That is certainly interesting and I will admit I've noticed differences in power mirror operations between different makes and models.
I tried this test comparing the mirrors in my '00 Suburban vs our '01 Pathfinder and surprisingly, the mirrors in the Sub are much quieter. Unfortunately for Chevy this does not carry through the rest of the vehicle when comparing the build quality and refinement of these two vehicles.
Simply put, the Nissan is screwed together much tighter and the Suburban has panel gaps large enough that the Pathfinder probably could drive thru.
While a good car is more likely to have good accessories and peripheral items like power mirrors, I prefer to do a more thorough evaluation of "build quality". As with most things in life, the easy way is often too superficial. IMO, this simple view of power mirrors would not be adequate for evaluating the build quality of a complex machine.
In addition, some very fine cars have so-so interiors, or middling transmissions, so I would hazard a guess that the same mismatch between overall quality and mirror function could be expected.
While not perfect, CR surveys and results are excellent when evaluating the reliability of cars, with separate systems of each car outlined for each year of that make and model. While reliability does not equal build quality, it is surely a sign of good design, consistency of production, and the manufacturer's willingness and ability to carefully follow up and improve where improvement is needed.
Since door edges, rattles, fit of parts, function and reliability of controls are certain to be related to the above design/consistency/quality control, I would think that these CR evaluations, based on larger numbers than one person's opinions regarding one specific component of a car, would be more reliable in predicting how one car or one model might perform initially, and over time.
So I use these as a starting point for my personal evaluation.
Karl, My 1996 Toyota Rav4 was totalled recently and the money from the insurance company is coming through soon. I am receiving aprox. 7000 dollars. I am looking for a sport sedan or coupe that has a decent amount of grunt under the hood along with a sporty suspension and handling to replace my Toyota. I was thinking a Mrk. III Jetta VR6, an Impreza RS, a Maxima, and if I can find one, an SVT Contour. The car has to be a stick shift. Being that used late nineties stick maximas and imprezas and SVT contours seem to be hard to find, What would you recommend?
I've been thinking about that, and I remember that when I was in high school the way I'd evaluate a boom box was by hitting the eject button on the tape player, and seeing if it came out smoothly.
The cheap ones, like GPX, would pop out so fast that the tape would often come flying out and land on the floor.
LOL I used to do the same thing with boom boxes. I'm sure the salesmen used to look at me funny as I walked down the line of boom boxes on display and hit all of the eject buttons as I went. :-)
karl, I caught myself tapping the dashboard with my wedding ring the other day. :-)
Quick note: the refinement of the drivetrain itself is where NVH comes in.
Not just powertrain though. NVH also applies to the suspension, the amount of wind noise and road isolation. You could turn the engine off (coasting) and still evalulate NVH.
I haven't taken the time to fully digest all the various dissertations you have thrown at Karl (nor the 3 letter initials following my name to fully appreciate the thought behind them). And I'll try to keep this short - we all have opinions, editors and car owners alike. Has it occured to you that editors are ALSO car owners? Would you trust the review of an editor who was reviewing a car THEY purchased with THEIR own money?
Or would you think that, perhaps, the review just might be a bit biased? Even IF the editor was some kind of Superman and honestly was able to review HIS car completely subjectively, how many readers of such a review (knowing the editor was reviewing his own car) would actually trust the review to be non-biased?
Face facts please - we ALL have bias'. However, I would trust an editor to exhibit less bias in their review (of a car they have no personal involvement in) over the opinions of a car owner who DOES have a personal involvement with their car.
While reliability does not equal build quality, it is surely a sign of good design, consistency of production, and the manufacturer's willingness and ability to carefully follow up and improve where improvement is needed.
I think a lot of people would consider German makes (I am specifically targeting Audi/VW) to have "good design." You can sit inside one of their products and come to that conclusion. Yet they have reliability problems. So it is good design and good quality? Or is it good perceived quality? IMO, perceived quality is as important (more important for some, less for others) as actual quality. I think there was a discussion board specifically on that.
Panel gaps, for example, have nothing to do with reliability. The owners' knowing a vehicle has tight panel gaps is worth just that - the owner's knowing.
I'd go for a 4th gen Maxima SE 5-speed, loaded. Not the world's best tranny and clutch but the rest of the car makes up for it. They're nice cars, quick, reliable and economical.
I purchased one of the first SVT Contours available. I really enjoyed the car, but reliability problems plagued it. Certain parts were/are not readily available as well, such as brake components. If you could find a used 99 or 2000 model ('99 or '00 hp was boosted by 5 to 200hp), you probably could pick it up cheap. The problems would be finding one that is not beat to death.
My pick would probably be the Maxima with a 5 speed. Good luck finding one, at least with the SVT Contour they all were sticks, so if see on listed, you know it will be a stick.
Can an owner of a car remained MOSTLY neutral, and his or her opinion carry significant weight? I believe yes.
