Will always know more. They "specialize" on a specific model and get to know everything about it.
I guess on some level you could compare it to a long-term press car, but even then only to the editor that drives it the most.
Editors do have the benefit of sampling similar vehicles back-to-back, often repeatedly, and that's a luxury owners will rarely have. Unless your spouse owns a competing vehicle.
If every time Karl gives a bad review of a car that you personally like or own, and you come on here and pound him for it.... then this thread will quickly go away..
It is his opinion.. I want to hear it, even if he is an elitist snob with a Ford GT..
Editors do have the benefit of sampling similar vehicles back-to-back, often repeatedly, and that's a luxury owners will rarely have. Unless your spouse owns a competing vehicle.
I am not an editor but I do get the opportunity to drive different vehicles. It is part of my job.
...if it's an issue of coastal bias. Go to the west coast (I'll be in LA next week :-) and you rarely see American cars - some Caddies, a ton of beaters, and rentals. Lots of trucks from the Big Three, though :-)
Whereas, in the Midwest, in many areas, you still see more than 50% of the cars being from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. I believe, consciously or not, there's a perception of "un-hipness" to American cars. I wonder if sometimes this doesn't tend to influence reviews of American cars - they have to overcome this stigma, and only a truly exceptional or class-leading vehicle can do so.
There's also a significant difference in income between the heartland and the coast - you might do well making $75k in the Midwest, but, to have the same standard of living in metropolitan areas in California, you will need to be north of $125k and still probably can't afford a house :-)
I am generalizing here, but Japanese and German vehicles tend to have a higher price (i.e. acquisition cost - not bringing up depreciation here) than American vehicles. Someone in the Midwest will spend a greater percentage of household incoming buying that M3 than someone in LA. (Of course, housing costs kinda reverses that, though housing is getting out of reach in most major metropolitan areas).
As an aside, the Big Three weakness on the West Coast and now the south isn't what's killing them... it's been that way for awhile. I think it's the influx of the Korean vehicles, Hyundai and Kia, at lower pricing than the domestics, making inroads in the heartland, and in lower-income areas, that is what is hurting the Big Three. They are also skimming folks from the used-car market, which, along with MSRP/incentive madness, isn't helping the depreciation of Big Three vehicles...
I have high regards for edmunds.com until their review on the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP. This GXP review was flawed. Scroll back to earlier posts to see how other readers pointed out the mistakes in the review.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a GXP owner myself.
Kinda sums it up nicely - you diss my car, therefore your review is unfair and biased!
The enthusiast mags are always dissing my Camry - so, I love it anyway; the car suits my needs perfectly. I'm not a canyon carver or have to be first off the line when the light turns green. It's roomy, comfortable, quiet, handles and brakes fine for me, gets great gas mileage (4-cylinder), and three I've had (1997, 2004, 2005) have been reliable.
...if it's an issue of coastal bias. Go to the west coast (I'll be in LA next week and you rarely see American cars
Absolutely could be. I mean, CA is practically its own country and trends, prevailing opinions, etc can't really be compared with the rest of the country, it seems.
I gotta agree with kyfdx, here. It is unbelievably cool for Edmunds to throw a senior editor to the wolves, so to speak. But this is going to get shut down if it becomes a place for 3 page diatribes on why Edmunds' latest review is so hopelessly wrong and the editorial staff is a bunch of biased anti-American nose pickers with bad breath.
I think most reviewers honestly want to like the cars that they are testing. Even the “losing” cars in most comparison tests have some positives that are mentioned.
As with anything, if you’ve been around long enough, you gain a perspective and may bring some context to the table. Maybe you’re testing a decent enough car, but when an automaker claims they are making big changes to their product over the course of a decade and all you see are incremental improvements, then that is part of the equation. Especially if the other automakers (those without the big claims) keep improving what may already be seen as superior products. This is probably why some cars get good first reviews and fare somewhat poorly in comparison testing -- context.
So, on a higher level you’re looking to see whether the maker has really delivered on their promise. Is this the breakthrough car? How does it fit within their product line-up? Maybe that stuff doesn’t matter to the ordinary buyer, but it is of interest to those who follow the industry.
Nissan was cited as an automaker somewhat on the rocks that turned things around. It started with the latest Altima. You can now look at their lineup today and see that there is a common design language both inside and out (except for the Sentra, perhaps), clear market positioning, and a full product lineup with minimal overlap. Someone looking to buy a car might just say, “Nissan seems to have their act together, I’ll take a look.”
So, the perspective of the automotive journalist ends up being more than just the car they’re testing in isolation. In this world where branding and marketing and automaker pronouncements influence the decision-making process, these “intangibles” are not to be overlooked.
In all seriousness, I think you guys should be able to state your opinions regarding our road tests, but here are a few key points I would make to give you my perspective on "reader response." And in case you're wondering, these same points are shared by all automotive editors at all automotive publications. Basically, I'm going to let you "see behind the curtain" regarding what automotive editors usually think when it comes to "reader response."
1. Owners are the worst people to review their own car: I could/should create a subset right here that would include all the responses everyone out there is already starting to type up, but it essentially comes down to this: A. "But Karl! Owner's live with a car. They know it best!!! How could their opinion not be as much, or even MORE, valuable then some editor who only drove the car for a few days??!!!! Actually, what car owners really do is spend their own money on a car, and it's often the second highest bill they pay every month (after rent/mortgage). This simply presents an unrealistic psychological challenge for most car owners -- Admitting that they've spent (or continue to spend) a big portion of their own income on -- GASP -- a flawed vehicle!!!
I'm even going to offer an example: Recently Car & Driver pitted the Ford GT against the F430, Gallardo, 911 Turbo and DB9. In the finishing order, the Ford GT came in third behind the F430 and Gallardo. When I read the test I noted the following items: 1. The Ford GT had the best performance (except I think the Ferrari had better braking) 2. The Ford GT was the cheapest 3. The text seemed to indicate that everyone loved the looks of the GT (not just the editors, but everyone who saw it during the test)
To me, if you've got an exotic with the best performance and best looks -- that also happens to cost the least -- you pretty much have your winner. Apparently the Ford GT was hard to get into/out of, had little storage space, and had a lot of freeway noise. But, umm, IT'S AN EXOTIC! I'm shocked that Car & Driver even tried to pass these off as viable "Lows" in this test.
But, here is the important part about my reaction to this test -- you will never see my feelings in any "letters to the editor" at Car & Driver, or anywhere else -- except here to serve as my own personal example of owner bias.
The bottom line is that, as a buyer of a Ford GT (I'm still waiting for it to ship from the factory, BTW), my opinion on the car is pretty much moot. It means nothing. Sure, I'll be able tell you all about the car from a very educated point of view, but my ability to properly assess its value versus direct competitors? Absolutely fragged.
I'm sure many of you are now saying "Well maybe you lose all sense of perspective when you own a car, Karl, but I don't."
Let me just be clear here -- YES YOU DO.
And if you're denying this, you've also lose your perspective on the fact that you've lost your perspective regarding your ability to have an unbiased opinion. If you want proof, go look at any car on Edmunds.com, and check the owner's rating and the editor's rating. Then find me an example where the owner's rating is lower than the editor's rating. You can't.
That's just how it works guys. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's like denying that fact that where you grew up has given you certain geographical biases. It just is. Deal with it.
2. There's more to a car than performance numbers. If you've been following the blog you've already heard this, but it's worth repeating. As I just mentioned, the fact that the Ford GT was faster than the other cars in the Car & Driver comparison test holds a lot of sway with me...probably more than it should. If I remember correctly I believe the C&D guys rated the Ferrari's engine higher than the GT's, despite the fact that the GT's engine makes more power, and the GT is faster.
But you know what, I've driven both cars, and even with my bias for the GT, I totally agree with this assessment. The GT makes great power, but it has to use a supercharger to do it. The Ferrari is normally aspirated and still extremely quick, plus it sounds like every other Ferrari V8, meaning awesome. So the engine is more efficient at making power, and it sounds better. Can't get that from reading a magazine story, and can't reflect this in a chart, but it's true, and even I can recognize it, despite my obvious Ford GT bias.
I wish I could say the same for all readers/owners.
3. All automotive publications are paid off by the car manufacturers and/or have ulterior motives that keep them from reviewing the cars as they really should be reviewed. I don't know about other car publications...OK, that's not entirely true. I know about a couple of them and, well...you're right! But I also know about Edmunds.com, and we simply don't have any other influence regarding our road tests -- except the car itself. Let me say it clearly -- we are totally biased...toward the best cars.
I'm not going to waste any more time on this one, because either you believe me or you don't.
So there you have it, the three most common elements that trip up the average reader from having a grasp on how/why a car is given a good/bad review, or why it finishes in a specific spot during a comparison test.
You guys can continue to make these mistakes, but don't be surprised if I respond with little patience for it -- if I respond at all.
And for those of you who seem to "get it" with regards to honest vehicle reporting, and who try to present that aspect in your posts, thanks for the support.
So, the perspective of the automotive journalist ends up being more than just the car they’re testing in isolation. In this world where branding and marketing and automaker pronouncements influence the decision-making process, these “intangibles” are not to be overlooked.
you'll see that I basically call it a fine car. The only real issue I had with the IS was that it wasn't a true BMW competitor and Lexus said that it was. They spent the whole presentation period during the press event basically saying "This car will finally take on the 3 Series -- and win!" Then they proceed to outfit the IS with all sorts of restrictive electronics, which no serious BMW enthusiast, or driving enthusiast, is going to have any patience with. If Lexus had merely said, "We don't care about beating the current segment benchmark. We have our own philosophy on how to create a great sport sedan, and the new IS perfectly represents it." I would have called the sedan a great car without any disclaimers. As is, I have to make it clear to the reader that, "It's still a great car, but in the context of the BMW 3 Series, which Lexus claims to be targeting, it falls short."
A perfect example where the opinion of the car is based on more than just the car itself. And this is something that many potential IS buyers may not consider, meaning they will test drive the car, love it, and then wonder why I had any problem whatsoever with such a great car. They might even come on this discussion and say something crazy like, "I just bought an IS 350 and it's great, so Karl is obviously a total idiot when it comes to reviewing cars."
Another aspect of ownership that's important is that you're used to your car's character. I was used to my Tercel's clutch, and then I went and tried out an old 3-series. I couldn't get a single smooth shift. The base-hinged, near-vertical pedals drove me crazy and I thought they were an awful idea. I still think they are. But if I go telling people that Toyota's cheapest car had a better transmission than everyone's favorite...
(On the other hand I wonder if reviewers don't think any car has matched BMW's feel because they know what a BMW should feel like, rather than knowing what a "perfect car" should feel like.)
It has been written by many psychological experts that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, then backed up by whatever facts are at the disposal of that person to make them look like a rational person. "Rationalization" is the term for this, I believe.
But this can apply to editors, as well.
Additionally, how can you apply this logic to ALL people who post? Even though I agree with you that readers' ratings will always be below editors' ratings, there are other explanations.
First, perhaps editors are more demanding and stringent. This lower rating would not remove the fun or enjoyment of a less-experienced average Joe driving the car they rank highly.
Second, these are averages. Surely you can not say that all readers' ratings are inaccurate. I am positive that SOME of these are accurate. So though the average is higher than the editors' average, some of these individuals may be very accurate and honest and non-emotional.
To dismiss anyone's post here, without knowing if they are emotional or not, is too easy. Your post gives you a clean slate and a great excuse to say that you are always right, and the reader always wrong.
I don't think you mean it this way, but I would advise you not to dismiss EVERY reader with this faulty logic!
And, my friend Karl, if you would like to dismiss the emotional responses, then your nice description above regarding the Ferrari 'sounding' better, and the ethereal "can't reflect this in a chart, but it's true"comment, is based on feeling and emotion. This reaction of yours, albeit completely true, contradicts your first section.
So are we to trust you or not?
Comments in the LPS AWD review referred to "I always felt like I was driving somebody else's car", and "But the BMW is the one that would get me out of my warm bed on a cold winter morning". These are just the types of responses you are suggesting readers give that weaken their logic.
One more item, sir. I believe you are discounting those who do extensive research and test-driving before they buy. Since they are putting their money where their mouths are, don't these people have the right to describe their decision-making process in detail? Once they buy the car, do they lose all logic?
Additionally, how can you apply this logic to ALL people who post? I didn't say it applied to ALL people that post, I said it applied to ALL people that post about a car they own (and I still stand by it). People who post on cars they have test driven, or friend's car, or cars they've read about in magazines can have very legitimate comments. The tricky part comes when you've committed your heart (and money) to a car -- at which point history (and the consumers' ratings) suggest that logic makes an exit, stage left. All the research the person did leading up to their decision is great stuff. I want to hear it. Comments made about their car, post purchase, well...
To dismiss anyone's post here, without knowing if they are emotional or not, is too easy. My whole point is that everyone becomes emotional once they buy a car. In reality I'm sure there are a few truly grounded souls out there who can buy a car and not instantly feel the need to defend any and all aspects of it to their dying breath, but if I open the door for even that slight bit of wiggle room then everyone posting here will claim, "Yes, and I'm one of those rare, truly grounded souls!! I swear!!! Really!!!!!"
So, yup, I'm taking the easy (and scientific) approach and assuming owners' posts aren't really as "accurate" as non-owners.
And, my friend Karl, if you would like to dismiss the emotional responses, then your nice description above regarding the Ferrari 'sounding' better, and the ethereal "can't reflect this in a chart, but it's true"comment, is based on feeling and emotion. This reaction of yours, albeit completely true, contradicts your first section. Again, that's the whole point. If I'm getting emotional about a car that I don't own, or even plan on ever owning, then it must really be a good (or bad, if the emotions are negative) car.
In fact, I completely agree with your statement (probably because I minored in psychology): It has been written by many psychological experts that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, then backed up by whatever facts are at the disposal of that person to make them look like a rational person. "Rationalization" is the term for this, I believe.
But remember, if the editor reviewing the car isn't buying -- or hasn't already bought -- a given car, then no "rationalization" has to occur for him/her.
If a person's opinion leading up to the purchase of a car is valid, as you state, how does it become instantly invalid once they buy the car?
This is very circular logic, IMO. If one decides to buy a car based on your review, other reviews, and their test drives, their opinion is logical. But once they buy the car, their choice becomes irrational.
I strongly disagree with this statement.
Allow me to ask, if your assertion were, in fact, true, to what cars does this apply?
1. Is their opinion only invalid towards the car they purchase? Then this person can legimately post an opinion on every other car out there.
2. Or is their opinion invalid towards all cars in the same class? Then you would have to stringently define what constitutes the same class. Leaving this open to your judgment allows the same indiscriminate dismissal of anybody's opinion who doesn't agree with yours.
3. Or is their opinion invalid towards every car? And reductio ad absurdum, towards every make, model and year. So purchasing a car would render one's opinion about anything automotive invalid. Using this criterion, every auto critic who has ever purchased a car is disallowed from evaluating any car, ever.
I hope you see where I am going with this.
This kind of approach allows the opinion of anyone who is not a critic to be dismissed without addressing the content of that opinion. Way too easy, in my opinion!
Also, Karl, how is this a scientific approach? If you admit that a single buyer's opinion may, in fact, be valid, how can you dismiss all owners' posts? If only one owner has a valid opinion about the car they purchased, then the wholesale ignorance of "owners' opinions" is competely invalid. Again, easy dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you, as long as that person has experience with owning a car.
I strongly disagree!
And if you agree that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, as dictated by some of your undergraduate studies in psychology, then ninety percent of decisions made by auto reviewers must be emotional as well, and, therefore, invalid.
In my meager opinion (if I am still entitled to have one, as I bought an American car once, and bought a European car later, and bought a Japanese car later), several of your statements are invalidated by your own statements. I must continue to strongly disagree with the invalidation of anyone's opinion by you, or by any reviewer, until more stringent criteria are presented that would allow for the indiscriminate ignorance of this community's opinions.
The bottom line is that, as a buyer of a Ford GT (I'm still waiting for it to ship from the factory, BTW), my opinion on the car is pretty much moot. It means nothing. Sure, I'll be able tell you all about the car from a very educated point of view, but my ability to properly assess its value versus direct competitors? Absolutely fragged.
rayainsw, You, I and a few others(especially rlsedition) are wasting time defending the GXP. No matter what facts we put out, they will say we are GXP owners, therefore, our opinions are not valid because we will try to justify the money we spent on the car.
Perhaps. Here I was only attempting to correct what I believe to be a factual reporting error. My opinion is not at issue here. - Ray Not really defending my purchase . .
This is probably why some cars get good first reviews and fare somewhat poorly in comparison testing -- context.
I have also come to find that a lot of cars will get a glowing 1st review, but a lousy follow-up or comparison test. One of the reasons for this is that the manufacturer will wine and dine the journalist in some semi-exotic location and the whole experience magically ends up, well, glowing. Then remove all that I just mentioned and leave just a car, after a few months, and you get a luke warm review. Happens all the time.
Someone looking to buy a car might just say, “Nissan seems to have their act together, I’ll take a look.”
I guess that proves that even if the company doesn't produce class-leading interiors, they can still be high in public opinion.
I really think he's on to something here. Remember those Popular Mechanics so-called "owners' surveys" about consumers' recent car purchases? (For all I know, maybe the magazine still runs them.) For the most part, people absolutely gushed over their new babies.
...just read Consumer Reports' reviews. They won't go near a manufacturer with a 10-foot pole. They purchase their cars at dealerships anonymously. Of course, their write-ups make for much drier reading, and their many detractors accuse them of import (Asian) bias.
On a related note, I suppose old David E. Davis takes the cake for writing about his gustatory delights. Has the belly to prove it too! :P
How do you know that the press fleet car wasn't doing that, though? Maybe the transmission logic is adaptive and hadn't learned yet, or maybe it was even defective.
We weren't there, so we don't know. Presumably they take notes in a log book and that's what they observed on that particular car.
You can say it's not normal for a GXP to that, sure, but that doesn't mean they were lying.
I agree with Karl, as do you, on much of this. Owners are definitely biased on the whole, but we can not throw out the baby with the bath water. Some owners would also lower their rank once they have to spend every day with the annoying features of their car. That is how I ended up feeling with my 5 series.
Also, I lend some credence to the JD Powers surveys. How does Lexus finish on top in customer satisfaction and quality so many years in a row? Are their customers more emotional and less logical than other brands' customers?
“You can say it's not normal for a GXP to that, sure, but that doesn't mean they were lying.”
Well, first: I did not say anyone was lying.
I merely offer into evidence another data point / observation.
The video is not of my car.
Perhaps the term “reporting error” is not precisely correct here.
I’d hope that upon observing something like 5,000 rpm shifts, when the redline is 6,000 (presuming WOT), would warrant at least a questioning telephone call to whoever is Edmunds’ contact at Pontiac’s Press Fleet.
In acceleration testing, where tenths of a second differences appear very, VERY important to many people, I’d expect that every effort be made to insure that all was well with each test subject(s).
But perhaps it was a ‘defective’ test vehicle.
My real point here is only that (some) other GXPs do not behave that way.
- Ray Not expecting everyone to ‘love’ my GXP – really . . .
If you read the "text" that goes along with the list of engines, you will see that Ward's states, explicitly, that the VQ noticably lost smoothness when it gained .5 litres of displacement.
And 400 lbs is signficant ... that's the difference between 2000lb ('93 Mirage 2d) and 2400lb (94 Celica 2d) and 2800lb ('04 Tiburon Base Model) and 3200lb ('05 Accord EX 4d, '05 WRX) and 3600lb (G35x 4d)
Weight has a substantial affect on vehicle dynamics. If you accidentally rotate a car side ways on a public roadway, supple suspension, steering feedback, and minimum body roll don't matter ... you only want the momentum to go away ! (btw, purely hypothetical situation. never happens.)
Uh, yes. You seem to be perverting my simple statement: "Car owners have great difficulty in accurately assessing the true strengths and weaknesses of own vehicles!"
into something that suggests all people's automotive opinions are worthless.
But that's understandable. As I already suggested -- admitting that one's opinion is biased is almost as difficult as admitting one's car is less than perfect in every way.
It offers my take on how to quickly, and easily assess a car's build quality (and it's not my aforementioned "ring test" though I still use that one, too).
Shifting 900 rpm sooner likely means it caught second gear something like 500 rpm lower on the HP curve. Perhaps something like:
HP @ 4200 = approx. 240 HP @ 3700 = approx. 215
[[ These numbers are based on the HP / TQ chart posted on the GM Powertrain web site. ]]
A shift at 5,900 rpm would have resulted in hitting second gear at higher rpm – and (perhaps more important) more time spent in the lower gear, with attendant greater / quicker acceleration due to the higher torque multiplication (first gear = 2.92:1 vs. second gear = 1.57:1).
That could easily have been the (or at least one) cause of a 14.6 sec. quarter mile time reported by Edmunds – vs. 2 other reported / published times of 14.3 and 14.2.
