No longer approved

I've found that there are some people that think an article or rating is great if it agrees with what they already thought, and it sucks if they don't. I don't get these people, but they are out there.
Duke, have you ever considered that CR's "favorites" are just actually better? Don't think about the particular brand/model, but just think for a moment that something has to come out on top. For example, if they are soo pro-Honda, why did they just remove the Civic from their recommended list of cars? I will admit that their reliability ratings are skewed in places (like badge engineered cars) by the demographics of the people that own them, but I still don't know of anything more accurate.
There are cycles in the auto industry, and over a long period of time different brands dominate. For a while it was Honda and Toyota. Maybe now we're seeing a shift back to domestic brands. I for one hope so.

Otto Maddox wrote: The CR hate is tiresome particularly when it comes from people who haven't picked up an issue in a decade or two.

I subscribed a couple years back. They were still tending to rate cars purely on how well they would work as point A to point B transportation. They did seem to have a vague preference for better driving dynamics, but tended to describe them in a sort of dry language that sounded like they were trying to be precise but failed to communicate things clearly. For example, they may have some sort of note along the lines of "handling is responsive but lacks agility" or some other thing that had me thinking "What is that really supposed to mean?"

And yes, I spent a fair amount of time comparing whether their reliability ratings lined up well for corporate twins. I don't recall any specific models that I checked, but there were quite a few cases where they would assign cars that used the same platform and engine different ratings.

In reply to MadScientistMatt:

Don't get me wrong. I am not claiming their review are good. But they are a decent starting point to get some basic generalities about the performance of the cars. I've found there reliability data to be really useful and has corresponded incredibly well to my own personal experiences. I guess it could be dumb luck, but I suspect there is more to it than that.

I like the CR acceleration tests. In automatic cars, they just push the gas pedal down all the way. On manuals, they just pull away cleanly without shenanigans that you generally wouldn't do on a regular basis in your cherished daily driver. (Car and Driver uses a 5-60 acceleration measure that is similarly useful.)

Oh my goodness, I made a faux pas. For a repost it sure created a lot of traffic.

CR does have a lot of useful info on appliances. Most people outside of auto enthusiasts tend to view cars as just that. Granted, people like stylish, fully featured appliances that communicate something of the status they wish to project. They are a magazine who knows their target audience.

Also, they're right about the Civic. My sister has a 2010 generation Civic. The interior materials are not as nice as my 4 year old Mazda3. The new one doesn't offer much of anything above its competition. Honda has been resting on their laurels a while (Toyota too).

When CR reviewed the Miata early on in production, they noted the door handles could easily get packed with snow. What in the hell were they doing, walking around the car with handfuls of snow looking for places to pack it? I bought a Miata anyway, looking beyond this horrific door handle design flaw. I also stopped reading CR forever.

Only if you went backwards into a snowbank. Wind generally keeps snow out of Miata doorhandles