Can a car owner put in his or her two cents on various cars, especially the vehicles they have researched and test-driven? I believe a strong yes.
My main gripe is the universal statement that owners opinions are to be generally ignored. We ain't all the same, and while there are 'homers' in this as in sports, that method is too easy. It allows the writer/editor to say "I am right. My opinion is worth something, and yours nothing." I guess I just don't see it that way!
Could you please define what you mean by facts? How would you suggest we separate fact (HP, torque, slalom times, safety features) from peoples' feelings as they look at or drive their cars? I know, this is the tough question! I don't have a good answer.
I've driven a few (went to Chevy's Malibu Intro event at Fed Ex Field and got to drive them on 3 autocross courses), and the limitation with that car is the tires. I forget the brand, but they all had some off-brand bargain tire that offered very little grip and made tons of noise near the limits.
Your story sounds similar.
Shame, because the engine offers great torque at low revs, and is efficient.
"Can an owner of a car remained MOSTLY neutral....."
CAN they? Sure. It's possible. Likely? No. Besides, just how would you, as a disinterested party, know from reading a review by a car owner just how neutral they were in their review?
"...and his or her opinion carry significant weight?"
Carry weight with whom? Are you suggesting that the editors take a poll prior to writing their review? The reviews are the EDITOR'S reviews. These reviews reflect the EDITORS OPINIONS of the car they've reviewed. Nowhere do they state, or insinuate, that their opinions are anything more than that. These are not stone tablets coming down the mountain. Any individual can write up their own review of their car and post it in the new car section. Were you aware of that? Beyond that, I honestly don't understand just what you expect ANY editor to do here.
"Can a car owner put in his or her two cents on various cars, especially the vehicles they have researched and test-driven?"
Sure. As pointed out, Edmunds has a section right here where you can do this. I don't know that you own an Infiniti M35x but if you do, you are welcome to write your review of the car here:
BTW - I used to read these 'reviews' about cars I was interested in. I don't any longer. 95% are way too glowing of the cars (surprise surprise) while it is apparent with the rest that they've had some minor problems with the car and so slag it mercilessly. The 'unbiased/impartial' review in these sections are few and far between. Beyond that, no one is stating that you must agree with the Editors reviews, but if you hope to 'convince' them that their opinions are somehow faulty and you will help them to see the light, then prepare for disappointment.
"My main gripe is the universal statement that owners opinions are to be generally ignored.
Truthfully, I don't know that it was stated that our opinions are to be 'ignored'. But to be honest, I would take most owners opinions of their cars with a large grain of salt. You can interpret this to mean 'ignored' if you wish.
"Could you please define what you mean by facts?"
I really don't care to parse words with you. I think my statement "Face facts please - we ALL have bias" was fairly straightforward.
"How would you suggest we separate fact (HP, torque, slalom times, safety features) from peoples' feelings as they look at or drive their cars?"
I would suggest that the Editors, in preparing a review of a vehicle, not take any special steps to separate objective statements about a vehicle from their subjective opinions. I think I'm a big enough boy to understand what information presented is 'fact' and which is 'opinion'. I also have a high enough regard for the average reader that they can do the same.
Problem is, finding a Maxima with a stick is like finding a GM product that is screwed together well. (Note Sarcasm, I have no problem with GM) I am going to have to drive far to find whatever I am looking for. Are a few 150 mile treks worth test driving each one?
I guess. Besides, I couls use driving to find my new car as an excuse for driving the snot out of my, "loaner." TSX 6 speed. That thing is fun as hell to drive.
Not just powertrain though. NVH also applies to the suspension, the amount of wind noise and road isolation. You could turn the engine off (coasting) and still evalulate NVH.
I read with interest your “mirror quality test” and thought about some of the things I use to decide if a car could someday be for me. That something is door armrests.
I’ve decided that a car should have a flat, somewhat padded armrest with a place to grab your fingers around for support.
I discovered this after I bought my current car and found myself in my father-in-law’s Lexus LS400. My ’95 Acura Legend sedan has a fairly hard, flat armrest with a small scoop that doesn’t allow you to grab it while driving. His '92 Lexus LS400 had a nicely padded armrest you could grab because it is open where your hand goes, and the opening is in just the right place.
It was then and there that I discovered "armrest envy" , and decided that when I buy another car, it will need to have better armrests. Well, unless that car is something I simply have to have on an intense emotional level. Say a Ford GT! Oh wait, that’s your life .
I sat in the new Lexus GS and found the armrests completely lacking. However, the armrests on the Acura RL are just about perfect. The M35 looks good, as does the Audi A6. Look at the pictures in the luxury comparison to see what I mean.
Still, my Legend armrests are better than the angled, molded-in armrests in some cars, like the Mazda6, which I really like in 5-door form. It would be almost perfect with better interior door panels.
Is that enough on which to base a decision? No. But it can help guide the decision-making in one direction or another and eliminate some choices right off the bat. The armrest factor is one way I judge the design and quality of the interior. After all, you are going to be using them whenever you’re in the car, so you’d better like them.
BTW - I used to read these 'reviews' about cars I was interested in. I don't any longer. 95% are way too glowing of the cars (surprise surprise) while it is apparent with the rest that they've had some minor problems with the car and so slag it mercilessly. The 'unbiased/impartial' review in these sections are few and far between. Beyond that, no one is stating that you must agree with the Editors reviews, but if you hope to 'convince' them that their opinions are somehow faulty and you will help them to see the light, then prepare for disappointment.
EXACTLY!
When I was car shopping recently I absorbed all of the reviews I could find. When I read owners reviews, I glance over the gushing ones and I focused usually on the bad reviews. Figuring if they spent the money on it and they're saying bad things about it then it's worth reading....keeping in mind that the poster could just be a troll from a competing company sent in to trash a vehicle. I read all of the magazine reviews and the editors reviews knowng that these reviews are less biased than your typical owner.
In the end you make the choice and you buy the car knowing that some people like it and some poeple don't...all for various reasons.
Side story: I read a review of the new Freestyle by one of the auto reviewers over at MSN autos. "SHE" wrote that the Freestyle came with either a CVT or a 6 speed. WRONG!! It only comes with a CVT. I read her "review" of the car and then moved on. She said it was underpowered with only the 200 HP V6...even though it does 0-60 in 8.5 seconds which is admirable for a 7 passenger family mover. I didn't waste my time writing to her to complain about her so-called review.
It was then and there that I discovered "armrest envy" , and decided that when I buy another car, it will need to have better armrests. Well, unless that car is something I simply have to have on an intense emotional level. Say a Ford GT! Oh wait, that’s your life .
I sat in the new Lexus GS and found the armrests completely lacking. However, the armrests on the Acura RL are just about perfect. The M35 looks good, as does the Audi A6. Look at the pictures in the luxury comparison to see what I mean.
Sounds more like you may have a budding armrest fetish there.
Heyyyyy, nice armrests...can I touch them? please?....just once...I need to know
Try eBay Motors, cars.com and autotrader.com classifieds. Don't concentrate in a local paper or something. You won't find the car OR the deal you're looking for, unless you live in the middle of a major metropolitan area.
150 miles isn't that far. I flew from CT to North Carolina for my car, and drove it back. And it was an 8+ year old car with 113k miles that I bought sight unseen for $3500. I would do it again. Was it a risk? Yeah. But it turned out great. The previous owner even picked us up (my dad and brother) in the car at the airport.
For me, I am partial to the black on black loaded SE. According to Edmunds, this is a 99 GLE interior:
The SE is almost the same, except no wood and white faced gauges.
I would definitely drive several hundred miles for the perfect car, or even the "right" car.
All the models you're considering are viable choices. You seem to be after a sedan, so some of the cars from that era, that I'm more familiar with, probably won't appeal to you.
I'm still a sucker for the SVT Focus, and I owned two different Carroll Shelby CSX Dodge Shadows, both of which were ridiculously fast and fun considering the money I spent on them ($3,500 for one, $5,500 for the other -- both capable of destroying IROCs and Mustang GTs with only a computer chip upgrade). And they both went to over 100,000 miles with minimal problems. But they are probably all trashed by now.
I also still like the looks and overall design/performance philosophy of the early Eclipses (saw one of the 91-94 models the other day and thought "You know, those cars are aging pretty well in terms of styling"). Of course, while I never owned one I did own a 1991 Stealth R/T Twin Turbo, and a good friend had a '91 Eagle Talon, so I'm probably biased.
I bought that Stealth for $12,500 and had it modifed during my days at Super Street Magazine. Before I was done it had nitrous, blow-off valves, upgraded exahust and intake, etc., and would do 0-60 in about 5.2 seconds and the quarter in 13.2 (not bad for a two-ton land-yacht).
Anyway, I've always liked the Maxima and the SVT Contour, so either would get my vote (Maxima has a more upscale and roomy interior, SVT has a lighter, nimbler feel). I actually did a comparison test as my final story for Super Street with those two vehicles (about May 1998).
My experience with older Imprezas is limited, but I know they have a strong following and the later ones that I have driven are definitely high in the FTD factor, so I can assume the older ones are good, too.
Good luck. Just remember all the basic stuff (try to get something with complete service records, look the car -- and the current owner -- over carefully to get a sense of how it was treated, etc.).
I think you misinterpreted my intention. I was not in any way trying to snipe or antagonize you, or to argue with your opinions. Peace, Bro!
Editor Karl posted two long items on how not to 'draw his ire', and made some blanket statements in those, regarding opinions that could be dismissed without further review or consideration. That did not sit well with me, as I have read these boards like you, trying to synthesize all opinions with my own feelings. Of course, no one has the market on honesty and fact cornered! So you and I (and many others) try the same method: read a lot, gather the most likely truth, then reality test it ourselves. While there will always be opinions that are at the far end of the bell curve, the access we have to ALL opinions helps us all.
I don't feel it appropriate (my opinion) for an editor, or anyone else here, to discredit all owners' opinions in advance! To me, at least, that effort was quite clear in editor Karl's long posts. That may or may not be his true opinion, and he is certainly entitled to that. But that approach may discourage regular people like you and I from contributing, and we would all lose out from that!
If you get the chance, please read those original posts, correct me if I am wrong or have misunderstood. I HAVE been wrong before!
The debate about editorial bias has pretty much run its course, and Karl and others have moved on to discussing specific vehicles & the automotive industry. Let's continue heading in that direction, since that's the purpose of this discussion. We're not going to get down to parsing specific words/phrases. Thanks.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Am I crazy to be considering a 1996 A4 in with the other vehicles? I bet that is going to drive really well but i am concerned about matinence and parts.
"I don't feel it appropriate (my opinion) for an editor, or anyone else here, to discredit all owners' opinions in advance!"
Well, in theory, and in PC times, one would have to say you are absolutely correct. Afterall, one doesn't arbitrarily throw out the opinions of an entire group of people.
However (and here I'll speak only for myself), when it comes to an attempt on MY part to garner a review of a vehicle, one of the last groups of people I'll come to would be a bunch of car owners on-line. I will, as a matter of course, treat any review of any car by their owner with a huge dose of skeptism. Is my 'skeptism' = 'discreditation of opinion in advance'? Perhaps.
This is partly the result of dealing with people on-line rather than face-to-face. Is the 'owner' of the car doing the 'review' really on owner? Perhaps they're a car salesman. Maybe they work in the plant where the car is produced. I don't know. Is this the type of person who normally gushes over everything that THEY'VE done/bought and they tend to deride what they DON'T have? I can't tell on-line. I have a much better time gauging people off-line in the flesh and so I am much more apt to value their opinion. I can't do this on-line and so, yes, I do tend to discredit on-line opinions in advance.
Is this fair? Probably not. But there it is. You may or may not have noticed that sometimes people are much less truthful on-line than they are off. You may or may not have noticed that people are also more argumentative on-line than they are off. We (and I certainly include myself) appear to be more interested in 'scoring points' than in trying to see the others viewpoint. Such is the nature of the beast and I'm sure that the editors of an on-line magazine have run across this much more than I.
So I would not be surprised if, in fact, Karl (or any other Editor) is inclined to discredit owner's opinions in advance. The only thing I would be surprised at would be their willingness to admit it. To do so would be, IMO, to their credit.
Well put. I would hope all of us would use some judgment in this anonymous setting, and you obviously feel comfortable 'reading' people as they present their opinions to you. I feel the same. Thus, the balancing of all this input with a dose of reasonableness.
I sometimes laugh at those too-perfect reviews that are just too good to be true. Some of these salespeople have gotten better, but they still fail to understand that people out here are a bit too skeptical for that to work very well. And people with a new car BETTER be pretty darned enthused, so we can tone down their gushing a bit.
In the end, we are all responsible for our own decisions, so we should blame no one except ourselves when we listen without moderation.
I would respectfully disagree with the comment about giving credit for the willingness to admit an approach like this. These forums are supposed to encourage all of us to share, and not supposed to make anyone feel less important, or as though our opinions don't matter. In fact, this whole tempest in a teapot would not have occurred unless those original posts were presented. I just fail to see the point in telling people this sort of thing, and personally consider it not a very civilized act.
I have just been informed by a roving host that one of my posts was removed because the thread was not about Karl's approach. I would imagine this post will be shortly removed as well, although Karl's original remains. So read quickly!
Thanks for responding honestly, fairly and intelligently!
I hope this sub-thread doesn't get whacked because I think it does have relevance here. But then, it wouldn't be the first time I've had a problem with what is and is not on topic (or is or is not within the rules) and had posts deleted.
Disagreement noted. With all due respect, I think your profession (psycology if I'm not mistaken; if so I apologize) probably encourages the unfettered sharing of opinions more so than, IMO (how's that for irony?) is warranted here.
Besides, I don't think the editor's really need to encourage us to share our opinions all that much. I don't think some of us could be discouraged from sharing our opinions even if the editors had the ability to physically reach out and smack us upside the head.
Besides, I don't think the editor's really need to encourage us to share our opinions all that much. I don't think some of us could be discouraged from sharing our opinions even if the editors had the ability to physically reach out and smack us upside the head.
Karl, if you could take snapshot of industry _right now_, what outfits offer:
1. Driving Nirvana in jeweled boxes, 2. bad erector set creations that nobody can love for long, 3. solid mainstreamers "safe", if boring, for reliable transport
Bigdaddy pretty much has it down, though I'd offer a twist:
1- BMW -- they still offer driving nirvana, and they still come in a jeweled box, but the box has some freaky contours on it that muck up the box's proportions. Audi, on the other hand, has a box worthy of a Tiffany's window display, though the driving is mere Vahalla rather than Nirvana (meaning still very good). 2- Saturn -- Saturn is probably the best example of GM having all the potential in the world...and realizing none of it. The lack of investment from the mothership has got to be illegal in some way. In spite of it all, the brand still has amazing loyalty because of the dealer experience (where many other GM divisions are lacking). The division is only a couple solid models away from greatness. Let's hope the Sky and Aura represent a move in that direction. 3- Toyota -- How can you fault a company that makes money almost as fast as it gobbles market share? Toyota's aren't for everyone...though the sales numbers make you wonder who isn't buying them?
1. Porsche-The Boxster S is pretty well-powered, and the look has improved. The convertible makes for some sweet cruising or chicanes. And how about a plain old 911? Sounds, feels and looks special. And the Cayman may be a 911 in sheep's clothing!
2. Saab-The were pretty innovative before GM, and had their own significant cult following.
3. Would agree on Toyota-Had a Camry for twelve years, was super-reliable, comfy enough to go long distances, and just feels well-engineered all around. For the money, I am not sure my BMW is much better.
I try for short posts here 'cause you __are__busy, but appreciate the responses to this one, and agree. BMW 3 ride/handling was nice, but was amazed how armrests, etc got in the way while driving (bad interior layout?). My Saturns fell apart. My Toyota didn't.
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.
You've never owned a Kia, have you?
I have no difficulty admitting it is less than perfect. Waaayyy less than perfect. Less than average, even.
But it WAS cheap (bought it used), has good fuel economy, and, umm, I'm sure there is something else good I can write. Ummm, it's bright blue exterior is easy to spot in a parking lot.
My Mazda3 hatch I replaced it with is, of course, the best compact economy car ever made. (Not that mine is 'economy' with all the options I put on it). :P
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 there is a First Drive on a brand new model, it may appear positive because the review is often full of comparisons with the previous model. More HP, more features, more fuel efficient engine.
So it seems natural that the review would appear positive. If the new model isn't noticeably superior the the outgoing model something is seriously wrong.
But it WAS cheap (bought it used), has good fuel economy, and, umm, I'm sure there is something else good I can write. Ummm, it's bright blue exterior is easy to spot in a parking lot.
Very good (and accurate) vehicle evaluation of an older Kia, especially for an owner.
Basically, you're saying that in spite of its weaknesses you thought it was a good deal with price and fuel mileage taken into account.
Plus, you were still astute enough to step up to a Mazda 3 when opportunity (and finances, I'm assuming) allowed.
Keep this up and you could be a good automotive journalist.
Karl, do you think automotive publications will still exist in 50 years? That driving enthusiasm won't be persecuted out of existence?
A frighteningly good question.
There seems to be a race going on between vehicle performance upgrades (from technology, primarily), and vehicle performance restrictions (from the government and safety advocates, primarily). Cars keep getting more powerful...and more loaded down with safety technology (and, yes, convenience/luxury technology). Plus the emissions standards are getting ever tighter (so far technology has kept up with them and maintained performance, except for those dark years of 1974 through about 1984). And don't even get me started on oil supply and gas prices.
But you've also got urban sprawl and population growth constantly eating up formerly great driving roads (I wrote a column about this recently when they instituted a draconian speed limit on Mulholland Drive -- possibly the most famous driving road on the planet). http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/105685/article.html
So the answer to your question is -- a "definite maybe" with my own personal feelings leaning toward a "probably yes, it will be persecuted out of existence." At the very least, the nature of driving enthusiasm will change. Instead of being the sort of "wild west" atmosphere it once was, it will become "regulated enthusiasm" where car clubs have to rent a track to really experience their cars' performance, because the public roads will be choked with traffic and high-tech speeding ticket cameras that automatically deduct the fine from your bank account.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and falling into the whole "Things ain't like they used to be when I was young-in'."
somehow the 'publications' kept it going in the 'dark years'. maybe there will be a lot of nostalgia publications. sorry, had another random thought. they stopped making convertibles for a while because they were unsafe. they have made a mild comeback (gt 40's too).
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Some clever automotive organization will tap a legion of performance drivers for a few bucks each to create a fund earmarked for building a super fast driving track or some kind of "bring your own car" attraction that these drivers can tear around and enjoy themselves on without wiping out pedestrians, animals, or whatever it is that has to live next to __regular__ roads.
To entice manufacturers to contribute as well, the track should be designed so they can benefit by using it (a different kind of Milford "toilet bowl", Willow straight, etc.) on a specified day.
Wouldn't the biggest problem, aside from cost of land near populated cities like LA, CA, be liability waivers?
But-given the increased performance, isn't this a good thing? I don't consider this any burden, especially given the potential consequences of driving fast cars and having and accident (either one's own fault or that caused by another).
Some clever automotive organization will tap a legion of performance drivers for a few bucks each to create a fund earmarked for building a super fast driving track or some kind of "bring your own car" attraction that these drivers can tear around and enjoy themselves on without wiping out pedestrians, animals, or whatever it is that has to live next to __regular__ roads.