Truthfully, I've never noticed this myself but I've got a question now -
Generally speaking, would all the power mirrors in Toyotas behave pretty much the same (and the mirrors in all Ford products or GM products or.....)? In other words, would there be a marked difference between how the mirrors act (noise, smoothness, etc.) in a Cobalt vs. a STS? Or between a Corolla and an Avalon?
I used to do the same thing with power windows; for some reason, window operation (quietness/smoothness/any movement in the door panels) would give me an idea of build quality.
Nice Simpsons reference. I am picturing that episode where he jumps that huge chasm on his skateboard... When you said Impala vs 3-series, are you referring to the mid-80s or the mid-90s? Or even 2000. I guess the results are the same in each case. But my beloved B-Body!
You make me want to try this test on my own vehicles, both of which have power mirrors. I will report results. I'll try my girlfriend's car, too. She has a 2000 Malibu. I'm surrounded by mediocre vehicles! Of course, I agree that it doesn't suggest "build quality" as much as "parts" or "materials quality." Some use the terms interchangably. I think that's incorrect. Build quality, taken literally, suggests assembly quality.
I dropped a canoe on my '99 Quest's driver's side mirror a few years ago. I've reglued the busted mirror housing three or four times since then. I'm happy to report (in my non-biased owner's opinion), that the power mirror continues to work smoothly and quietly. Reflects good on my Nissan eh?
it's easy to explain if you are C&D and you love every Acura ever to hit the streets. There was no way the Cobalt was going to beat the RSX. THe RSX is dull inside and out. It offers a nice shifter and a high redline but that's about it as far as I can tell. In terms of bang for the buck the Cobalt is superior. If the test was about performance value than the Cobalt should've been ranked higher, it's pretty simple actually. Whenever C&D (or Edmunds) cant get the test numbers to justify a ranking they start talking about intagibles or prestige. BAsically C&D said anyone spending $24,500 on a car would have more status if they had an RSX than a chevy or dodge and that's really all that counts in the end. Why buy any American car if you can have an Acura for the same dough?
I believe my 2004 EX-L 4 cylinder 5-speed manual Accord is THE best new sedan on the market for $21,000. Is it? Well, a strong argument can be made in it's favor IMO but a Camry/Sonata/Mazda6/G6/Altima, etc owner would feel the same way and come up with countless reasons why their car is better. I also happen to think our daily commuter, a 2003 Civic Si, is a bargain for the $15,400 we paid for it new almost 2 years ago. Is it the best sport hatch on the market? ... probably not ... but in an argument I would defend it until I was blue in the face.
If Chevrolet had put a high quality interior, a fully-independent suspension, and some refinement into the Cobalt it would've stood a chance. As it is the Cobalt is quick and it's an OK looking car but for the RSX/Civic/WRX crowd it's a little low-tech.
It seems that Edmunds has many different writers that review vehicles. How many are there? How many on your staff? A lot. But as for road testers who will author a vehicle review, there are officially nine, including myself. But we also have a solid supply of freelancers that will contribute at any given moment when the staff is overloaded.
The new HHR review was by Erin Riches. So, is this review just the opinion and thoughts of Erin? Or is it a general opinion of a group of reviewers that all had their input thrown into the story? That was a full test, so everyone on staff (including myself) drove the car, and two other editors wrote second opinions (Brian Moody and Dan Kahn). The test was also closely edited by another editor, who had also driven the car. So you can say the test is a solid "staff-wide" opinion.
In a comparison I am guessing that many people contribute and all general thoughts are conveyed into one article by one writer. Is this correct? Yes, but as described above, this happens in full tests (and long-term tests) too.
The only "road test" stories that are limited in editorial opinion are First Drives, because only one editor gets to drive the car and he/she can't bounce his/her opinions off other editors before writing the story. Also, First Drive events do take place under the control of the manufacturers (they pick the driving routes, and you only get a few hours with the car) so we try to limit our opinions during First Drives to only a few broad statements (beyond the facts about the car like horsepower, suspension design, etc.).
I saw that someone mentioned the idea that First Drives are often more "positive" than full tests, and they of course assumed it was because the editor was "influenced" by the treatment they received from the manufacturer. But as I just stated, our First Drives aren't usually very "positive" or "negative" because we don't feel like we have enough quality time to make a final call on a car. What some might not be noticing is that First Drive stories are rarely negative (or positive), but full tests (on weak product) will be negative -- or positive on strong product.
If you aren't closely following the specfics of these road tests it could easily appear that First Drives are always more positive than Full Tests. But in reality, it's more like First Drives are rarely truly negative (or positive).
If Chevrolet had put a high quality interior, a fully-independent suspension, and some refinement into the Cobalt it would've stood a chance. As it is the Cobalt is quick and it's an OK looking car but for the RSX/Civic/WRX crowd it's a little low-tech.
Great analysis. Again, if you focus on numbers (like acceleration and MSRP) the nuances of suspension design and interior material won't be obvious, and thus you'll wonder why all the magazines (and Web sites) keep picking on GM.
But if you are capable of considering these more subtle (but still very important) items, and if you're actually able to drive both models in person -- with an open mind -- you'll come to exactly the conclusion above.
Is that all you had to say in response to my post? I realize you may be busy, but you certainly had the time to say that all owners' opinions were tainted, and you could dismiss anything they said by invoking this magic bullet.
If a person's opinion leading up to the purchase of a car is valid, as you state, how does it become instantly invalid once they buy the car?
This is very circular logic, IMO. If one decides to buy a car based on your review, other reviews, and their test drives, their opinion is logical. But once they buy the car, their choice becomes irrational.
No response?
Allow me to ask, if your assertion were, in fact, true, to what cars does this apply?
1. Is their opinion only invalid towards the car they purchase? Then this person can legimately post an opinion on every other car out there.
2. Or is their opinion invalid towards all cars in the same class? Then you would have to stringently define what constitutes the same class. Leaving this open to your judgment allows the same indiscriminate dismissal of anybody's opinion who doesn't agree with yours.
3. Or is their opinion invalid towards every car? And reductio ad absurdum, towards every make, model and year. So purchasing a car would render one's opinion about anything automotive invalid. Using this criterion, every auto critic who has ever purchased a car is disallowed from evaluating any car, ever.
I hope you see where I am going with this.
How could you take the very last statement out of context, without addressing the previous three paragraphs upon which it was based?
Also, Karl, how is this a scientific approach? If you admit that a single buyer's opinion may, in fact, be valid, how can you dismiss all owners' posts? If only one owner has a valid opinion about the car they purchased, then the wholesale ignorance of "owners' opinions" is competely invalid. Again, easy dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you, as long as that person has experience with owning a car.
By your logic, if I find one auto editor who has taken a bribe....er, been entertained by the auto manufacturers, then I am allowed to assume all are bribed...entertained.
And if you agree that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, as dictated by some of your undergraduate studies in psychology, then ninety percent of decisions made by auto reviewers must be emotional as well, and, therefore, invalid.
I agreed with YOUR statement that emotional decisions are made by all human beings. So you have hereby noted that auto editors make emotional decisions. Therefore, we can safely ignore all of them.
Karl, Karl, Karl! This can't be what you are saying, can it? That would be like judging an entire car by its rear-view mirror!
