Ami Gadhia, the Policy Counsel for Consumers Union, vowed to make changes in the way the respected organization handles safety matters in prepared testimony today in front of a hearing by the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
Consumer Reports’ self-proclaimed role is to evaluate product performance and provide detailed ratings and reliability information to help car buyers choose the best vehicle.
However, the organization has a history of favoring Toyota, so much so that until recently it automatically gave all new Toyota products recommended buy ratings before reliability data were available – something it did not do with vehicles from other makers.
The non-profit publisher of Consumer Reports said it did not identify sudden acceleration issues in Toyotas or in any other vehicles because it did not encounter any issues with either floor-mat entrapment or a sticking accelerator pedal in any of the vehicles CU tested.
“These episodes are too rare to show up in our standard testing. And they did not surface as an issue in our annual reliability survey. Had we noticed a problem in our testing, we would have contacted the company immediately, as we did when we experienced a perceived brake failure in our Ford Fusion Hybrid,” said Gadhia.
CU claims that its ratings, evaluations and recommendations are based on “extensive vehicle testing” and on reliability data on more than 1.4 million vehicles. CU’s testing is done at its Auto Test Center track in Connecticut and on surrounding public roads. Testers put thousands of miles on each vehicle over a typical six-month period.
“Safety is a major focus of our testing. We evaluate vehicles’ braking capabilities on both dry and wet surfaces and perform a number of tests to see how vehicles handle at their limits. We combine our test results with crash-test scores from NHTSA and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to produce our overall safety Ratings. In our reliability survey, we ask for detailed information on problems that subscribers have experienced in 17 different areas, making it the most comprehensive survey of its kind, said Gadhia.
Gadhia vowed to make changes going forward to broaden amount of safety information on its website “in as many of these areas as is practical, beginning with recall information.”
“Consumers should not learn of safety related problems via news reports, only to wait weeks for notification by mail of a recall. Communicating recall information to consumers is currently the manufacturer’s responsibility. But we will support these efforts by publicizing recall information on our Web site and possibly other venues,” said Gadhia.
Gadhia also pushed for a “more accessible NHTSA database,” which will allow Consumer Reports to more thoroughly analyze and publish analysis of consumer complaints.
CU will also make “additional efforts” to gather information about its subscribers’ experiences with recalls. CU will ask more than five million subscribers to report if their car had a recall in the last year.
CU will also ask subscribers about the handling the recall, including how they first heard about it; whether they took their car in to be fixed; and how long it took to complete the fix. CU says it will share our findings with consumers, government regulators and other groups that might find it useful.
This is CYA.
How can a C/U give Best Buy ratings when they now say they never tested the models in question.
This makes NHTSA look absolutely intelligent.
Talk about a lap dog. This is it.
Tom,
I am not going to try to defend CU, but my understanding is that they’ve always done a certain degree of testing on the vehicles they review at their East Coast facility, using a series of specific criteria. On the other hand, they have often given an automatic pass to certain brands and products when it comes to issues like reliability rankings basing on historical performance. Thus, if memory serves, a Ford Fusion might need to have three years of field experience with the current model before CU would give it a recommended rating, while a Camry might get that coveted imprimateur immediately because, according to CU, the brand has historically done so well that they assume the new model would live up to expectations. That came under question several years ago when Toyota first ran into some notable quality trouble, especially with the Tundra but also on several other models, and CU was forced to lift the recommended ranking on them. Considering what has happened of late it will be interesting to see if this policy will be eliminated all together and if all brands will be judged by the same rules going forward.
By the way, to be fair and honest, there are limitations to what any reviewer or testing organization can accomplish, whether a CU, NHTSA, Motor Trend or TheDetroitBureau.com. Far too often, reviews are written based on brief drives, or at best a week behind the wheel, but a vehicle that scores wonderfully in May, using even the most sophisticated testing gear, may reveal unexpected problems when the snow flies.
Paul A. Eisenstein
Publisher, TheDetroitBureau.com
Paul,
I have to say I was surprised and impressed that you responded.
The real truth here at least for me is I am so very tired of Toyotas excuses. That they are held in such high esteem continues to distress me.
The latest I have heard is that Toyota now says the cars that were fixed could have a problem if they were not fixed properly. So now Toyota is abandoning their dealers? First they throw their customers under the bus, now it’s the dealers turn. Who is next?
Every day there is a new twist to this.