriously, I do know what you're talking about- and my solution is to only do truck drafts if I ABSOLUTELY feel it's safe. It is tempting, though... However, CU did not qualify their statement about side-to-side rocking by saying it would happen in truck drafts and few if any other situations, so that statement is not an accurate one. > > << What do you think of their website? Do you think the > "subscribe-only-for-a-fee" auto database is just a little feh? >> > > CU has always charged for printouts of new-car prices. I don't think > that they could afford to purchase all of the stuff they test on the > bucks > they get just from selling magazine subscriptions and other publications. True. However, NADA and other organizations offer similar services for free. For a little more data, it'll cost you... I understand that CU is not a huge money-making institution, and that their undertakings are quite expensive. However, for the money I would pay for their publication, I would expect a little higher quality reviews- for example, in their latest large SUV tests, they rated all of them bad with regards to fuel economy. That has no basis in reality; OF COURSE they'll guzzle gas. That is simply not something that can be held to a universal standard. It is more useful to know which vehicle in its class gets the best fuel economy, respective to its competition. The point here is that different vehicle classes are designed with different criteria in mind and CU gets the black circle for failure to understand that. In light of this, their auto reviews are only partially useful to the consumer. Things like safety and reliability should be universal to all vehicles- but everything else is a compromise. It's not a $$$ thing any more than it is a 'tude thing. CU has a noble existential purpose- rating products for consumers, in the consumers' best interests- but who, with any credibility, rates CU? My 2�, Sam _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »