Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

More opinions from CR for better or worse...

An Electrolux that reminds them of Barney the Dinasaur.... 

CR takes Lux to task for not offering more performance for the price.  

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/home/2010/07/best-vacuums-review-sebo-automatic-x5-lindhaus-diamante-380-miele-s-2120-olympus-aerus-lux-legacy-lu.html

(sorry forgot link earlier)

CarmineD wrote:
The question is though, how far are consumers going to go to buy something based on the test data that CR supply? I can see from a UK point of view to why Hoover reliability would be bad, and to a certain extent with the recent TTi recall on certain T-series vacuums in the U.S, the reliability of Hoover models as being worse than others. It however begs the question how much CR are making a mountain out of a mole hill, particularly the frequency of new models, certain changes, uprated power etc. CR have to keep up to date with the fast launches of the models brands are bringing out. However Carmine, I do know Electrolux has had bad press following many of their Eureka bagless uprights, so it is not "news" to me that reliability by CR records for this company are worse than others.

I think the parameters for supposed "in depth testing,"  can only be done for so much. CR are clearly not spending enough time like owners do with their vacuums - whatever fails on the day of the test (or does better) gets the vote. WHICH? have a bad tendency to test each vacuum cleaner they have on their books with Miele models doing better than other Miele models, when they're clearly the same machine with a different floor head or something minimal - of which, the WHICH UK organisation often fail to spot.

Hello Vacmanuk:

You're validating the point that more popular selling vacuum brands/models get the most high profile negative PR for recall problems.  While least popular selling vacuums don't.  I recall recently that RAINBOW models were recalled for the same/similar electical shorting problems as the TTI WT series.  But RAINBOW's recall did not make national news and did not affect CR's reliability rating of RAINBOW.  Moot point perhaps from CR's point of view in part because RAINBOW nevers makes high enough grades for BEST BUY/Recommended.  However from a purist's perspective, a recall of the same percentage of RAINBOW made/sold units should be comparable for reliability as that for HOOVER and/or Eureka/Electrolux.  Not knowing the details behind CR's reliability criteria/measure make it difficult, if not impossible, to accept CR's conclusion for reliability of brands as truth/fact.  Now [March 2011], CR raises the bar for recommendations and best buy picks to include reliability.  That's a CR perogative.  BUT...it's disingenuous to use the same criteria for reliability for $300-$800 priced brand/models for $70-$100 priced brand/models.  Just as CR separates bag from bagless vacuums for ratings, perhaps it should separate brands/models by price ranges too for rating purposes.  Or, as I suggested, provide more details about the methodology for testing/rating reliability of vacuums.   

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

Hi Carmine,

I wonder if striving to prove efficient -- which seems the reasoning for CR's sometimes too short, sweet and to the point ratings, means missing the forest for the trees.  If that's what's happening, is it worth it?  My first problem with CR is that, though it groups bagged and bagless models, regarding canisters it does not group the straight-suction models separate from the cans with power nozzles.  CR used to do this and should consider continuing to.  Straight suction cans are great in certain situations and not so great in others and the line of division should be be made clear.

As for Rainbow AND Kirby, both are too expensive for the larger part of consumers and I think they merit lesser ratings by way of CR  because there are match-ups that clean as well or better than either and that match or surpass emmissions numbers for far less cost to buy.  CR has appeared lax in my books about making this clear.  As well, if they are going to test ultra-high-cost vacuums I haven't felt much of a serious effort has been made in that the prior companies mentioned do not constitute the total brands of pricey door to door sold machines.  Delphin, Miracle Mate, Filter Queen, Big Power, Hyla -- just to name some -- are also being hawked here DTD.  Though ultra pricey achines need not be tested every year, I'd appreciate assessments of value from CR for these every few years or so.

Hi Venson:

Perhaps Consumer Reports shuns the ultra high priced models because of its own budget restrictions and limitations. 

No excuse for CR to withhold details for HOOVER and Electrolux brands and models if the brands do not meet CR's reliability standards.  Give consumers and the vacuum makers the CR standards and let us determine if the brands/models fall short.

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:
Ah But Carmine, if CR were to give truer findings, they'd probably lose the sponsorship from the companies who loan out the vacuum cleaners or strike a deal. On EBAY UK there are many models appearing that have been quoted, "used for a professional testing organisation," under the "manufacturer refurbished," tag recently - and one can't help wondering if these "professional testing organisations," include Which? consumer mag and other likewise testing fields. Those models have a set price, much lower than the brand new boxed one in the shops/online.

vacmanuk wrote:

Hi Vacmanuk:

CR buys its products for testing and refuses sponsorship from all and any product makers.  Says it does this to remain independent and honest.  Unlike Consumers Digest which solicits fees from product makers to allow the makers to use the CD recommendation in printed ads. 

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

These claims are the only reason I've bother with Consumer Reports over the years.  I pay little attention to Consumers Digest or Good Houskeeping's Seal of Approval.  Does Which? bear the same standard or does it get funding from manufacturers?

Venson

CarmineD wrote:

These claims are the only reason I've bother with Consumer Reports over the years.  I pay little attention to Consumers Digest or Good Houskeeping's Seal of Approval.  Does Which? bear the same standard or does it get funding from manufacturers?

Venson

Venson wrote:
We heard you the first time.

HARDSELL wrote:

Okay, okay -- I'll shut up!

Venson