I would like to bring to everyones attention the misleading review of the xk convertible that was released today, by consumer reports.

The writer of the review stated she used an xk convertible to write her review. The xk used in the report was several years old with the old powertrain, 4.2 etc.
The report and review was written by Liza Barth of consumer reports. I would appreciate if everyone who owns a late model xkr convertible to read the report and then write a response to Liza at Consumer reports

Her review stated the xk convertible was the worst car of the Jaguar brand. this type of reporting is at best irresponsible, misleading and uninformed.

Make sure you give her a piece of your mind!! Thanks

 

Haven't read the article myself, but if this is the case, then yes, she should be taken to task over it for sure.

Do you have a link to the article to share?

 

I would love to see this article. Being "worst" Jaguar can't be that bad!

 

you can view the article at autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-names-best-worst-cars-brand-1400

Several brands are listed with powertrains that are years old that were tested "recently"

 

Haha, I find this list very confusing. I'm taking it they picked the "best" and "worst" based upon their road test and other factors. Of course the XK is the worst! It has the least cargo capacity (the F-Type is too new for their survey) and least interior room! Probably worst ride quality, too.

Not bad, considering that the other two models are luxury sedans. If you think you're mad, just think at how Toyota FJ Cruiser owners feel--they lost to the Toyota Camry Hybrid.

 

her review is exactly why "journalists" shouldnt write car reviews. I wouldnt be surprised is she didnt drive a single car on the list!!. She comes across as a "numbers cruncher" and nothing more. Women like Liza who write by-lines, give women ,like myself, who work on cars a bad name and we then get no respect from guys when it comes to cars.

 

It is a bogus list, the results of highly questionable methods for ranking. I have two cars on the list, one Best and one Worst and I could not even come anywhere close to agreeing with the rankings.

In my multi-years ownership experiences with the two vehicles the Worst-ranked car is acutally the better of the two and the Best-ranked one I find nearly unacceptable. So much for relying on CR's rankings. Wonder exactly how much time they spend on testing each car? An hour, an afternoon?

 

I'll confess that I haven't read a CR car report in umpteen years.

Oh, sure, if you're a married person between 29.2 and 35.1 years of age, with 2.3 children, with 3.8 years of college, living on a 3 bedroom home with no fireplace, have an annual income of between $38703 and $44304, and own one dog between 33 and 41 pounds.....they can tell you which car is best for you. This is done by measuring the luggage compartment lift-over height in inches and dividing that by the rear seat headroom in inches, and then multiplying that by the number of children (2.3 in my example).....and then adding the average annual oil change cost.


Cheers
DD

 

My original post about this, truly placed the blame on Barth. In my opinion, she made everything up. Where did they get all these cars that were 5 years old in some cases. I truly believe the tests were never conducted for this article. I wouldnt be surprised if Liza barth used old reviews and then "cooked" this article. If I pulled a stunt like this, my boss would have security meet me at the office door the next day, with my office belongings in a box and a notice for "termination for cause"

 

Anyone who actually consults consumer reports to make a car buying decision will be perfectly happy with their Civic hatchback. Anyone in the market for a luxury automobile would consult reputable car sites for reviews. People whose core competency is testing kitchen appliances are not credible when reviewing automobiles. Does anyone still subscribe to consumer reports? I don't think Jaguar would lose a single sale because of this report. Now when it comes to a Civic hatchback, that is more like driving a toaster, so their opinion could hold water there.

 

I only came across this article cause someone at work emailed me about it. We dont use Consumer reports at work. Ms. Barth's style of reviews is more suited to a web site such as Myex

 

I do not believe that Lisa Barth wrote the original article in Consumer Reports.

Most of the data used reflects models that were tested and evaluated 3 years ago. The Yahoo article also has a footnote stating the drivetrain on newer models has changed for the XK. The 4.2L engine was discontinued in 2009 for the 5.0L that then became the 2010 model year.

Never-the-less, journalists are not car experts, especially Lisa Barth. Journalists just interpret data from other sources and report their findings. I see this happen quite often in the financial markets and channels like CNBC with the journalists and commentators. Many times what they report is data found elsewhere.

Certainly I agree that Lisa Barth probably never drove any of these cars and and made any direct individual evaluations, so readers need to take the data with a grain of salt.

Thanks SoCalBabe for bringing the article to our attention. Most of us that own these beautiful cars know how they operate, their pros and cons. Most of us will agree the facts in the article are unfounded.

 

Although the yahoo page states you can read the individual reports by clicking on the car names, the links are not there. Since I don't subscribe to CR I'll have to assume you're correct about the report reviewing an older XK.

If you read the comments section at the botton almost all of the posts confirm that this list is bogus at best. I don't know if Ms. Barth reads the comments on yahoo but if you have an email address for her I'd gladly send her a piece of my mind about her article.

Mike

 

I'm not sure what facts in this article people are taking issue with. Are there any facts in the article? It seems to just be a ranking of models within each brand (best and worst), probably based on that numerical "score" they give each car when they test it.

They admit that "The test performance variation differs from brand to brand, with some brands' worst model being still doing rather well, while others span a wide range, making any generalities quite misleading. "

Fair enough.

So why so many panties in a bunch? At the time, there were only THREE models in Jaguar's lineup. And the XK is the smallest inside and is the oldest of the three models (although the XF has the old steel archictecture from the S-Type). Is there something I'm missing here? Are we that insecure about our cars that we need to fight Consumer Reports, of all things???

 

The original post I had was removed cause people complained that I gave Liza a piece of my mind.

I called consumer reports and asked to speak to this so called journalist. Thier policy is not to allow thier journalists to speak to the public on the basis the journalists reporting can become skewed or influenced. Really? that is such BS.

Her reporting is already skewed, misguided, misinformed and a joke. I wouldnt be surprised if she runs her personal life the same way she does her reporting: FUBAR

 

people are pissed cause she used cars that were several years old and didnt state that in her reporting. That is called not doing the job rite, or being lazy or both

 

How is the asterisk not pointing out that she wasn't using the latest model?

You believe using a 5.0 XK instead of a 4.2 XK would've changed the result? My guess is the XJ still would've trounced the XK in their test scores, because the improvements made to the 5.0 XK have very little to do with Consumer Reports' scoring criteria! (The fuel economy is practically the same, comfort levels the same, seating position same, reliability same or worse, cargo capacity same, handling the same, safety same)

I can see why they did not bother to purchase a $100k XK just to satisfy your craving to have the XF appear as worst on this list instead of the XK.

 

The original article is very short and the data is very limited of what is shown to readers.

Here's the original article:

Best Cars by Brand | Worst Cars by Brand - Consumer Reports News

Here's the link to the data on the Jaguar XK that CR talks about.

Jaguar XK | Reviews and Ratings from Consumer Reports

Judge for yourself how factual the article might be. Since data is extremely limited to the end reader, it is difficult to make any assumptions about the Jaguar XK being one of the worst cars. There just isn't any data exposed to confirm CR's comments. Not only is this the case for the Jaguar XK, but any brand or model mentioned in the article.