Someday is already here,Kurt. I believe there are already private facilities of the kind you suggest operating in Europe. As we speak,there is a proposal before the town of Tamworth, New Hampshire for a private road course for use by members of a "club".
Comments
I tried this test comparing the mirrors in my '00 Suburban vs our '01 Pathfinder and surprisingly, the mirrors in the Sub are much quieter. Unfortunately for Chevy this does not carry through the rest of the vehicle when comparing the build quality and refinement of these two vehicles.
Simply put, the Nissan is screwed together much tighter and the Suburban has panel gaps large enough that the Pathfinder probably could drive thru.
I really appreciate you taking the time out of your busy schedule to convey your thought and experiences with us.
I do not always agree or like your opinions, but I respect them and learn from them.
While a good car is more likely to have good accessories and peripheral items like power mirrors, I prefer to do a more thorough evaluation of "build quality". As with most things in life, the easy way is often too superficial. IMO, this simple view of power mirrors would not be adequate for evaluating the build quality of a complex machine.
In addition, some very fine cars have so-so interiors, or middling transmissions, so I would hazard a guess that the same mismatch between overall quality and mirror function could be expected.
While not perfect, CR surveys and results are excellent when evaluating the reliability of cars, with separate systems of each car outlined for each year of that make and model. While reliability does not equal build quality, it is surely a sign of good design, consistency of production, and the manufacturer's willingness and ability to carefully follow up and improve where improvement is needed.
Since door edges, rattles, fit of parts, function and reliability of controls are certain to be related to the above design/consistency/quality control, I would think that these CR evaluations, based on larger numbers than one person's opinions regarding one specific component of a car, would be more reliable in predicting how one car or one model might perform initially, and over time.
So I use these as a starting point for my personal evaluation.
The cheap ones, like GPX, would pop out so fast that the tape would often come flying out and land on the floor.
Good ones would come out slowly and smoothly.
Funny how one detail like that tells you a lot.
-juice
I used to do the same thing with boom boxes. I'm sure the salesmen used to look at me funny as I walked down the line of boom boxes on display and hit all of the eject buttons as I went.
:-)
karl, I caught myself tapping the dashboard with my wedding ring the other day.
:-)
-juice
Not just powertrain though. NVH also applies to the suspension, the amount of wind noise and road isolation. You could turn the engine off (coasting) and still evalulate NVH.
I haven't taken the time to fully digest all the various dissertations you have thrown at Karl (nor the 3 letter initials following my name to fully appreciate the thought behind them). And I'll try to keep this short - we all have opinions, editors and car owners alike. Has it occured to you that editors are ALSO car owners? Would you trust the review of an editor who was reviewing a car THEY purchased with THEIR own money?
Or would you think that, perhaps, the review just might be a bit biased? Even IF the editor was some kind of Superman and honestly was able to review HIS car completely subjectively, how many readers of such a review (knowing the editor was reviewing his own car) would actually trust the review to be non-biased?
Face facts please - we ALL have bias'. However, I would trust an editor to exhibit less bias in their review (of a car they have no personal involvement in) over the opinions of a car owner who DOES have a personal involvement with their car.
I think a lot of people would consider German makes (I am specifically targeting Audi/VW) to have "good design." You can sit inside one of their products and come to that conclusion. Yet they have reliability problems. So it is good design and good quality? Or is it good perceived quality? IMO, perceived quality is as important (more important for some, less for others) as actual quality. I think there was a discussion board specifically on that.
Panel gaps, for example, have nothing to do with reliability. The owners' knowing a vehicle has tight panel gaps is worth just that - the owner's knowing.
My pick would probably be the Maxima with a 5 speed. Good luck finding one, at least with the SVT Contour they all were sticks, so if see on listed, you know it will be a stick.
Can an owner of a car remained MOSTLY neutral, and his or her opinion carry significant weight? I believe yes.
Can a car owner put in his or her two cents on various cars, especially the vehicles they have researched and test-driven? I believe a strong yes.
My main gripe is the universal statement that owners opinions are to be generally ignored. We ain't all the same, and while there are 'homers' in this as in sports, that method is too easy. It allows the writer/editor to say "I am right. My opinion is worth something, and yours nothing." I guess I just don't see it that way!
Could you please define what you mean by facts? How would you suggest we separate fact (HP, torque, slalom times, safety features) from peoples' feelings as they look at or drive their cars? I know, this is the tough question! I don't have a good answer.
Your story sounds similar.
Shame, because the engine offers great torque at low revs, and is efficient.
-juice
CAN they? Sure. It's possible. Likely? No. Besides, just how would you, as a disinterested party, know from reading a review by a car owner just how neutral they were in their review?
"...and his or her opinion carry significant weight?"
