Enough of your nonsense!
Chrysler sold two models in the ‘70s that were essentially Audi/Volkswagen chasis with a different body style, and marketed them as Plymouth and Dodge. One was called the Horizon, the other I don’t remember.
Consumer reports listed them both as well as the Audi and VW models.
They listed the Chrysler models as unacceptable and too dangerous to drive, while the identical Audi and VW were listed as superior in every category.
Consumer Reports has never been honest, nor reliable.
.
you need a real car guy to argue with you about your old half remembered chimeras. I can’t help you on any of this stuff.
In any case I’m talking about the future of the car industry an not its past.
If you have to go back 40 years in order to find an example of them screwing up then that is about the best endorsement you can give. Consumer Reports has been a very high quality publication for as long as I can remember and they go way beyond what any other media outlet does to remain editorially independent. Seriously, you should look into the lengths they go to in order to not have advertiser or OEM influence on their publication.
“The purpose of electric cars is the destruction of the mobility of the masses, to make them more easily controlled.”
That is a little tin-foil-hatty, don't you think? I would actually like a Chevy Volt myself so that I can cut the amount of money I send to OPEC by about 90%. And since it also has a gasoline engine, I would have zero loss in mobility.
The other was the Dodge Omni.
But neither of them were Volkswagens or Audis. True, for a time they used VW engine parts (short block) and VW manual transmissions. The basic car was the Simca Horizon. Simca was the French division of Chrysler.
In no way was the Omni/Horizon "identical" to the VW Rabbit/Golf, as you claim. The most you could honestly say was that they were similar.
But your point about Consumer Reports is spot on. They pulled the same stunt with their rollover claim about the Suzuki Samurai. From that link:
" The videos showed, among other things, that the testing personnel had driven the Samurai through the course no fewer than 46 times before getting it to tip up on two wheels on the 47th, a result that was met by laughing and cheering from the group."
From a previous link:
While travelling (sic) at freeway speeds the (Consumer Reports) tester twisted the steering wheel approximately 90 degrees, and then took both hands off the wheel. The O/H failed to display sufficient recovery to satisfy the CR testers."
The CR automobile reliability ratings are highly suspect since they are based on subscriber responses to an annual survey, a "self-selected" sample. CR's subscriber base tends to be far older, better educated, and of higher income than the general population, so statistically, the CR sample is flawed. The process by which the arrive at their ratings from the raw data is never revealed.
Is CR biased? In some cases, without a doubt. Is it intentional? That can be debated, but the bias is there if you look for it.
Is CR useful? Yes, in a way, but only if you understand that it is just one of many data points that can be considered, if you take the time to do some research.
Should CR be taken as gospel? Absolutely not.