Consumer Reports rates the 300 and 300C

I know more people who don't trust what they say than those that do. The
"known" ones are usually the ones that can remember the news stories about
them from several years ago.

==================

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> CopperTop wrote:
>
> > I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about.
It's a
> > known fact (at least by some) that some of their reporters/writers have
been
> > bought.
>
> Known by whom?
>
>
> Matt
>

"CopperTop" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about. It's
a
> known fact (at least by some) that some of their reporters/writers have
been
> bought.
>
Do you have documentation that Consumer Reports has been "bought" in regard
to their road tests? I doubt it.

C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its size.
The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises visibility.
The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates
them will prefer the 500.

"CopperTop" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about. It's
a
> known fact (at least by some) that some of their reporters/writers have
been
> bought.
>
Do you have documentation that Consumer Reports has been "bought" in regard
to their road tests? I doubt it.

C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its size.
The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises visibility.
The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates
them will prefer the 500.

"KokomoKid" wrote:

>C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
>transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
>roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its size.
>The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
>styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises visibility.
>The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
>people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates
>them will prefer the 500.

I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as merely a "transportation appliance"
but can understand how any Ford product (excluding the new Mustang) could
be/would be/is regarded as merely an "appliance".

"KokomoKid" wrote:

>C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
>transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
>roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its size.
>The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
>styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises visibility.
>The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
>people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates
>them will prefer the 500.

I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as merely a "transportation appliance"
but can understand how any Ford product (excluding the new Mustang) could
be/would be/is regarded as merely an "appliance".

I won't waste my time digging up info for you, you already have your mind
set that it didn't happen. But several writers/researchers lost their job
due to "favors" they received from several companies. That's all I'll
respond to about this.

I didn't waste my time reading the article either since, as you say (and as
I know), the two cars really shouldn't be compared. Their target customer I
would certainly imagine would be different although Ford may not want to
admit that. The Ford is definitely a nice car but until they offer more
than that V6, they won't appeal to everyone (especially with that plain
vanilla Honda-like exterior). It's a safe car for safe (and older) people.
It will be a big hit with the rental car companies. The 300 either with the
3.5 V6 or the hemi is a much more exciting car, visually and from the
drivers seat. I've driven both. Proof not necessary here either since they
are currently at your local dealer and you can research this as well.
======================


"KokomoKid" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "CopperTop" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about.
It's
> a
> > known fact (at least by some) that some of their reporters/writers have
> been
> > bought.
> >
> Do you have documentation that Consumer Reports has been "bought" in
regard
> to their road tests? I doubt it.
>
> C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
> transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
> roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its
size.
> The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
> styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises
visibility.
> The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
> people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R.
rates
> them will prefer the 500.
>
>

I won't waste my time digging up info for you, you already have your mind
set that it didn't happen. But several writers/researchers lost their job
due to "favors" they received from several companies. That's all I'll
respond to about this.

I didn't waste my time reading the article either since, as you say (and as
I know), the two cars really shouldn't be compared. Their target customer I
would certainly imagine would be different although Ford may not want to
admit that. The Ford is definitely a nice car but until they offer more
than that V6, they won't appeal to everyone (especially with that plain
vanilla Honda-like exterior). It's a safe car for safe (and older) people.
It will be a big hit with the rental car companies. The 300 either with the
3.5 V6 or the hemi is a much more exciting car, visually and from the
drivers seat. I've driven both. Proof not necessary here either since they
are currently at your local dealer and you can research this as well.
======================


"KokomoKid" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "CopperTop" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > I put little to no faith in anything Consumer Reports writes about.
It's
> a
> > known fact (at least by some) that some of their reporters/writers have
> been
> > bought.
> >
> Do you have documentation that Consumer Reports has been "bought" in
regard
> to their road tests? I doubt it.
>
> C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
> transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
> roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its
size.
> The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
> styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises
visibility.
> The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
> people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R.
rates
> them will prefer the 500.
>
>

CopperTop wrote:

> I know more people who don't trust what they say than those that do. The
> "known" ones are usually the ones that can remember the news stories about
> them from several years ago.

Well that is certainly solid data to hang your hat on.

Matt

CopperTop wrote:

> I know more people who don't trust what they say than those that do. The
> "known" ones are usually the ones that can remember the news stories about
> them from several years ago.

Well that is certainly solid data to hang your hat on.

Matt

RPhillips47 wrote:

> "KokomoKid" wrote:
>
>
>>C.R. rated the 500 higher than the 300 because they rate cars as
>>transportation appliances, not as excitement machines. The 500 is quiet,
>>roomy, comfortable, and gets relatively good gas mileage for a car its size.
>>The 300, especially the 300C is much more exciting and "fun," and its
>>styling gets attention. That same styling, though, compromises visibility.
>>The 300 and 500 are both good cars, but they will appeal to different
>>people, and the people looking for "transportation appliances" as C.R. rates
>>them will prefer the 500.
>
>
> I pity anyone who regards their vehicle as merely a "transportation appliance"
> but can understand how any Ford product (excluding the new Mustang) could
> be/would be/is regarded as merely an "appliance".

Yes, but the majority of car buyers do view cars that way and that is
why Toyota is now #2 in sales ... and will be #1 in a matter of time.
That is also why both CR and C&D have a place in this world.


Matt