You will say I am over-generalizing your previous long posts, but in fact I am doing what you have suggested. I believe this is reductio ad absurdum.
Following your logic, given that all auto editors make ninety percent of their decisions on emotion (if they are human), and given that they make decisions on many, many vehicles, my opinion should be worth far more than yours, given that I own only one vehicle!
I would be happy if you addressed these specific points in their wholeness, rather than one sentence without context. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments about owners' opinions, and would welcome clarification.
OK, here's a reply (in spite of my busy schedule).
I don't have any interest in wading through your version of logic. I made a simple statement, you obviously can't deal with it. I've got better things to do with my time.
i haven't actually seen any "ire" from Karl here. but i must say that it seems to me that for a while there many of the posts here were just too much of a "meta-discussion" for me. like, let's talk about cars instead of talking about how to talk about cars.
Karl your power mirror test idea is a neat one. i'm going to give it a try. i bought a couple of new cars recently - a 2005 M6 GTO and a 2005 passat TDI sedan. coincidentally the power mirrors on each car have the same writing: "Eli, your ego is bigger than it appears."
But is it build quality or quality of materials used?
It's a worthy question. The term "build quality" is used a bit generically. I basically use it to describe: Panel gap consistency, or lack thereof (both inside and out) Material quality (both inside and out, but mostly in) Overall non-drivetrain refinement (the precision of the door handles -- do they clunk around or feel very slick and controlled, the fluidity and sound of the power mirrors, the "weighty-ness" of the interior switchgear, etc.)
Quick note: the refinement of the drivetrain itself is where NVH comes in.
So, much of what I'll lump into "build quality" really relates to material quality, switchgear operation, etc. And it's all very nebulous, meaning I can't provide mathematical formulas to explain/describe it. It's like my Dad used to always say, "The thing about 'class' is that I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."
Same with build quality. Basically, does the car come off as being a cheap, mass-produced appliance, or does it come off as having real effort and concern put into the design and execution.
Effort and concern cost money, but more importantly they take talent and are easily weeded out in "design by commitee" organizations...
Comments
I guess on some level you could compare it to a long-term press car, but even then only to the editor that drives it the most.
Editors do have the benefit of sampling similar vehicles back-to-back, often repeatedly, and that's a luxury owners will rarely have. Unless your spouse owns a competing vehicle.
-juice
They are opinions...
If every time Karl gives a bad review of a car that you personally like or own, and you come on here and pound him for it.... then this thread will quickly go away..
It is his opinion.. I want to hear it, even if he is an elitist snob with a Ford GT..
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You just described a Motor Trend review!!!
I am not an editor but I do get the opportunity to drive different vehicles. It is part of my job.
Whereas, in the Midwest, in many areas, you still see more than 50% of the cars being from GM, Ford, or Chrysler. I believe, consciously or not, there's a perception of "un-hipness" to American cars. I wonder if sometimes this doesn't tend to influence reviews of American cars - they have to overcome this stigma, and only a truly exceptional or class-leading vehicle can do so.
There's also a significant difference in income between the heartland and the coast - you might do well making $75k in the Midwest, but, to have the same standard of living in metropolitan areas in California, you will need to be north of $125k and still probably can't afford a house :-)
I am generalizing here, but Japanese and German vehicles tend to have a higher price (i.e. acquisition cost - not bringing up depreciation here) than American vehicles. Someone in the Midwest will spend a greater percentage of household incoming buying that M3 than someone in LA. (Of course, housing costs kinda reverses that, though housing is getting out of reach in most major metropolitan areas).
As an aside, the Big Three weakness on the West Coast and now the south isn't what's killing them... it's been that way for awhile. I think it's the influx of the Korean vehicles, Hyundai and Kia, at lower pricing than the domestics, making inroads in the heartland, and in lower-income areas, that is what is hurting the Big Three. They are also skimming folks from the used-car market, which, along with MSRP/incentive madness, isn't helping the depreciation of Big Three vehicles...
--Robert
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a GXP owner myself.
Kinda sums it up nicely - you diss my car, therefore your review is unfair and biased!
The enthusiast mags are always dissing my Camry - so, I love it anyway; the car suits my needs perfectly. I'm not a canyon carver or have to be first off the line when the light turns green. It's roomy, comfortable, quiet, handles and brakes fine for me, gets great gas mileage (4-cylinder), and three I've had (1997, 2004, 2005) have been reliable.
Absolutely could be. I mean, CA is practically its own country and trends, prevailing opinions, etc can't really be compared with the rest of the country, it seems.
-Jason
Hey! That's Mr. Elist Snob to you! :P
Hey, that's Mr. anti-American nose picker with bad breath!
As with anything, if you’ve been around long enough, you gain a perspective and may bring some context to the table. Maybe you’re testing a decent enough car, but when an automaker claims they are making big changes to their product over the course of a decade and all you see are incremental improvements, then that is part of the equation. Especially if the other automakers (those without the big claims) keep improving what may already be seen as superior products. This is probably why some cars get good first reviews and fare somewhat poorly in comparison testing -- context.
So, on a higher level you’re looking to see whether the maker has really delivered on their promise. Is this the breakthrough car? How does it fit within their product line-up? Maybe that stuff doesn’t matter to the ordinary buyer, but it is of interest to those who follow the industry.
Nissan was cited as an automaker somewhat on the rocks that turned things around. It started with the latest Altima. You can now look at their lineup today and see that there is a common design language both inside and out (except for the Sentra, perhaps), clear market positioning, and a full product lineup with minimal overlap. Someone looking to buy a car might just say, “Nissan seems to have their act together, I’ll take a look.”
So, the perspective of the automotive journalist ends up being more than just the car they’re testing in isolation. In this world where branding and marketing and automaker pronouncements influence the decision-making process, these “intangibles” are not to be overlooked.
1. Owners are the worst people to review their own car: I could/should create a subset right here that would include all the responses everyone out there is already starting to type up, but it essentially comes down to this:
A. "But Karl! Owner's live with a car. They know it best!!! How could their opinion not be as much, or even MORE, valuable then some editor who only drove the car for a few days??!!!!
Actually, what car owners really do is spend their own money on a car, and it's often the second highest bill they pay every month (after rent/mortgage). This simply presents an unrealistic psychological challenge for most car owners -- Admitting that they've spent (or continue to spend) a big portion of their own income on -- GASP -- a flawed vehicle!!!
I'm even going to offer an example:
Recently Car & Driver pitted the Ford GT against the F430, Gallardo, 911 Turbo and DB9. In the finishing order, the Ford GT came in third behind the F430 and Gallardo. When I read the test I noted the following items:
1. The Ford GT had the best performance (except I think the Ferrari had better braking)
2. The Ford GT was the cheapest
3. The text seemed to indicate that everyone loved the looks of the GT (not just the editors, but everyone who saw it during the test)
To me, if you've got an exotic with the best performance and best looks -- that also happens to cost the least -- you pretty much have your winner. Apparently the Ford GT was hard to get into/out of, had little storage space, and had a lot of freeway noise. But, umm, IT'S AN EXOTIC! I'm shocked that Car & Driver even tried to pass these off as viable "Lows" in this test.
