jaunty75

A copy was available on ebay for few dollars, so I bought it as it was supposed to contain ratings of an Olds "88" and competitors. Turned out it was the Delmont 88 with the 425, not a Delta 88, which is what I have, but the article is still a great read all these years later. I think we all know how generally hostile CR has been over the decades to American-made cars, at least until very recently. But it's still a very entertaining read from back when these cars were not the historical greats we treat them as today but instead just everyday cars with warts.

Overall, the article criticizes pretty much every aspect of the cars rated (Olds Delmont, Chrysler Newport, Mercury Monterey, and Buick LeSabre 400), including ride, handling, braking, and comfort. The article's basic premise is that these cars do not deliver, for their extra price, anything more than you would get in a similarly equipped Ford, Chevy, Plymouth, or Pontiac.

The particular complaints against these cars were that, for example, when loaded with more than three adults, they rode worse than the lower-priced cars. “The rides became very uncomfortable when the cars were loaded to the manufacturer's full rated load (1100 lbs of people and luggage). All of the cars' undercarriages hit the road frequently when going over bumps, with the Olds being the worst and actually experiencing damage in the form of a "badly" dented crossover pipe and a scored oil pan and drain plug. Both the Olds' and Buick's rear suspensions were bottomed out when fully loaded and the cars were at rest.”

Under lighter loads, all of the cars had riding "flaws." The Mercury was the best, but its "well-controlled motions over most road undulations were occasionally punctuated by abrupt jars when the wheels rebounded. And the front suspension occasionally dropped to its limits after sharp bumps. Washboard surfaces made the Chrysler creak and the Buick tremble. The Olds floated ponderously over large bumps; when it landed, its front cross member grazed the road."

Ouch.

The article continues: "The two GM cars were prone to 'shouldering’ (side-to-side rocking of the passengers) over rural roads. On rough curves, the Olds’ rear suspension hopped sideways. The steering gears in both cars developed enough play to kick the driver’s hands annoyingly when the cars rumbled over broken surfaces.”


As far as “Performance and Economy,” the “Olds was ordered with the optional 425 cubic-inch V8 (ordered as a regular fuel engine) teamed with the three-speed Turbo-Hydramatic transmission.” CR didn’t say much other than that all of the cars tested “accelerated slightly more rapidly than the Chevrolet, Ford, and Plymouth V8s reported on in January.” But then CR goes on to say “as you might expect, these heavier cars did not go as far on a gallon of gas in the constant speed test as did the January test cars, and we would expect them to be a good deal less economical in normal stop-and-go driving.”

In looking at the “facts and figures” section, the reported mileage for the Olds ranged from 15.5 mpg at a steady 60 mph to 19.5 at a steady 30 mph. This was the worst, but not by much, of the four cars. The Buick had a 400, the Mercury at 390, and the Chrysler a 383.

Getting back to the article, my favorite part was the section on braking, which is titled “Stop...please stop.” CR says “these heavy cars tax their braking systems severely.” The article continues “Unfortunately, U.S. automakers often introduce excessive power assist, making it difficult for a driver to avoid locking one, two, or three wheels when he least needs, expects, or intends it. That was the case with these cars. Their minimum controlled stopping distances were longer than average, partly because of oversensitive, hard-to-control brakes and partly because of their nose-heavy weight bias.”

It gets better: “The Olds and Buick required 200 feet to come to a controlled stop (emphasis theirs) from 60 mph. We emphasize ‘controlled stop’ because both cars could be stopped shorter if we didn’t insist that they stay within their own 12-foot traffic lane.” There is no further discussion of the Olds in this section.

In order, CR rated the cars as the Chrysler first followed by the Olds, the Mercury, and then the Buick. “The Olds Delmont 88, when equipped with the smooth and powerful 425-cubic-inch engine and three-speed automatic transmission, was quieter and smoother than the Chrysler and nearly as comfortable. And its new and smoothly contoured instrument panel showed some concern for safety. However, ride, handling, and braking ability were unimpressive.”

There’s much more, but this is already getting long. I’ll finish with my favorite part of the article. Consumer Reports has long reported on “sample defects,” or what was wrong with each individual car when they took delivery in terms of assembly quality, fit, finish, and that sort of thing. The section is titled “What Went Wrong with This Month’s Test Cars,” and some of them just make you want to laugh out loud. Here they are:

Chrysler Newport
- two air conditioning ducts disconnected
- trip odometer cable broke
- automatic choke stuck open – bent choke rod
- air vent door misaligned and leaking
- hood latch failed
- parking brake lever loose at panel
- numerous body rattles
- slide rail for the ashtray cover broken
- clip missing from rain gutter moulding on roof
- numerous flaws in body sheet metal
- front-wheel camber out of specification
- tire pressures incorrectly set

Oldsmobile Delmont 88-425
- emergency flasher dead on arrival
- windshield washer aimed too low
- outside mirror fell off (ouch!!)
- shutter on air conditioning outlet door broken
- transmission failed to up-shift when cold
- front-wheel toe-in out of specification
- hydraulic brake connection leaked
- excessive play in steering gear

Mercury Monterey
- seat belt warning lit up arbitrarily
- windshield washer aimed too low
- windshield wiper poorly adjusted
- water leaks
- accelerator linkage sticky
- heater very slow to warm up; defrosting poor
- tire valve not fully installed and leaking
- spark plug wire very loose
- tire pressures incorrectly set
- front wheel caster out of specification


Interestingly, in spite of its fourth-place showing, the Buick had by far the fewest defects
- air conditioner control unplugged
- lock for a seat track inoperative
- excessive play in steering gear
- front wheel caster out of specification

Allan R

Might have been easier on your fingers to just scan and paste the article...

jaunty75

I didn't start out intending for the post to be as long as it was. I can scan and post it if anyone is interested.

rustyroger

Would you please?.
If nobody else is interested Perhaps you could send me a copy?.


I like reading old copies of "Consumer Reports" reviews of older cars, and my home country's "Motoring Which?". Not to everyones taste I know, and I don't care.


I think I can say we tend to look back on our old cars with affection sometimes approaching reverence, and turn a blind eye to drawbacks our cars might have, or dismiss them as "Character".


In the real world back in the day cars WERE sloppily assembled, and broke down at a rate that would be totally unacceptable today. I know many of us have cars from the '50s, '60s, and '70s that perform faultlessly in regular use. But let's not forget that these are mostly maintained to a very high standard by enthusiasts with much better quality lubricants and filters, and replacement parts are probably made to higher standards too. An overhauled re-machined engine will probably be built to much closer tolerances than when it left the factory maybe half a century ago.


Some of the British cars I have owned and though highly of came in for criticism that when I take off my rose tinted glasses I can see was justified.


Let us remember "Consumer Reports", "Motoring Which?" and similar publications in the rest of the world are not aimed at gearheads, their purpose is to help Joe Public make a better informed decision when they make a major financial commitment such as buying a new car.
In the '60s "Consumer Reports" could hardly be accused of bashing domestic products, apart from the VW Beetle, imports were very much a tiny niche of the car market. I think it fair to say most of the criticism was justified, in 1967 the vast majority of cars were large body on frame or hefty unibody designs with a large lazy engine up front driving a solid rear axle mostly via an automatic transmission. To my uneducated eyes back then most American cars were hard to tell apart.


I bought some old "consumer Reports" magazines from a member of this forum a while ago, dating from 1961 to 1965, all the cars they tested were found wanting in various ways, never once picking any domestic model as the best all rounder in its price range, however the VW beetle got the nod as the best all round small import.


Roger.

jaunty75

Here's a link to download the full article. It's in pdf format, and it's about 3 MB in size.

http://www.adrive.com/public/f8GGmK/...to%20tests.pdf

MDchanic

I've had this window open, but have been busy and haven't had a chance to read the article yet.
I wanted to wait and read it before thanking you for posting it, so I could make some intelligent comment, but I'll just say "Thank you for posting it!" now.

- Eric

Koda

I thoroughly enjoy old publications of when these cars were new.

jaunty75

Especially when they're discussing a car you own now!

Allan R

Good article Dan. I used to subscribe to CR, but after a while I fell away mostly because IMO their reporting got a lot biased. I remember the Chrysler styling well - my friends Dad bought one; and to be honest? We never thought twice about safety factors back then. I don't remember even having done up seat belts back then. I do remember the 383 engine fondly though and don't remember the Newport being a noisy car.

No experience with the other models tested. Say, do you think the CR articles actually affected the buyers? I'm of the opinion that a report back then was one thing, but I think brand loyalty was way stronger.

jaunty75

I had a similar reaction. I subscribed for a while back in the '70s and '80s, but I found them to be getting less and less about testing toasters and vacuum cleaners and more and more about being shrill and political. There was always a consumer advocacy aspect to their mission, and that's even reflected in this May '67 issue I have. But the issue is mostly about every-day consumer products. In this particular issue, in addition to the article about the cars, they also have articles and ratings about washing machines, electric knives, vinyl/fabric wallcoverings, and "durable-press" sheets and pillowcases. I mean, how more everday-consumer can you get?

Not that much. CR also came out (and still comes out) with an annual "Auto Issue" every April, and I think this might have been helpful to people looking for a car because it would arrive in mailboxes in early March every year, when people are getting to the idea of getting a new car if they're going to get one that year, and it would include information on all models at one time, so you could make comparisons.

All the other months of the year, the magazine would have an article reviewing maybe four or five cars in a particular category, such as compacts or station wagons or whatever, and the articles would be interesting and give you things to think about when looking for a car, but few people likely bought cars on CR's publication schedule, especially if you didn't know ahead of time what cars would be reviewed in what issue.

rustyroger

It probably did have a little influence for the subscribers. Probably mainly if someone had bought a particular model before and had a bad experience with it. They would almost certainly consider alternative cars in the same category.
Brand loyalty strikes me as much stronger in the USA than over here, however the (once) Big Three couldn't rely on brand loyalty forever, I don't want to bash them, but how many returned to domestics after sampling an import?. The sales figures speak for themselves, I don't think CR is solely responsible for the domestics fall from grace.


Roger.

ent72olds

Very cool Dan, thanks!

jaunty75

Here's the front cover of the issue. I forgot to mention that there was also ratings of 30 models of fly fishing reels.

Allan R

Roger, brand loyalty in the US and Canada was very strong back in the day. Our family was Olds loyal and it really irked me to see CR bash Olds and other NA brands a lot, and give such glowing praise to the import market, especially when the imports only real claim to fame was fuel economy. The older imports had as many or more reliability issues with (premature) rust on body panels, integrity and regular mtce as NA cars. I get that over time values have changed, and so have production methods and quality control. Back then however, when I had excellent service and reliability from my Olds, I really thought the perception of the CR reporting was incredibly biased.

I have looked through some of the New car buyers guides CR publishes now and to be honest I don't agree with a lot of their assessments even today. They likely have their place in the sun for people who wish to use them, but with the information on the net nowadays, I can find more information that is likely a better cross sampling. (just have to apply the 15% BS factor, that's all)

Car buying and assessment is going to be different for everyone depending on their experiences and knowledge.

rocketman77

Any mag that evaluates 30 models of fly fishin reels is a must for my library

rustyroger

I too had a loyalty to BMC cars that came from my father.
However as time went by I had to recognise that they weren't the best cars ever.
So did the buying public, the company had huge labor problems, not helped by appalling management, and now it is history.
I think GM has been beset by similar issues, let's hope it weathers its current long standing crisis.
How many major corporations are still the giants they were 50-100 years ago?. Not that many I'd guess.


Roger.

rustyroger

It seems a few others share my interest in reading contemporary reports on old cars. I find it refreshing to see how they were perceived to compare with each other back in the day.


Thank you Jaunty for taking time to reply to my PM, it's people like you that make this forum a fun place for me as well as a source of help and information.


If anyone has copies of CR relevant to an '87 Olds 88 or '89 Buick Le Sabre I would be glad to hear from you.


Roger.

drop top olds

From what I recall about the Consumer Reports magazine "back in the day" I never saw a positive article about any car. I got the impression their view was "every car is junk".

jaunty75

This was generally true, at least for American makes. For the most part, the comments were valid, in my opinion.

For the most part, CR's criticisms were focused more on safety, economy, and that sort of thing, and, while they still considered these, less on comfort and convenience. Note in the article I posted their comments about pointed protrusions and hard surfaces on dashboards that pose a safety threat to occupants, and sharp corners on fenders and hoods that pose additional danger to a pedestrian that might be hit by the car. Over the decades, these criticisms have largely been addressed. Cars ARE much safer now. External shapes ARE much more rounded. In one sense, CR was ahead of its time.

MDchanic

Sorry, I'd been meaning to respond to this thread, but needed a few more minutes than I had.

