Consumer Reports is simply another alternative source of information. Its greatest weakness is the lack of detail they provide in HOW they arrive at their ratings. They do not reveal the numerical weighting, test subscores, and how item price plays into the final reported numbers. Often missing are details about methods, installation particulars that could affect outcomes, lab environment, ancillary items such as consumable products used in testing, etc. Yes, CR is something less than optimal and as a member I have communicated my displeasure with them about not being more forthcoming with details. On the other hand, Consumer Reports is NOT in any manufacturers pocket, does not accept ad money, buys all of the test items on the open market, and tries, within its budgetary constraints, to test items that people want to know about. The egalitarian necessity of concentrating on mass-market appliance alternatives over custom kitchen high-end gear is apparent when one realizes they can test 5 side by sides for the price of one Sub Zero. Testing 5 side by sides will likely provide useful information for more people than the one Sub Zero they toss in. But as tastes migrate to more expensive gear, CR does try to keep up. In any case, I still use CR all the time and appreciate how handy they can be when it comes time to evaluate a product. I use my phone to look up stuff all the time and I find the results useful far more often than not. But I am a tester and I understand testing methods, including the sometimes frustrating limitations of operational testing, which is what Consumer Reports does. I think they are a good adjunct to have available for consultation when evaluating a purchase, and should be used in concert with other sources, including enthusiast forums like Gardenweb and other internet outlets. I think advice to "avoid" CR is not necessarily the best advice, personally, but suit yourselves in that regard.

I have been reading consumers reports (more or less) since 1972. They tend to put a very high weight on reliability. The luxury appliance brands such as Thermador and Viking often require far more repairs than the mid-range products (I have owned Thermador, a lot of parts broke off that refrigerator). If a high-volume manufacturer made a mid-range product that was unreliable, they would be out of business very quickly due to warranty claims. CU will tend to pick something at the 65th percentile in the market - the product that EVERYBODY is buying and it's successful because the manufacturer gives good value AND MORE SO reliability for money. American brands with a longterm (50-year) reputation for reliability are Kenmore, KitchenAid (=Hobart), and Whirlpool/Maytag (although we just got totally screwed and had to write off a $1300 Maytag over after 2Y which is why I'm on this website tonight.) Ralph Nader is the most senior consumer advocate in Amerca and he killed off the Chevy Corvair which was "Unsafe at Any Speed" with his book, and he probably saved 100k lives, any consumer advocacy organization should be PROUD to have Ralph Nader on their board of directors! CU also has some stupid biases, such as "Subaru always wins our 4WD car tests before we've even bought our cars" and "Camry is the best american midsized car, always has been, always will be." Another is, "Tesla Model 3/Y touch screens are so horrible and impossible to use that nobody could possibly operate a Tesla" (truthfully the touch screen is a revolution allowing Tesla to upgrade the car, fix MANY recalls, and even upgrade performance from 0-60 in 3.5s to 0-60 in 3.2s for my Model 3P+, and they also added Netflix / YouTube / Spotify / Pandora streaming via over-the-air download.) It used to be (early 1970s) that CU would actually publish measured specs of the items they reviewed (SNR, THD, radio sensitivity, etc.). They became intellectually dishonest in mid 1980's by changing to a rating system of "well below", "below", "average", "above average", and "well above average". They did this because were making mistakes and they were getting sued. I repeat: THEY DID THIS TO COVER UP THEIR MISTAKES. They did an absolute hatchet article on Bose Speakers and I heard Amar Bose justifiably complain about CU in a speech at MIT. They don't have guys in labcoats doing tests those are just actors posing for "style" photographs. Bose speakers do not have sound that "wanders about the room". CU's president claimed, "Nobody takes our magazine seriously It's an entertainment magazine!" to Amar Bose! When CU tested bicycles (my area of expertise) they made a truly horrific blunder by not categorizing models into narrow price ranges as it's a get-what-you-pay-for market and the main differentiator is how frameset geometry and wheel/tire choice impact ride comfort and handling. Just about the only CU reports that are intellectually honest these days are the reader surveys because CU is not making any measurements nor are they coming up with magic weighting schemes to over-emphasize subjective usability measures (such as Tesla controls) in the overall "product score". So, rely on them for product / brand reliability, especially among cars!

* Posted by jerrod6 (My Page) on Sat, May 24, 08 at 18:23 "I wonder if it is possible to compare TL or FL made 1 or 2 years ago to the ones made today because the energy requirements are stricter. I think washers made for the 2008 market must use less water than washers made for the 2005, 2006 or 2007 market. In this process they must use less energy which has made some manufactures define a hot wash as 90F. Sorry, but any temperature below my body temperature is not hot." My F&P Aquasmart purchased a couple of weeks ago defines hot as "Incoming water from faucet". I assume you could crank up your water heater to whatever temp you wish, although I still wish it had an internal heater. Couple things I dislike: No FS dispenser. I thought this was very low rent for such an expensive washer. Even people who don't use FS may use vinegar. There is no feedback on programming. You can program in an extra rinse but there is no way I can see to look at the machine and tell if it is going to do one rinse or two. F&P recommend deep fill for sheets, whites, bulky and Easy Iron. So maybe 50-60% of the washing sees an energy (water)saving? I like that it has 1000 RPM spin... clothes dry faster. As for cleaning ability... it seems adequate. I haven't had it long enough to have any challenging tasks. If I could change anything it would be to add a fs dispenser and an internal heater to easily reach sanitizing temps.

I've posted this other places, but one thing to keep in mind about Ikea appliances in the US is that they're great until there's a problem, at which point ikea and whirlpool can manage to point fingers at each other just about forever. Repair can be an absolute nightmare. Ikeafans was full of stories.