therwol Loc: USA

1996. I can't find anything online to verify what I said. This is what I remember. They really liked the new (non-boxy) design. They liked the handling and other features. I have to admit that I've never had more comfortable seats in a car. There was no reliability history on the new design. (The older design was pretty bad, which should have been a clue.) The engine was made by Mitsubishi, which would make you think it might be somewhat reliable. Within a few months to a year, pulleys were flying off of the thing, the water pump failed, the air conditioner failed. The radio failed. A few years later, the transmission failed twice. But nice seats.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Hey at least you were comfortable every time you had to wait for AAA. Seriously I don't recall Chrysler Corp mini vans EVER getting a good review in CR, but I could be wrong. And even the worst cars sometimes have a well received feature or two, unfortunately in your case it was just the seats..

therwol Loc: USA

If it had been reliable, it would have been a dream car. It was really comfortable and handled well. I should have known better, having already owned a couple of Japanese cars that (almost) never broke down.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Perhaps CR simply does not give products a rating of "excellent" in such a generous manner as other review sources do, and chooses to reserve that rating to only a very limited number of products which it deems as truly exceptional.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Well, you are 100% wrong there. I live a few miles from their HQ and find that they have a complete range of talents - chefs, nutritionists, mechanical engineers, financial analysts, chemical engineers, physicists, medical specialists, etc - and a range of ages. I know a few people who work there and I can tell you that you couldn't be more wrong.

The problem with their camera analyses is that they tailor their testing for the average, mainstream, Joe or Jane. And their focus has always had a bias towards how much "bang for the buck" each product represented. So professionals, advanced enthusiasts and others are rarely considered in their ratings. The same goes for esoteric, high end audio, professional-quality home theater, etc.

The more advanced people presumably know where to get the in-depth, high quality, detailed reports and comparisons for the high-end stuff.

It was years before a Nikon film camera, the Nikon F and the Ftn, an extremely popular choice among working pros and amateurs who could afford one, made it into their ratings, and then it didn't do all that well. By the same token, don't hold your breath for a review on the McLaren P1 - and if it ever does get reviewed, it won't do well - hard to get into and out of, very uneconomical, terrible blind spots, high cost of maintenance - in short, not a good car to use to go grocery shopping or taxi-ing the kids to their soccer matches.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

However for some types of products the criteria that is used for testing and rating gear is not always the same criteria that enthusiasts/hobbyists would use. Consumer Reports doesn't fuss over the subtle differences in image quality, edge-to-edge sharpness across the frame, being able to extract low noise details from dark shadow areas, and 101 other things the average consumer who uses it as a purchase decision guide wouldn't know, understand, or care about.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Yep, completely agree as I tried to express in an earlier post with regard to both high end photography and hifi equipment.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

We all have different expectations for dream cars. Mine would never have been a minivan of any description.

therwol Loc: USA

Needed to move kids around, 3 of ours and their friends plus exchange students who used to stay with us. The alternative at the time would have been a full size van or Ford Suburban, neither of which appealed to us, and those cars probably wouldn't have been more reliable. They definitely would have used a lot more gas.

BebuLamar

While I agree with you with most of the reports I read from CR. Their bests as they call them are "BEST BUYS" so yes they are best bang for the bucks. However, the cameras that the OP cited can be considered as best bang for the bucks but not the only ones with excellent image. Many others can produce better images than those.

Designdweeb Loc: Metro NYC & East Stroudsburg, PA

My experience as a photographer and audiophile echoes the consensus here. I am interested in an overview of appliance features or repair histories if I ever pick up a copy.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Perhaps there is too much emphasis on technology-based criteria and features, and not enough attention paid to user-friendliness of design. Many cameras on today's market have poorly laid out button and dial placement, inappropriate weight distribution, awkward menu system, etc. Unfortunately, a great majority of popular camera reviews avoid examining these issues, or only do so in passing. Yes, the typical consumer focuses heavily on the criteria you mentioned, but mainly because they have been conditioned to do so by popular review sources.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

CR tries to appear to the masses. Volume brings in the most $$$. Nothing wrong with that.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Again, image quality is secondary to price, useability, durability, etc. Keep thinking Average Joe, Average Jane, Uncle Harry, Aunt Josie - etc. Do they care about most of the stuff we care about? If a camera can record an image that box is ticked and the reviewer moves on to the next criterion.

I am not disagreeing with you on the merits of image quality. Knowing the philosophy, first hand, I am just telling you what counts and what doesn't at the CR Labs.