Yes, Consumer Reports has a certain ideology or philosophy, and it was more pronounced in the sixties than it is now. Consumers' Union, the nonprofit organization that publishes Consumer Reports, sees itself as the protector not only of consumers' pocketbooks, but also of their physical safety.

In today's litigation-rich world, sometimes it can be hard to recall the world of the fifties and sixties, but back then, the big corporations were seen as your benevolent uncles, and you were expected to follow their lead without question. There were some nonconformist souls who insisted on looking at things more independently, and those people could read the statistics and see that many injuries from car accidents were caused by pointy or jagged protrusions on the inside of cars, or by others on the outside, and that some of the worst were caused by steering columns spearing people through the chest, doors popping open, allowing people to be flung out onto the highway, and lack of seatbelts allowing people to be thrown all over inside, or out through doors and windows. These "fringe" types began agitating for laws that would require car makers to build their cars more safely, and through the early sixties their words began to take hold, ultimately joining with those of the insurance industry, and finally resulting in the safety requirements that we take for granted today, requiring collapsing steering columns, positive door latches, smooth and padded auto interiors, dual circuit master cylinders, and seat belts.
Back in the sixties, though, before these laws had been passed, Consumer Reports did what it believed to be its duty, and called out automakers on aspects of their designs that were unsafe.

Similarly, up until about ten years ago, Consumer Reports had a section of each detailed car review called "Starting and Running," in which they would describe exactly how hard or easy the car was to start under a variety of conditions, and how well and smoothly it ran. They would remark on hard starting hot or cold, uneven idling, etc. That section was finally eliminated because every car had begun to pass it flawlessly. Back when our cars were made, though, "Starting and Running" was a genuine issue, and many cars, even fresh off the lot, were hard to start, or ran like crap (yes, even Oldsmobiles).
You will notice that they observed that in many ways these cars handled badly and rode roughly, which was entirely true.

It's easy for us now, fifty years later, to romanticize these cars, and to brag about how well the run or handle, after spending years and thousands tweaking their engines and suspensions so they would finally be "just right." The fact of the matter is, though, that most of our cars were casually designed and desultorily assembled, and would come off the line with all manner of glaring faults, which may or may not ever be recognized and corrected after they were sold.
Certainly, American cars were not the only ones like this - Japanese, English, and Italian cars had a well-deserved reputation for being absolute, falling apart, pieces of crap - but the high-end European cars that made it over here (Mercedes, BMWs, VWs, Saabs, Volvos), though sometimes idiosyncratic, were generally thoughtfully designed and carefully manufactured, by people who were grateful to have food on their tables and to no longer be living in bombed-out wreckage under corrugated tin roofs, and often had safety features that were more than a decade ahead of American cars (Volvo had shoulder belts from 1958, if I recall correctly). The writers at Consumer Reports noticed these design and manufacturing differences, and advocated that they be adopted by the American carmakers.

Finally, if you sense a socialist bent in Consumer Reports articles, it is worth noticing that Consumers' Union was founded in 1936 as a splinter group from Consumers' Research, a similar organization, which was embroiled in a bitter labor strike. After management fired the strikers and brought in scabs, the strikers got together and formed Consumers' Union, specifically to be a more socially aware and active organization than its parent had been, and to include in its reviews not only information about the products, but about the working conditions of the workers who had made them, and to lead boycotts where necessary. Its new leaders were denounced as Communists, and it was on the HUAC's list of subversive organizations until 1954.

So, yeah, they were pink, but if you've been in a car accident that you walked away from in the past twenty years or so, you should thank them for saving your life.

- Eric

Allan R

Gee Eric,
It would be easier to sum it up as "There have been a lot of safety and manufacturing improvements over the years that resulted from CR, regardless of what you may think of them". My turn.....

I for one, haven't tweaked anything on my car to be more than it was when it was built. It's still performs pretty much as it was built to. It's been my experience that any car, regardless of manufacturer or age can have its issues. Today's consumer though is generally better educated when it comes to major purchases like cars, and it's Gov't legislation now that mandates safety - a point that auto manufacturers have to pay attention to. Back in 59 was the start of any serious 'teeth' for safety when the Insurance companies ponied up to create/fund the IIHS. So IMO, the concept of safety and automobiles was tied directly to the amount of payouts resulting from crashes. Is that a good thing? Sure. Anything to improve safety always is, but the core of the problem back then was social attitude also - case in point: drinking and driving. It was illegal, but was widely done. There was no 'Keys Please' or 'call a cab' program to stop anyone from getting sluiced and hitting the road.

