重質不重型

????《消費者報告》（Consumer Reports）雜志的汽車評測人員常被諷刺為60年代“超自由主義者”的遺老遺少，因為他們只關心一件事，那就是管理有限的資源。換句話說，無論是洗衣機、擦窗器還是汽車，他們最青睞的永遠是最便宜、最簡單的解決方案。

????事實上，《消費者報告》雜志的工作人員所關注的遠遠比這些東西重要，他們關注的是商品的價值，而且還制定了一套創(chuàng)新性的方法來為消費者衡量汽車的價值。首先他們會算出一款汽車5年內的每英里使用成本（折舊和油費是其中最大的兩項開銷），然后由雜志社內部的駕駛員進行試駕，對汽車性能進行打分。另外他們還會根據(jù)讀者的反饋計算汽車的預期可靠性，最后得出一個價值分數(shù)，將其與平均分數(shù)進行對比，以體現(xiàn)某款車型相對其他車型的價值。

????《消費者報告》的價值分數(shù)清楚地列出了10大汽車類別的最高價值車型和最低價值車型，可以說這種排序方法獨一無二。“最佳汽車排行榜”到處都有，但“最差汽車排行榜”卻很少見，因為沒有哪家媒體敢得罪潛在的廣告商。但《消費者報告》并不接受廣告，所以他們沒有這個顧慮，敢于秉筆直言。

????在《消費者報告》給出的成績單里，小型的亞洲轎車得分很高，因為他們的質量和續(xù)航里程都比較出眾，而豪華或準豪華的轎車和SUV排名較為靠后，因為它們折舊率很高，燃油經(jīng)濟性差，而且尤為驚人的是，許多豪車的預期可靠性也很低。可見，一個上檔次的品牌和較高的價格不一定能代表汽車的真實價值。《消費者報告》的排名有力地提醒了消費者：購車有風險，千萬要謹慎。

Substance over style

????The car testers at Consumer Reports are often caricatured as granola-eating ultra-liberals left over from the 60s who are concerned with just one thing: managing finite resources. In other words -- the cheapest and simplest solution wins, whether it's washing machines, window-cleaners, or cars.

????In fact, the Consumer Reports folks are focused on something a lot more important -- value -- and they've come up with an ingenious way to measure it for car buyers. They figure five-year operating costs per mile (depreciation and fuel are the two biggest expenses), add in a road-test score from their own drives, and calculate predicted reliability based on a readers survey. Then they come up with a value score that compares a given model to the average car.

????The calculation provides a clear ranking of the best and worst values in 10 categories that is unavailable anywhere else. You can find "best car" lists everywhere. "Worst car" lists, on the other hand, are rare, because nobody wants to offend potential advertisers. But Consumer Reports doesn't accept advertising, so it doesn't run that risk.

????In the Consumer Reports universe, small Asian cars score highly because of their better quality and gas mileage, while luxury and near-luxury sedans and SUVs rank much further down. More expensive autos are done in by deep depreciation, skimpy fuel economy, and -- shockingly -- poor predicted reliability. The bottom line is that a status brand and a high price aren't good indicators of value. Consumer Reports' ratings make a convincing case for caveat emptor.

捷豹XJL

????2009年上市的最新款捷豹（Jaguar）XJL纖長的輪廓盡顯雍容華貴，但質量卻不甚可靠，容易讓人們想起早年關于捷豹質量問題的故事。捷豹XJL在《消費者報告》的試駕中得分很高，但讀者們反映它的可靠性遠遠低于平均水平。與此同時，這輛售價81,575美元的豪車僅僅每英里的使用費用就達到了1.58美元，幾乎比本田飛度（Honda Fit）高出四倍。捷豹XJL的總體價值分數(shù)大概只有平均分值的三分之一，在所有上榜汽車中墊底。

Jaguar XJL

????Despite its svelte lines, the newest Jaguar, introduced in 2009, threatens to revive all those old tales about dodgy Jaguar quality. The XJL scored well on CR's test drives, but readers report that its reliability is much worse than average. Meanwhile, the $81,575 Jag costs $1.58 per mile to operate, nearly four times higher than a Honda Fit. The Jag's overall value score was about one-third of average vehicles -- worst among all the cars ranked.