Consumer Reports slams Magnum

Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking and
handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.

"Art" wrote:

>Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
>Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
>when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
>capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
>the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking and
>handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
>would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
>problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.

Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................

"Art" wrote:

>Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
>Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
>when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
>capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
>the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking and
>handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
>would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
>problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.

Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................

Sign over Consumer Reports main entrance: "If it's American, it must suck!"


"RPhillips47" > wrote in message
...
> "Art" wrote:
>
>>Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
>>Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
>>when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
>>capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
>>the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking
>>and
>>handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
>>would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
>>problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.
>
> Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................

Sign over Consumer Reports main entrance: "If it's American, it must suck!"


"RPhillips47" > wrote in message
...
> "Art" wrote:
>
>>Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
>>Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
>>when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
>>capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
>>the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking
>>and
>>handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
>>would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
>>problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.
>
> Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................

Actually the Mazda and Volvo did not do all that well either.
Consumer Reports sign really says "If its Toyota or Honda, we love it."

Consumer Reports made a list of all the current smaller SUV's/wagon. Some
things I remember: The Pacifica was rated better than the Magnum and the
frequency of repair is average. Mazda 6 is not recommended because of bad
frequency or repair. The VW's did well but one had a bad frequency of
repair and the other average.

All of the cars are so different from each other it is highly unlikely that
someone thinking about a Magnum would decide on a Honda Pilot instead.


"SRG" > wrote in message
...
> Sign over Consumer Reports main entrance: "If it's American, it must
> suck!"
>
>
> "RPhillips47" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Art" wrote:
>>
>>>Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
>>>Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
>>>when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
>>>capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
>>>the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking
>>>and
>>>handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
>>>would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
>>>problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.
>>
>> Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................
>
>

Actually the Mazda and Volvo did not do all that well either.
Consumer Reports sign really says "If its Toyota or Honda, we love it."

Consumer Reports made a list of all the current smaller SUV's/wagon. Some
things I remember: The Pacifica was rated better than the Magnum and the
frequency of repair is average. Mazda 6 is not recommended because of bad
frequency or repair. The VW's did well but one had a bad frequency of
repair and the other average.

All of the cars are so different from each other it is highly unlikely that
someone thinking about a Magnum would decide on a Honda Pilot instead.


"SRG" > wrote in message
...
> Sign over Consumer Reports main entrance: "If it's American, it must
> suck!"
>
>
> "RPhillips47" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Art" wrote:
>>
>>>Not surprisingly Consumer Reports did not have much good to say about the
>>>Magnum. They tested the 3.5 (I believe they will be reporting on the hemi
>>>when they test the sedan) and of course thought the visibility and load
>>>capacity were highly compromised by the styling. They considered some of
>>>the trim on the door panels cheap and the suspension was noisy. Braking
>>>and
>>>handling was compromised by the Badyear tires. Incredible that Chyrsler
>>>would go back to lousy tires on the their big vehicles after the tire
>>>problems they had on the first 2 years of the 300M.
>>
>> Not surprisingly you are posting this.............................
>
>

"Art" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Actually the Mazda and Volvo did not do all that well either.
> Consumer Reports sign really says "If its Toyota or Honda, we love it."
>
> Consumer Reports made a list of all the current smaller SUV's/wagon. Some
> things I remember: The Pacifica was rated better than the Magnum and the
> frequency of repair is average. Mazda 6 is not recommended because of bad
> frequency or repair. The VW's did well but one had a bad frequency of
> repair and the other average.
>
> All of the cars are so different from each other it is highly unlikely
that
> someone thinking about a Magnum would decide on a Honda Pilot instead.

I've never understood this about any car magazine. They put really different
cars together head to head.

For example, they might have, as "hatchbacks", the Echo hatch, VW Golf, and
a Mini. Those cars are on such different parts of the continuum. If I were
rating "super small cars", I'd put Echo vs. Hyundai Accent vs. Chevy Aveo.

Then they nitpick stupid stuff, like they might complain about the Echo not
having power windows, completely oblivious that such options add cost, and
people buying compact cars tend to be price conscious.

Oh, and they think the Echo Hatchback is "cute". At that point they loose
all credibility.

There was an article in one magazine about the Ford Freestar. Being of
domestic origin, they had to invent something wrong, as the vehicle hadn't
given them any problems. What did they complain about? They said because the
gas tank is large, it is expensive to fill. WTF!? If it had poor fuel
economy I'd report that as such, but too big a gas tank? I'd consider that a
plus because it would extend the range. I'm curious if they know that you
don't have to fully top up the tank each time you stop for gas, nor do you
have to wait for it to reach empty.

"Art" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Actually the Mazda and Volvo did not do all that well either.
> Consumer Reports sign really says "If its Toyota or Honda, we love it."
>
> Consumer Reports made a list of all the current smaller SUV's/wagon. Some
> things I remember: The Pacifica was rated better than the Magnum and the
> frequency of repair is average. Mazda 6 is not recommended because of bad
> frequency or repair. The VW's did well but one had a bad frequency of
> repair and the other average.
>
> All of the cars are so different from each other it is highly unlikely
that
> someone thinking about a Magnum would decide on a Honda Pilot instead.

I've never understood this about any car magazine. They put really different
cars together head to head.

For example, they might have, as "hatchbacks", the Echo hatch, VW Golf, and
a Mini. Those cars are on such different parts of the continuum. If I were
rating "super small cars", I'd put Echo vs. Hyundai Accent vs. Chevy Aveo.

Then they nitpick stupid stuff, like they might complain about the Echo not
having power windows, completely oblivious that such options add cost, and
people buying compact cars tend to be price conscious.

Oh, and they think the Echo Hatchback is "cute". At that point they loose
all credibility.

There was an article in one magazine about the Ford Freestar. Being of
domestic origin, they had to invent something wrong, as the vehicle hadn't
given them any problems. What did they complain about? They said because the
gas tank is large, it is expensive to fill. WTF!? If it had poor fuel
economy I'd report that as such, but too big a gas tank? I'd consider that a
plus because it would extend the range. I'm curious if they know that you
don't have to fully top up the tank each time you stop for gas, nor do you
have to wait for it to reach empty.

Consumer Reports dislikes the Magnum, eh?

I wasn't so hot on it before, but now I am.