I haven't been in a car accident since 1990 (not my fault BTW) but I thank myself for having good reactions and knowing proper avoidance techniques to lessen injury. There was a lot of damage, (entire DS of the car) but it was absorbed by the 'sloppily' constructed Olds techniques of 1983 - and there wasn't any significant safety improvements in my 83 Regency Brougham that weren't built into my 72 Cutlass. Just it was bigger and harder to dent up. The offending truck was a write off and the driver was badly injured. A no contest dumb move on his part in a new Ford truck with whistles and bells safety gadgets that probably did save him from being killed. Point is - it's not the cars that you need to worry about - it's the other drivers. I believe that a 1958 Olds 88 will make a journey from A-B just as safely as a 2014 Fantasticar as long as the drivers pay attention to what they're doing. Something that CR NEVER focused on. They laid the blame of fatalities and collisions on poor design, when that's just not a 100% right conclusion.

IMO, while technology is a good thing to improve safety and reliability, good old fashioned skills and ability go a long way too. Most people today have no idea what threshold braking is, or how a RWD car operates. Oh yeah, they're also idiots when it comes to driving safely, as they rely on technology instead of knowledge and skill to save their a$$.

K - I'm done and off my soapbox now.

MDchanic

True, but the same goes for other things as well, such as fire safety, and, in fact, fire departments.

In urban areas in the early 1800s, there were competing fire companies, who worked on a subscription system - if you contracted with them and your house went of fire, they would put it out, if not, they would let it burn. Everyone who paid for fire protection had the plaque of that fire company screwed to the front of his house.
In the course of time, the insurance companies struck deals with these fire companies, because it was cheaper for them to have their customers' fires put out than to pay for their losses. As the system of competing fire companies, which, like modern fire companies, were not made up of the most sober and calm members of the citizenry, became unwieldy, with resultant frequent street brawls between companies while houses burned, the insurance companies lobbied for laws creating municipal fire departments, which both provided better fire protection, and took the direct cost out of the insurance companies' hands and spread it, through taxes, over the entire population.

Auto safety has developed in much the same way, transferring a larger and larger portion of the responsibility of avoiding accidents out of the drivers' hands and into those of the government, taxpayers, and car buyers (mandatory back-up cameras for 2015, anyone?).

- Eric

Allan R

I can see it now.(circa 1800)....SCREEEECH, Caaarrrassh! Oh you dumb oaf! Your useless manservant has run into my horse with your brougham carriage! Pistols at dawn on the field of honor unless my house catches fire....

your turn

MDchanic

If you've ever had the pleasure of being jammed into a tiny elevator in the projects for 11 floors, with six giant firemen in full gear, who just rolled up lights and siren in a 40,000lb fire truck, wondering all the way which one reeks of alcohol, and finally realizing that it's all of them, you'll understand what it must have been like 150 years ago, when they used to really drink.

The world was their barroom brawl.

- Eric

Allan R

Heck, I wouldn't be caught in the projects just to start with. So you're saying things haven't improved one tiny bit in over 150 years?? Shocked! I'm shocked I tell ya!

rustyroger

Good points, Allen and Eric.


Volvo, to their eternal credit REFUSED to patent the modern seatbelt as we know it.


I believe Ford had developed some useful safety features in the '50s that some directors wanted incorporated into cars offered for sale, but this didn't happen because the consensus was that;
It added cost to building cars.
Emphasising that cars needed safety devices would suggest that Ford cars were dangerous in the first place.


Would anyone be interested in comparing Jaunty's Consumer Reports issue with a contemporary British (Motoring Which?) publication, testing upmarket versions of everyday cars?.


Roger.

Allan R

Roger, sure! Post away.

I think both Volvo and Saab had numerous safety features ahead of most everyone else. Ford did have some early safety promotion but it died off really quickly with the Edsel that was used for some of the early launch platforms. The Man & Company that should have been recognized more and accepted for innovation was Tucker. The collusion to force his company out of business implicitly defined the industry's reluctance to embrace safer and more effective design IMO.

dynamic63

X2 for allan, everyone should watch tucker a man and his dream.

MDchanic

Of course we'd be interested in seeing other car reviews, Roger.

Heck, that's about all we live for.

- Eric