But, here is the important part about my reaction to this test -- you will never see my feelings in any "letters to the editor" at Car & Driver, or anywhere else -- except here to serve as my own personal example of owner bias.
The bottom line is that, as a buyer of a Ford GT (I'm still waiting for it to ship from the factory, BTW), my opinion on the car is pretty much moot. It means nothing. Sure, I'll be able tell you all about the car from a very educated point of view, but my ability to properly assess its value versus direct competitors? Absolutely fragged.
I'm sure many of you are now saying "Well maybe you lose all sense of perspective when you own a car, Karl, but I don't."
Let me just be clear here -- YES YOU DO.
And if you're denying this, you've also lose your perspective on the fact that you've lost your perspective regarding your ability to have an unbiased opinion. If you want proof, go look at any car on Edmunds.com, and check the owner's rating and the editor's rating. Then find me an example where the owner's rating is lower than the editor's rating. You can't.
That's just how it works guys. It's nothing to be ashamed of. It's like denying that fact that where you grew up has given you certain geographical biases. It just is. Deal with it.
2. There's more to a car than performance numbers. If you've been following the blog you've already heard this, but it's worth repeating. As I just mentioned, the fact that the Ford GT was faster than the other cars in the Car & Driver comparison test holds a lot of sway with me...probably more than it should. If I remember correctly I believe the C&D guys rated the Ferrari's engine higher than the GT's, despite the fact that the GT's engine makes more power, and the GT is faster.
But you know what, I've driven both cars, and even with my bias for the GT, I totally agree with this assessment. The GT makes great power, but it has to use a supercharger to do it. The Ferrari is normally aspirated and still extremely quick, plus it sounds like every other Ferrari V8, meaning awesome. So the engine is more efficient at making power, and it sounds better. Can't get that from reading a magazine story, and can't reflect this in a chart, but it's true, and even I can recognize it, despite my obvious Ford GT bias.
I wish I could say the same for all readers/owners.
3. All automotive publications are paid off by the car manufacturers and/or have ulterior motives that keep them from reviewing the cars as they really should be reviewed.
I don't know about other car publications...OK, that's not entirely true. I know about a couple of them and, well...you're right! But I also know about Edmunds.com, and we simply don't have any other influence regarding our road tests -- except the car itself. Let me say it clearly -- we are totally biased...toward the best cars.
I'm not going to waste any more time on this one, because either you believe me or you don't.
So there you have it, the three most common elements that trip up the average reader from having a grasp on how/why a car is given a good/bad review, or why it finishes in a specific spot during a comparison test.
You guys can continue to make these mistakes, but don't be surprised if I respond with little patience for it -- if I respond at all.
And for those of you who seem to "get it" with regards to honest vehicle reporting, and who try to present that aspect in your posts, thanks for the support.
You said it Rob. If you read my IS 350 full test http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=106607
you'll see that I basically call it a fine car. The only real issue I had with the IS was that it wasn't a true BMW competitor and Lexus said that it was. They spent the whole presentation period during the press event basically saying "This car will finally take on the 3 Series -- and win!" Then they proceed to outfit the IS with all sorts of restrictive electronics, which no serious BMW enthusiast, or driving enthusiast, is going to have any patience with. If Lexus had merely said, "We don't care about beating the current segment benchmark. We have our own philosophy on how to create a great sport sedan, and the new IS perfectly represents it." I would have called the sedan a great car without any disclaimers. As is, I have to make it clear to the reader that, "It's still a great car, but in the context of the BMW 3 Series, which Lexus claims to be targeting, it falls short."
A perfect example where the opinion of the car is based on more than just the car itself. And this is something that many potential IS buyers may not consider, meaning they will test drive the car, love it, and then wonder why I had any problem whatsoever with such a great car. They might even come on this discussion and say something crazy like, "I just bought an IS 350 and it's great, so Karl is obviously a total idiot when it comes to reviewing cars."
Nah, of course that'd never happen.
(On the other hand I wonder if reviewers don't think any car has matched BMW's feel because they know what a BMW should feel like, rather than knowing what a "perfect car" should feel like.)
It has been written by many psychological experts that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, then backed up by whatever facts are at the disposal of that person to make them look like a rational person. "Rationalization" is the term for this, I believe.
But this can apply to editors, as well.
Additionally, how can you apply this logic to ALL people who post? Even though I agree with you that readers' ratings will always be below editors' ratings, there are other explanations.
First, perhaps editors are more demanding and stringent. This lower rating would not remove the fun or enjoyment of a less-experienced average Joe driving the car they rank highly.
Second, these are averages. Surely you can not say that all readers' ratings are inaccurate. I am positive that SOME of these are accurate. So though the average is higher than the editors' average, some of these individuals may be very accurate and honest and non-emotional.
To dismiss anyone's post here, without knowing if they are emotional or not, is too easy. Your post gives you a clean slate and a great excuse to say that you are always right, and the reader always wrong.
I don't think you mean it this way, but I would advise you not to dismiss EVERY reader with this faulty logic!
And, my friend Karl, if you would like to dismiss the emotional responses, then your nice description above regarding the Ferrari 'sounding' better, and the ethereal "can't reflect this in a chart, but it's true"comment, is based on feeling and emotion. This reaction of yours, albeit completely true, contradicts your first section.
So are we to trust you or not?
Comments in the LPS AWD review referred to "I always felt like I was driving somebody else's car", and "But the BMW is the one that would get me out of my warm bed on a cold winter morning". These are just the types of responses you are suggesting readers give that weaken their logic.
One more item, sir. I believe you are discounting those who do extensive research and test-driving before they buy. Since they are putting their money where their mouths are, don't these people have the right to describe their decision-making process in detail? Once they buy the car, do they lose all logic?
My two cents!
I didn't say it applied to ALL people that post, I said it applied to ALL people that post about a car they own (and I still stand by it). People who post on cars they have test driven, or friend's car, or cars they've read about in magazines can have very legitimate comments. The tricky part comes when you've committed your heart (and money) to a car -- at which point history (and the consumers' ratings) suggest that logic makes an exit, stage left. All the research the person did leading up to their decision is great stuff. I want to hear it. Comments made about their car, post purchase, well...
To dismiss anyone's post here, without knowing if they are emotional or not, is too easy.
My whole point is that everyone becomes emotional once they buy a car. In reality I'm sure there are a few truly grounded souls out there who can buy a car and not instantly feel the need to defend any and all aspects of it to their dying breath, but if I open the door for even that slight bit of wiggle room then everyone posting here will claim, "Yes, and I'm one of those rare, truly grounded souls!! I swear!!! Really!!!!!"
So, yup, I'm taking the easy (and scientific) approach and assuming owners' posts aren't really as "accurate" as non-owners.
And, my friend Karl, if you would like to dismiss the emotional responses, then your nice description above regarding the Ferrari 'sounding' better, and the ethereal "can't reflect this in a chart, but it's true"comment, is based on feeling and emotion. This reaction of yours, albeit completely true, contradicts your first section.
Again, that's the whole point. If I'm getting emotional about a car that I don't own, or even plan on ever owning, then it must really be a good (or bad, if the emotions are negative) car.