Carry weight with whom? Are you suggesting that the editors take a poll prior to writing their review? The reviews are the EDITOR'S reviews. These reviews reflect the EDITORS OPINIONS of the car they've reviewed. Nowhere do they state, or insinuate, that their opinions are anything more than that. These are not stone tablets coming down the mountain. Any individual can write up their own review of their car and post it in the new car section. Were you aware of that? Beyond that, I honestly don't understand just what you expect ANY editor to do here.
"Can a car owner put in his or her two cents on various cars, especially the vehicles they have researched and test-driven?"
Sure. As pointed out, Edmunds has a section right here where you can do this. I don't know that you own an Infiniti M35x but if you do, you are welcome to write your review of the car here:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2006/infiniti/m35/100507960/ratings_consumer.html?tid=edmunds.n- .researchlanding.leftsidenav..16.Infiniti*
BTW - I used to read these 'reviews' about cars I was interested in. I don't any longer. 95% are way too glowing of the cars (surprise surprise) while it is apparent with the rest that they've had some minor problems with the car and so slag it mercilessly. The 'unbiased/impartial' review in these sections are few and far between. Beyond that, no one is stating that you must agree with the Editors reviews, but if you hope to 'convince' them that their opinions are somehow faulty and you will help them to see the light, then prepare for disappointment.
"My main gripe is the universal statement that owners opinions are to be generally ignored.
Truthfully, I don't know that it was stated that our opinions are to be 'ignored'. But to be honest, I would take most owners opinions of their cars with a large grain of salt. You can interpret this to mean 'ignored' if you wish.
"Could you please define what you mean by facts?"
I really don't care to parse words with you. I think my statement "Face facts please - we ALL have bias" was fairly straightforward.
"How would you suggest we separate fact (HP, torque, slalom times, safety features) from peoples' feelings as they look at or drive their cars?"
I would suggest that the Editors, in preparing a review of a vehicle, not take any special steps to separate objective statements about a vehicle from their subjective opinions. I think I'm a big enough boy to understand what information presented is 'fact' and which is 'opinion'. I also have a high enough regard for the average reader that they can do the same.
Yes, if it means you get the car you truly want.
To quote Ed McMahon, "You are correct sir!"
I’ve decided that a car should have a flat, somewhat padded armrest with a place to grab your fingers around for support.
I discovered this after I bought my current car and found myself in my father-in-law’s Lexus LS400. My ’95 Acura Legend sedan has a fairly hard, flat armrest with a small scoop that doesn’t allow you to grab it while driving. His '92 Lexus LS400 had a nicely padded armrest you could grab because it is open where your hand goes, and the opening is in just the right place.
It was then and there that I discovered "armrest envy"
I sat in the new Lexus GS and found the armrests completely lacking. However, the armrests on the Acura RL are just about perfect. The M35 looks good, as does the Audi A6. Look at the pictures in the luxury comparison to see what I mean.
Still, my Legend armrests are better than the angled, molded-in armrests in some cars, like the Mazda6, which I really like in 5-door form. It would be almost perfect with better interior door panels.
Is that enough on which to base a decision? No. But it can help guide the decision-making in one direction or another and eliminate some choices right off the bat. The armrest factor is one way I judge the design and quality of the interior. After all, you are going to be using them whenever you’re in the car, so you’d better like them.
EXACTLY!
When I was car shopping recently I absorbed all of the reviews I could find. When I read owners reviews, I glance over the gushing ones and I focused usually on the bad reviews. Figuring if they spent the money on it and they're saying bad things about it then it's worth reading....keeping in mind that the poster could just be a troll from a competing company sent in to trash a vehicle.
I read all of the magazine reviews and the editors reviews knowng that these reviews are less biased than your typical owner.
In the end you make the choice and you buy the car knowing that some people like it and some poeple don't...all for various reasons.
Side story: I read a review of the new Freestyle by one of the auto reviewers over at MSN autos. "SHE" wrote that the Freestyle came with either a CVT or a 6 speed. WRONG!! It only comes with a CVT. I read her "review" of the car and then moved on. She said it was underpowered with only the 200 HP V6...even though it does 0-60 in 8.5 seconds which is admirable for a 7 passenger family mover. I didn't waste my time writing to her to complain about her so-called review.
I sat in the new Lexus GS and found the armrests completely lacking. However, the armrests on the Acura RL are just about perfect. The M35 looks good, as does the Audi A6. Look at the pictures in the luxury comparison to see what I mean.
Sounds more like you may have a budding armrest fetish there.
Heyyyyy, nice armrests...can I touch them?
please?....just once...I need to know
:-)
150 miles isn't that far. I flew from CT to North Carolina for my car, and drove it back. And it was an 8+ year old car with 113k miles that I bought sight unseen for $3500. I would do it again. Was it a risk? Yeah. But it turned out great. The previous owner even picked us up (my dad and brother) in the car at the airport.
For me, I am partial to the black on black loaded SE. According to Edmunds, this is a 99 GLE interior:
The SE is almost the same, except no wood and white faced gauges.
