consumer reports article
- Thread starter ahunt01
- Start date
CR = LCD. D'ja ever notice than when CR does a report on something that you really know about, their conclusions make you angry and upset? Extrapolate that to subjects that you know little or nothing about, then draw your conclusion about the publication's value.
But they did mention at the end that Zaino and Klasse are noticably superior to all the other products, excepting Meg's cleaner wax.
Mosca
But they did mention at the end that Zaino and Klasse are noticably superior to all the other products, excepting Meg's cleaner wax.
Mosca
imported_Larry A
New member
This was a old test . In this test Meguiars cleaner wax was best . In the newer test Meguiars cleaner wax is the worst. Go figure !
splogue
New member
Well, they aren't completely making up the results, but I've noticed that they give a big edge to price, so the cheaper things tend to win out overall. They also tend to skip testing the top of the line models in each category. Notice that they tested the Klasse, but the results aren't in with the other waxes. Again, very price-sensitive tests and results.
The wax testing perplexes me, though. I don't understand how some waxes test well one year, then don't do well in follow-on tests. I also wonder if they are testing for the right things. I tried the blue Zymol that came out number one last time. It smells great, but it also left so much dried crud in every crevice of the car that my wife asked me not to use it ever again. I think they don't use enough expert advisors when testing these kinds of products.
I always picture a bunch of really old men testing each thing and saying things like "Back in my day we used horse fat to clean our cars, and it only cost two hens per tin." Old, self-appointed experts who run tests to prove themselves right.
The paragraph at the end of the report is very indicative of this. They act like $23 for Klasse is a huge sum of money. So much so, that they recommend not considering it. Personally, I don't mind using a product that costs more than four dollars to help protect my cars, each of which cost tens of thousands of dollars. But, that's just me (and all of you, too, or you wouldn't be hanging out here). Shouldn't the point of these tests be to find the best product, regardless of cost? After all, I can tell how much it costs just by looking at the tag, but I need the test to tell me what the performance is. If I don't want to spend $23, I won't.
They *are* pretty good at testing things that are objectively measurable (without opinions), as long as you remember that they give points for lower cost. Sometimes I'll pick out the thing they like best, then go for the model one up from that. String trimmers, washing machines, detergents, and house paints. But not waxes!
Sean
The wax testing perplexes me, though. I don't understand how some waxes test well one year, then don't do well in follow-on tests. I also wonder if they are testing for the right things. I tried the blue Zymol that came out number one last time. It smells great, but it also left so much dried crud in every crevice of the car that my wife asked me not to use it ever again. I think they don't use enough expert advisors when testing these kinds of products.
I always picture a bunch of really old men testing each thing and saying things like "Back in my day we used horse fat to clean our cars, and it only cost two hens per tin." Old, self-appointed experts who run tests to prove themselves right.
The paragraph at the end of the report is very indicative of this. They act like $23 for Klasse is a huge sum of money. So much so, that they recommend not considering it. Personally, I don't mind using a product that costs more than four dollars to help protect my cars, each of which cost tens of thousands of dollars. But, that's just me (and all of you, too, or you wouldn't be hanging out here). Shouldn't the point of these tests be to find the best product, regardless of cost? After all, I can tell how much it costs just by looking at the tag, but I need the test to tell me what the performance is. If I don't want to spend $23, I won't.
They *are* pretty good at testing things that are objectively measurable (without opinions), as long as you remember that they give points for lower cost. Sometimes I'll pick out the thing they like best, then go for the model one up from that. String trimmers, washing machines, detergents, and house paints. But not waxes!
Sean
s I former product design engineer, I've read help wanted adds for Consumer's product testers. Believe me, they are NOT a bunch of old geezers talking about the good old days. I also believe that they are completely neutral in their evaluations. However, the evaluations are focused toward the average consumer. Most of the pictures of finished autos I've seen here are definately not average. On the contrary, they are some of the best around. That's what we're all trying to accomplish for our own personal autos, isn't it ?
I suspect a true audiophile would not agree that the Bose AM 5's or the 301's for bookcase speakers are the best either. Or would a professional photographer agree that the 3 meg pix camera rated a best buy was the best digital cameria out there?
I've always read the tests , keeping in mind what they consided of highest importance. If they believed that cost was a critical measurement and I didn't, then I took that into consideration when making my final purchasing decision.
I suspect a true audiophile would not agree that the Bose AM 5's or the 301's for bookcase speakers are the best either. Or would a professional photographer agree that the 3 meg pix camera rated a best buy was the best digital cameria out there?
I've always read the tests , keeping in mind what they consided of highest importance. If they believed that cost was a critical measurement and I didn't, then I took that into consideration when making my final purchasing decision.
Holy cow! That's the same 10 year old test that I have collecting dust in a bookshelf somewhere! 
I think CR articles do have their value, but you have to keep in mind the limits of their testing methodology (example: no testing of trim staining by their method) and their intended target audience (ie, the average Joe). Most non-enthusiast people consider waxing their car to be a chore, not a pleasure, which is something they even mentioned in their second review a couple years ago - they called it "drudgery" (do a search for this word
).
I think CR articles do have their value, but you have to keep in mind the limits of their testing methodology (example: no testing of trim staining by their method) and their intended target audience (ie, the average Joe). Most non-enthusiast people consider waxing their car to be a chore, not a pleasure, which is something they even mentioned in their second review a couple years ago - they called it "drudgery" (do a search for this word
).imported_BretFraz
New member
CHScholl said:
An excellent response and one I agree with. Its really easy to disrespect CR simply because their test results are not in line with our opinions. By my count they have 17 staffers in their Auto Test group and a total of 131 engineers, product analysts, project leaders, planning specialists, statisticians, and others in their Technical Division. How many engineers, chemists, and lab analysts are on Meguiars payroll?
Hard core OCD car detailers are not their audience and they do not create test procedures to satisfy us, nor do they for audiophiles or pro photographers or whoever. For the average person looking for reasonably unbiased info, I think CR is excellent. I may not turn to them for car wax advice but I certainly rely on them for lots of other info. I think they're an excellent, if imperfect, resource.
imported_Larry A
New member
I think people who test waxes for c.r. are people who dont like to wax cars they think its unimportant they would rather test sterios or vacume cleaners As far as cars are concern take it to the car wash get the spray wax and buy a new car every 2 years.