mmarshall

That's generally true, but there's a lot more to look at in a car besides just its road manners. The interior, for instance, is someplace you are probably going to spend MANY hours in, for a number of years. If the interior design, materials, and comfort is sub-par, or not agreeable to you, IMO, that is something to seriously take into consideration, even if your car is an excellent performer on a drag strip or race track. You also want controls (*****, buttons, dials, levers, readouts, etc.....) that are reasonably easy to use, and not require a computer degree to figure out, particularly while trying to keep your eyes on the road ahead.

mmarshall

Thanks, Lil. I may (?) be getting a shiny new ride later this year....but, yes, at my own expense


I'm not quite as pessimistic as you are about car magazines. Some of them, and their comparsons/road tests, are quite good, especially for enthusiast/performance-based reviews. Others are mediocre. And I've always liked the Car and Driver editorials by Patrick Bedard, John Phillips, and Csaba Csede....though Brock Yates, IMO, was clearly not in their class, and was irresponsible (he's been gone for awhile). Another excellent column writer was Rich Ceppos, of both Car and Driver and, later, Autoweek magazine (Autoweek has also published some of my comments). Road and Track magazine also does some good comparos/tests, but they are more exotic/performance-oriented and their columns, IMO, are not as good as those of Car and Driver.

I'm also not convinced that advertising buys promotion in auto mags. Many auto manufacturers, for instance, advertise in auto mags, but only one car (usually) can win a comparison test for points, although occasionaly you will find a tie. But, no matter how much manufacturers advertise, their products can't ALL win a comparison test at once. The fact is that, often, but not always, BMW's do, at least from a sporting point of view. And why? Not because of advertising, or corporate dollars, but because, with a few exceptions like I-Drive, electrical unreliability, and some frumpy-looking trunk lids, BMW makes a excellent sport sedan. It's as simple as that.

And, when testing other types of vehicles, the magazines are also flexible enough to recognize that sport is not always the end-all. I've seen family-sedan tests where the Camry, a decidedly non-sporting car won, hands-down, simply because they liked its refinement and considered it the best daily driver. They didn't expect family sedans to handle like a Porsche 911.


But I agree with you 100% on the newspaper-weekly auto reviews. While occasionally you will find a good (or at least decent) one, most of them are awful. One of the reasons (among several) I started writing auto reviews myself, years ago, is that I got tired of reading the junk that newspaper auto reviewers print. For the most part, with rare exceptions, they simply don't know how to point out ANYTHING negative on a car......it's just not in their vocabulary. Or, they write more about their own emotions, life, and feelings than about the car itself.

But back to Motorweek...........it's definitely a step above the newspaper junk, and, like I said before, John Davis is a nice guy. I enjoy the relatively few times I get to see him and talk to him.

DASHOCKER

iTrader: (2)

John Davis of Motorweek is like Mr. Clark from American Bandstand. He has not aged! I've been an avid viewer of Motorweek since the 80's. Love the show..

Lil4X

Some carmags seem to have compromised their integrity less than others. C/D was my standard for years, and I bought several cars on their recommendation. R/T was occasionally helpful, but M/T has always to my mind, been a little suspect. Their annual awards, sometimes to rather pedestrian offerings, seem to correspond to their ad insertions.

I admire Top Gear for its honesty, but like C/D, while their input is valuable, it needs to be tempered with the knowledge of their bias. Both of these sources are heavily slanted toward all-out performance at 10/10ths. Now, realistically, do you and I drive that way? Even the craziest among us probably spends a tiny fraction of their automotive year at the limit. Why should we purchase an automobile (excluding a dedicated track car) based on criteria we will seldom if ever need? While these resources are fun to read or view, they are largely aimed at the mouth-breathers and spec racers, not the real auto-buying public.

Why should we ignore some of the basics we require for that other 99.5% of our use - like reliability, comfort, practicality, cost of fuel, insurance, and maintenance? Sure, I'd like an Aston Martin too, but realistically it's a lousy commuter in freeway traffic, it won't haul many groceries, and forget loading it up with garden timbers down at Home Depot. A little shot of reality is due when reading an automotive review: "Do I really use my car like that?" Unless your home is in the infield at Road Atlanta or Watkins Glen, I'm guessing not.

On the other hand, while resources like Consumer Reports are helpful, they review an automobile with the same criteria they use for a refrigerator. I'm convinced that their writers are totally without a soul. Their winning vehicles tend to the bland and colorless transportation pods; appliances. The truth, to my mind, lies somewhere between C/D and C/R, requiring that you read the reviews in light of your ACTUAL use of an automobile . . . and, of course, your driving record. YMMV.

IS-SV

Yes my favs are C&D, R&T, and CR for reliability stats. I subscribe to them all. For me it's important to have the numerical info for comparison purposes since most of us lack the measurement tools to accurately measure this info at home (acceleration/braking/handling-related stats). In terms of the superficial stuff I can easily reach my own conclusions based on some inspection and a test drive.

Habious

8speed and mmarshall,

I hear what you're saying and I agree; there is no substitute for getting behind the wheel and actually driving the car.

I LOVED the look of the 350Z convertible (top down...not-so-much with the top up). Read reviews and spec sheets. When I finally got to sit in the car, I discovered something...1) I'm 6'1" 2) the 350Z has the gauge cluster mounted to the steering where so, when you adjust the height of the steering wheel, the gauges move with it. Neat idea...in theory. In the real world, the steering wheel covered the top half of the gauges. When I tried to move the steering wheel so I could see the gauges...you guessed it, the gauges moved with the wheel so, no matter what, I couldn't see the top half of the gauges!! Brilliant design!

It's something no review mentioned and there's no way I would have even THOUGHT about that until I actually sat down in the driver's seat.

That being said, I (like most people) don't have the time or connections to test drive EVERY car in a particular class. We have to rely on some source to help us winnow down our choices to our top 3...or top 5...and then make a decision after test-driving those cars.

In order to make this list, we need some honesty.

I do agree that Top Gear puts WAY too much emphasis on track performance; if a car doesn't go around their test track at a reasonable clip, it's "Rubbish"; doesn't matter if it's a family sedan or even a cargo van.

But, there's nothing wrong with comparing apples to apples. If Kia comes out with a new family sedan priced comparatively to the Honda Accord/Toyota Camry, MotorWeek will BEGIN to make the comparison. But, at the end, they ALWAYS say something like "Kia's come to play with the big dogs...and the new Llama is ready to bite!" or something along those lines; implying that the new Kia CAN compete with the Accord/Camry. Unfortunately, it's rarely true. For mid-sized family sedans, those two have been on top for a very long time...for a reason. If the new Kia isn't as good, SAY IT. That's all I'm asking.


It's funny you mention how "boring" it is. I've noticed with this past season, they've made some changes, obviously trying to "snazz" up the show a bit. Now every new car segment begins with a loud music track and a 10-second montage of quick-cuts, fast zoom-in, zoom-out shots of the car, visually screaming "Hey, look at me!!". It was kind of "Ooh, that's different!" the first time. The 20th time with the exact same music track and the exact same visual cuts, it gets old...and it adds nothing but "flash".

Thank you! It's nice to see that I'm not alone in my opinion.

I8ABMR

I have noticed the same thing but feel that they do give the positives and negatives of the cars and they do ocassionally mention the names of competitors. The host of the show is high on Prozac, but they still do a happily objective view