CR Buying Guide - Personal Vendetta

Sumgai · 12-11-2006, 09:26 PM

I think the wonk who wrote the sniglet for the Consumer Reports Buying Guide 2007 issue on the FJ Cruiser has gone off the reservation. They write (pg. 188):

"Visibility is awful, compromised by the thick roof pillars and small windows." and at the end of the paragraph "To be tested"

Please CR, describe to me your objective measurement system in which the word "awful" is a legitimate ranking.

And then apply that measurement system to ALL vehicles tested.

For the H2 CR writes (pg 176), "The short windshield and wide roof pillars make the view out difficult."

Much more objective. But hey CR, aren't there analytical measurements like "degrees of blind spot," measurable for a vehicle?

For the H3, not ONE word on visibility.

As noted above the CR "awful" appears to be a subjective "opinion" applied to only one vehicle out of all similar vehicles reviewed AND in this case, NOT REVIEWED at press time.

CR got spanked once by BOSE for making subjective comments (like "awful") about the BOSE 901's. BOSE sued CR, and won.

Toyota's corporate would quash any attempts by Toyota NA to litigate this matter, the Asian mindset is non-confrontational. But Toyota/J should make an exception on this one.

Subjective criticism like "Visibility is awful" is like a virus released to the wilds of plagarizing copywriters who are under the gun to write something quick to meet their own rags deadlines. Say it enough times and it becomes truth.

But this poor visibilty s**t on the FJ is simply a lie that the automotive dieties have started to try to find something, anything, to denigrate a truly outstanding vehicle.

It's Cool to be a Cruiser.

FJ33 · 12-11-2006, 09:29 PM

Visibility sucks in mine, but I didn't buy the high visibility package!

FJCameron · 12-11-2006, 09:31 PM

With mirrors and shoulder checks I am A-ok.

**Chatsworth 818 FJ** · 12-11-2006, 09:35 PM

The low visibility was noticeable on the test drive, but I got use to it on the way home. CU is PU.

Kansas Law Dog · 12-12-2006, 08:00 AM

It has been discussed before, but there are really two issues here.

1. The visibility to see adequately and drive safely. The FJ passes this test because the blind spots (all vehicles have them) are not debilitating and the three mirrors (rear view and side mirrors) provide good coverage.

2. The visibility to enjoy the great outdoor scenery (openness) is less than many alternative vehicle choices. Is it awful? Let's just say I call it one of the FJ's downside features. It is hard for me to envision how much the exterior design appeal of the FJ would be sacrificed to make the vehicle more open. One solution (I think) and the reason I am considering it, is to add a sunroof.

I think CR owes it to their readers to distinguish which visibility they are rating.

KiltedBishop · 12-12-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Kansas Law Dog previously said:

I think CR owes it to their readers to distinguish which visibility they are rating.

I agree completely. windshield? windows? mirrors? back window? all of the above? I find reviews like this fairly useless anyway. I research myself, test drive and decide for myself. Besides what others find I may not and vice versa. Aside from the back window I don't have a visibility issue.