In fact, I completely agree with your statement (probably because I minored in psychology):
It has been written by many psychological experts that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, then backed up by whatever facts are at the disposal of that person to make them look like a rational person. "Rationalization" is the term for this, I believe.
But remember, if the editor reviewing the car isn't buying -- or hasn't already bought -- a given car, then no "rationalization" has to occur for him/her.
This is very circular logic, IMO. If one decides to buy a car based on your review, other reviews, and their test drives, their opinion is logical. But once they buy the car, their choice becomes irrational.
I strongly disagree with this statement.
Allow me to ask, if your assertion were, in fact, true, to what cars does this apply?
1. Is their opinion only invalid towards the car they purchase? Then this person can legimately post an opinion on every other car out there.
2. Or is their opinion invalid towards all cars in the same class? Then you would have to stringently define what constitutes the same class. Leaving this open to your judgment allows the same indiscriminate dismissal of anybody's opinion who doesn't agree with yours.
3. Or is their opinion invalid towards every car? And reductio ad absurdum, towards every make, model and year. So purchasing a car would render one's opinion about anything automotive invalid. Using this criterion, every auto critic who has ever purchased a car is disallowed from evaluating any car, ever.
I hope you see where I am going with this.
This kind of approach allows the opinion of anyone who is not a critic to be dismissed without addressing the content of that opinion. Way too easy, in my opinion!
Also, Karl, how is this a scientific approach? If you admit that a single buyer's opinion may, in fact, be valid, how can you dismiss all owners' posts? If only one owner has a valid opinion about the car they purchased, then the wholesale ignorance of "owners' opinions" is competely invalid. Again, easy dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you, as long as that person has experience with owning a car.
I strongly disagree!
And if you agree that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, as dictated by some of your undergraduate studies in psychology, then ninety percent of decisions made by auto reviewers must be emotional as well, and, therefore, invalid.
In my meager opinion (if I am still entitled to have one, as I bought an American car once, and bought a European car later, and bought a Japanese car later), several of your statements are invalidated by your own statements. I must continue to strongly disagree with the invalidation of anyone's opinion by you, or by any reviewer, until more stringent criteria are presented that would allow for the indiscriminate ignorance of this community's opinions.
Thank you for considering my thoughts!
Video of a GXP – upshifting at 5,900 rpm:
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=GXP-0-75mph
- Ray
Admitted GXP owner . .
Don't forget to get a tracking number!
http://www.ups.com/tracking/tracking.html
LOL
Better yet. Have them attach a tracking beacon on the car so you can follow it on a GPS. *here it comes...just .....one more...block...*
:-)
Video of a GXP – upshifting at 5,900 rpm:
http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=GXP-0-75mph
- Ray
Admitted GXP owner . .
rayainsw,
You, I and a few others(especially rlsedition) are wasting time defending the GXP. No matter what facts we put out, they will say we are GXP owners, therefore, our opinions are not valid because we will try to justify the money we spent on the car.
Here I was only attempting to correct what I believe to be a factual reporting error.
My opinion is not at issue here.
- Ray
Not really defending my purchase . .
I have also come to find that a lot of cars will get a glowing 1st review, but a lousy follow-up or comparison test. One of the reasons for this is that the manufacturer will wine and dine the journalist in some semi-exotic location and the whole experience magically ends up, well, glowing. Then remove all that I just mentioned and leave just a car, after a few months, and you get a luke warm review. Happens all the time.
Someone looking to buy a car might just say, “Nissan seems to have their act together, I’ll take a look.”
I guess that proves that even if the company doesn't produce class-leading interiors, they can still be high in public opinion.
On a related note, I suppose old David E. Davis takes the cake for writing about his gustatory delights. Has the belly to prove it too! :P
We weren't there, so we don't know. Presumably they take notes in a log book and that's what they observed on that particular car.
You can say it's not normal for a GXP to that, sure, but that doesn't mean they were lying.
-juice
Also, I lend some credence to the JD Powers surveys. How does Lexus finish on top in customer satisfaction and quality so many years in a row? Are their customers more emotional and less logical than other brands' customers?
Well, first: I did not say anyone was lying.
I merely offer into evidence another data point / observation.
The video is not of my car.
Perhaps the term “reporting error” is not precisely correct here.
I’d hope that upon observing something like 5,000 rpm shifts, when the redline is 6,000 (presuming WOT), would warrant at least a questioning telephone call to whoever is Edmunds’ contact at Pontiac’s Press Fleet.
In acceleration testing, where tenths of a second differences appear very, VERY important to many people, I’d expect that every effort be made to insure that all was well with each test subject(s).
But perhaps it was a ‘defective’ test vehicle.
My real point here is only that (some) other GXPs do not behave that way.
- Ray
Not expecting everyone to ‘love’ my GXP – really . . .
They thought it was normal so they may not have known to report it as a problem to the fleet manager.
-juice
And 400 lbs is signficant ... that's the difference between 2000lb ('93 Mirage 2d) and 2400lb (94 Celica 2d) and 2800lb ('04 Tiburon Base Model) and 3200lb ('05 Accord EX 4d, '05 WRX) and 3600lb (G35x 4d)
Weight has a substantial affect on vehicle dynamics. If you accidentally rotate a car side ways on a public roadway, supple suspension, steering feedback, and minimum body roll don't matter ... you only want the momentum to go away ! (btw, purely hypothetical situation. never happens.)
Uh, yes. You seem to be perverting my simple statement:
"Car owners have great difficulty in accurately assessing the true strengths and weaknesses of own vehicles!"
into something that suggests all people's automotive opinions are worthless.
But that's understandable. As I already suggested -- admitting that one's opinion is biased is almost as difficult as admitting one's car is less than perfect in every way.
http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/106649/article.html
It offers my take on how to quickly, and easily assess a car's build quality (and it's not my aforementioned "ring test" though I still use that one, too).
Happy to hear reactions.
HP @ 4200 = approx. 240
HP @ 3700 = approx. 215
[[ These numbers are based on the HP / TQ chart posted on the GM Powertrain web site. ]]
A shift at 5,900 rpm would have resulted in hitting second gear at higher rpm – and (perhaps more important) more time spent in the lower gear, with attendant greater / quicker acceleration due to the higher torque multiplication (first gear = 2.92:1 vs. second gear = 1.57:1).
That could easily have been the (or at least one) cause of a 14.6 sec. quarter mile time reported by Edmunds – vs. 2 other reported / published times of 14.3 and 14.2.
Just my 0.2 seconds worth . .
- Ray
Worth (some days) just about that much . .
But is it build quality or quality of materials used?
Just curious.
-Dale
Generally speaking, would all the power mirrors in Toyotas behave pretty much the same (and the mirrors in all Ford products or GM products or.....)? In other words, would there be a marked difference between how the mirrors act (noise, smoothness, etc.) in a Cobalt vs. a STS? Or between a Corolla and an Avalon?
I used to do the same thing with power windows; for some reason, window operation (quietness/smoothness/any movement in the door panels) would give me an idea of build quality.
When you said Impala vs 3-series, are you referring to the mid-80s or the mid-90s? Or even 2000. I guess the results are the same in each case. But my beloved B-Body!
