Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

OK, that's two agreements on the same day. Prepare for the Rapture.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41D48D8F.EF5182B0@cox.net...
> Hi Matt,
> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
> spot which side their toast is buttered on.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
> > Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
> > member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
> > average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
system
> > by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

OK, that's two agreements on the same day. Prepare for the Rapture.

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:41D48D8F.EF5182B0@cox.net...
> Hi Matt,
> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
> spot which side their toast is buttered on.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
> > Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
> > member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
> > average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
system
> > by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

Tsunami?? Ok...really poor taste..sorry.

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

> OK, that's two agreements on the same day. Prepare for the Rapture.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:41D48D8F.EF5182B0@cox.net...
>
>>Hi Matt,
>> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
>>unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
>>they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
>>spot which side their toast is buttered on.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>>I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>>Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>>member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>>average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
>
> system
>
>>>by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.
>
>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

Tsunami?? Ok...really poor taste..sorry.

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

> OK, that's two agreements on the same day. Prepare for the Rapture.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:41D48D8F.EF5182B0@cox.net...
>
>>Hi Matt,
>> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
>>unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
>>they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
>>spot which side their toast is buttered on.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>>I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>>Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>>member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>>average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
>
> system
>
>>>by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.
>
>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

Tsunami?? Ok...really poor taste..sorry.

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:

> OK, that's two agreements on the same day. Prepare for the Rapture.
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:41D48D8F.EF5182B0@cox.net...
>
>>Hi Matt,
>> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
>>unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
>>they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
>>spot which side their toast is buttered on.
>> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>>Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>>I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>>Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>>member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>>average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
>
> system
>
>>>by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.
>
>
>

--
__________________________________________________ _________
tw

71 Bill Stroppe Baja Bronco
03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
01 XJ Sport

There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
-- Dave Barry

Pronunciation: 'jEp
Function: noun
Date: 1940

Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
World War II.

(Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
__________________________________________________ _________

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
right. I'd say it is more accurate they are strongly politically
motivated and totally clueless on anything more complex than a
toothpick.


L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Matt,
> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
> spot which side their toast is buttered on.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>>I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average system
>>by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
right. I'd say it is more accurate they are strongly politically
motivated and totally clueless on anything more complex than a
toothpick.


L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Matt,
> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
> spot which side their toast is buttered on.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>>I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average system
>>by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
right. I'd say it is more accurate they are strongly politically
motivated and totally clueless on anything more complex than a
toothpick.


L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Matt,
> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
> spot which side their toast is buttered on.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>>I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average system
>>by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

Agreed. In years past, their reports were useful if for nothing else
than comparing features of various products. These days, they seem to
only tell you what stores to look in. I was a subscriber for many years,
and enjoyed the publication until about 1995 or so. After that, the
political rants and lack of useful information became overwhelming. I
think I finally let my subscription expire in 2000.

For some reason, they seem to test vacuum cleaners almost monthly, but
avoid some other common household items. I came to the conclusion that
these days, they suck.

Regards,

DAve


Lon wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
> presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
> right. I'd say it is more accurate they are strongly politically
> motivated and totally clueless on anything more complex than a
> toothpick.
>
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
>> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
>> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
>> spot which side their toast is buttered on. God Bless America,
>> ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>> I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>> Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>> member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>> average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
>>> system
>>> by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Re: opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees
 

Agreed. In years past, their reports were useful if for nothing else
than comparing features of various products. These days, they seem to
only tell you what stores to look in. I was a subscriber for many years,
and enjoyed the publication until about 1995 or so. After that, the
political rants and lack of useful information became overwhelming. I
think I finally let my subscription expire in 2000.

For some reason, they seem to test vacuum cleaners almost monthly, but
avoid some other common household items. I came to the conclusion that
these days, they suck.

Regards,

DAve


Lon wrote:
>
> I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would
> presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one
> right. I'd say it is more accurate they are strongly politically
> motivated and totally clueless on anything more complex than a
> toothpick.
>
>
> L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:
>
>> Hi Matt,
>> Consumer magazine is bought and paid for. I've never read an
>> unbiased report by them. And the few products I am knowledgeable of,
>> they were totally WRONG! It's sometimes fun to see how quickly we can
>> spot which side their toast is buttered on. God Bless America,
>> ßill O|||||||O
>> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>> I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the
>>> Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its
>>> member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than
>>> average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average
>>> system
>>> by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.