Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 09:21:53 -0700
Reply-To: Sam Scholten <vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <Vanagon@vanagon.com>
From: Sam Scholten <vwvanagon@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: CRASH WORTHY??
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
---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
| 