You make me want to try this test on my own vehicles, both of which have power mirrors. I will report results. I'll try my girlfriend's car, too. She has a 2000 Malibu. I'm surrounded by mediocre vehicles! Of course, I agree that it doesn't suggest "build quality" as much as "parts" or "materials quality." Some use the terms interchangably. I think that's incorrect. Build quality, taken literally, suggests assembly quality.
Steve, Host
I believe my 2004 EX-L 4 cylinder 5-speed manual Accord is THE best new sedan on the market for $21,000. Is it? Well, a strong argument can be made in it's favor IMO but a Camry/Sonata/Mazda6/G6/Altima, etc owner would feel the same way and come up with countless reasons why their car is better. I also happen to think our daily commuter, a 2003 Civic Si, is a bargain for the $15,400 we paid for it new almost 2 years ago. Is it the best sport hatch on the market? ... probably not ... but in an argument I would defend it until I was blue in the face.
A lot. But as for road testers who will author a vehicle review, there are officially nine, including myself. But we also have a solid supply of freelancers that will contribute at any given moment when the staff is overloaded.
The new HHR review was by Erin Riches. So, is this review just the opinion and thoughts of Erin? Or is it a general opinion of a group of reviewers that all had their input thrown into the story?
That was a full test, so everyone on staff (including myself) drove the car, and two other editors wrote second opinions (Brian Moody and Dan Kahn). The test was also closely edited by another editor, who had also driven the car. So you can say the test is a solid "staff-wide" opinion.
In a comparison I am guessing that many people contribute and all general thoughts are conveyed into one article by one writer. Is this correct?
Yes, but as described above, this happens in full tests (and long-term tests) too.
The only "road test" stories that are limited in editorial opinion are First Drives, because only one editor gets to drive the car and he/she can't bounce his/her opinions off other editors before writing the story. Also, First Drive events do take place under the control of the manufacturers (they pick the driving routes, and you only get a few hours with the car) so we try to limit our opinions during First Drives to only a few broad statements (beyond the facts about the car like horsepower, suspension design, etc.).
I saw that someone mentioned the idea that First Drives are often more "positive" than full tests, and they of course assumed it was because the editor was "influenced" by the treatment they received from the manufacturer. But as I just stated, our First Drives aren't usually very "positive" or "negative" because we don't feel like we have enough quality time to make a final call on a car. What some might not be noticing is that First Drive stories are rarely negative (or positive), but full tests (on weak product) will be negative -- or positive on strong product.
If you aren't closely following the specfics of these road tests it could easily appear that First Drives are always more positive than Full Tests. But in reality, it's more like First Drives are rarely truly negative (or positive).
Great analysis. Again, if you focus on numbers (like acceleration and MSRP) the nuances of suspension design and interior material won't be obvious, and thus you'll wonder why all the magazines (and Web sites) keep picking on GM.
But if you are capable of considering these more subtle (but still very important) items, and if you're actually able to drive both models in person -- with an open mind -- you'll come to exactly the conclusion above.
Is that all you had to say in response to my post? I realize you may be busy, but you certainly had the time to say that all owners' opinions were tainted, and you could dismiss anything they said by invoking this magic bullet.
If a person's opinion leading up to the purchase of a car is valid, as you state, how does it become instantly invalid once they buy the car?
This is very circular logic, IMO. If one decides to buy a car based on your review, other reviews, and their test drives, their opinion is logical. But once they buy the car, their choice becomes irrational.
No response?
Allow me to ask, if your assertion were, in fact, true, to what cars does this apply?
1. Is their opinion only invalid towards the car they purchase? Then this person can legimately post an opinion on every other car out there.
2. Or is their opinion invalid towards all cars in the same class? Then you would have to stringently define what constitutes the same class. Leaving this open to your judgment allows the same indiscriminate dismissal of anybody's opinion who doesn't agree with yours.
3. Or is their opinion invalid towards every car? And reductio ad absurdum, towards every make, model and year. So purchasing a car would render one's opinion about anything automotive invalid. Using this criterion, every auto critic who has ever purchased a car is disallowed from evaluating any car, ever.
I hope you see where I am going with this.
How could you take the very last statement out of context, without addressing the previous three paragraphs upon which it was based?
Also, Karl, how is this a scientific approach? If you admit that a single buyer's opinion may, in fact, be valid, how can you dismiss all owners' posts? If only one owner has a valid opinion about the car they purchased, then the wholesale ignorance of "owners' opinions" is competely invalid. Again, easy dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you, as long as that person has experience with owning a car.
By your logic, if I find one auto editor who has taken a bribe....er, been entertained by the auto manufacturers, then I am allowed to assume all are bribed...entertained.
And if you agree that ninety percent of human decisions are emotional, as dictated by some of your undergraduate studies in psychology, then ninety percent of decisions made by auto reviewers must be emotional as well, and, therefore, invalid.
I agreed with YOUR statement that emotional decisions are made by all human beings. So you have hereby noted that auto editors make emotional decisions. Therefore, we can safely ignore all of them.
Karl, Karl, Karl! This can't be what you are saying, can it? That would be like judging an entire car by its rear-view mirror!
You will say I am over-generalizing your previous long posts, but in fact I am doing what you have suggested. I believe this is reductio ad absurdum.
Following your logic, given that all auto editors make ninety percent of their decisions on emotion (if they are human), and given that they make decisions on many, many vehicles, my opinion should be worth far more than yours, given that I own only one vehicle!
I would be happy if you addressed these specific points in their wholeness, rather than one sentence without context. Perhaps I misunderstood your comments about owners' opinions, and would welcome clarification.
TIA
I don't have any interest in wading through your version of logic. I made a simple statement, you obviously can't deal with it. I've got better things to do with my time.
Like drive a Ford GT.
but i must say that it seems to me that for a while there many of the posts here were just too much of a "meta-discussion" for me. like, let's talk about cars instead of talking about how to talk about cars.
Karl your power mirror test idea is a neat one. i'm going to give it a try. i bought a couple of new cars recently - a 2005 M6 GTO and a 2005 passat TDI sedan. coincidentally the power mirrors on each car have the same writing:
"Eli, your ego is bigger than it appears."
It's a worthy question. The term "build quality" is used a bit generically. I basically use it to describe:
Panel gap consistency, or lack thereof (both inside and out)
Material quality (both inside and out, but mostly in)
Overall non-drivetrain refinement (the precision of the door handles -- do they clunk around or feel very slick and controlled, the fluidity and sound of the power mirrors, the "weighty-ness" of the interior switchgear, etc.)
Quick note: the refinement of the drivetrain itself is where NVH comes in.
So, much of what I'll lump into "build quality" really relates to material quality, switchgear operation, etc. And it's all very nebulous, meaning I can't provide mathematical formulas to explain/describe it. It's like my Dad used to always say, "The thing about 'class' is that I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it."
Same with build quality. Basically, does the car come off as being a cheap, mass-produced appliance, or does it come off as having real effort and concern put into the design and execution.
Effort and concern cost money, but more importantly they take talent and are easily weeded out in "design by commitee" organizations...