All the models you're considering are viable choices. You seem to be after a sedan, so some of the cars from that era, that I'm more familiar with, probably won't appeal to you.
I'm still a sucker for the SVT Focus, and I owned two different Carroll Shelby CSX Dodge Shadows, both of which were ridiculously fast and fun considering the money I spent on them ($3,500 for one, $5,500 for the other -- both capable of destroying IROCs and Mustang GTs with only a computer chip upgrade). And they both went to over 100,000 miles with minimal problems. But they are probably all trashed by now.
I also still like the looks and overall design/performance philosophy of the early Eclipses (saw one of the 91-94 models the other day and thought "You know, those cars are aging pretty well in terms of styling"). Of course, while I never owned one I did own a 1991 Stealth R/T Twin Turbo, and a good friend had a '91 Eagle Talon, so I'm probably biased.
I bought that Stealth for $12,500 and had it modifed during my days at Super Street Magazine. Before I was done it had nitrous, blow-off valves, upgraded exahust and intake, etc., and would do 0-60 in about 5.2 seconds and the quarter in 13.2 (not bad for a two-ton land-yacht).
Anyway, I've always liked the Maxima and the SVT Contour, so either would get my vote (Maxima has a more upscale and roomy interior, SVT has a lighter, nimbler feel). I actually did a comparison test as my final story for Super Street with those two vehicles (about May 1998).
My experience with older Imprezas is limited, but I know they have a strong following and the later ones that I have driven are definitely high in the FTD factor, so I can assume the older ones are good, too.
Good luck. Just remember all the basic stuff (try to get something with complete service records, look the car -- and the current owner -- over carefully to get a sense of how it was treated, etc.).
I think you misinterpreted my intention. I was not in any way trying to snipe or antagonize you, or to argue with your opinions. Peace, Bro!
Editor Karl posted two long items on how not to 'draw his ire', and made some blanket statements in those, regarding opinions that could be dismissed without further review or consideration. That did not sit well with me, as I have read these boards like you, trying to synthesize all opinions with my own feelings. Of course, no one has the market on honesty and fact cornered! So you and I (and many others) try the same method: read a lot, gather the most likely truth, then reality test it ourselves. While there will always be opinions that are at the far end of the bell curve, the access we have to ALL opinions helps us all.
I don't feel it appropriate (my opinion) for an editor, or anyone else here, to discredit all owners' opinions in advance! To me, at least, that effort was quite clear in editor Karl's long posts. That may or may not be his true opinion, and he is certainly entitled to that. But that approach may discourage regular people like you and I from contributing, and we would all lose out from that!
If you get the chance, please read those original posts, correct me if I am wrong or have misunderstood. I HAVE been wrong before!
Cheers!
kirstie_h
Roving Host
Host, Future Vehicles & Smart Shopper discussions
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Well, in theory, and in PC times, one would have to say you are absolutely correct. Afterall, one doesn't arbitrarily throw out the opinions of an entire group of people.
However (and here I'll speak only for myself), when it comes to an attempt on MY part to garner a review of a vehicle, one of the last groups of people I'll come to would be a bunch of car owners on-line. I will, as a matter of course, treat any review of any car by their owner with a huge dose of skeptism. Is my 'skeptism' = 'discreditation of opinion in advance'? Perhaps.
This is partly the result of dealing with people on-line rather than face-to-face. Is the 'owner' of the car doing the 'review' really on owner? Perhaps they're a car salesman. Maybe they work in the plant where the car is produced. I don't know. Is this the type of person who normally gushes over everything that THEY'VE done/bought and they tend to deride what they DON'T have? I can't tell on-line. I have a much better time gauging people off-line in the flesh and so I am much more apt to value their opinion. I can't do this on-line and so, yes, I do tend to discredit on-line opinions in advance.
Is this fair? Probably not. But there it is. You may or may not have noticed that sometimes people are much less truthful on-line than they are off. You may or may not have noticed that people are also more argumentative on-line than they are off. We (and I certainly include myself) appear to be more interested in 'scoring points' than in trying to see the others viewpoint. Such is the nature of the beast and I'm sure that the editors of an on-line magazine have run across this much more than I.
So I would not be surprised if, in fact, Karl (or any other Editor) is inclined to discredit owner's opinions in advance. The only thing I would be surprised at would be their willingness to admit it. To do so would be, IMO, to their credit.
I sometimes laugh at those too-perfect reviews that are just too good to be true. Some of these salespeople have gotten better, but they still fail to understand that people out here are a bit too skeptical for that to work very well. And people with a new car BETTER be pretty darned enthused, so we can tone down their gushing a bit.
In the end, we are all responsible for our own decisions, so we should blame no one except ourselves when we listen without moderation.
I would respectfully disagree with the comment about giving credit for the willingness to admit an approach like this. These forums are supposed to encourage all of us to share, and not supposed to make anyone feel less important, or as though our opinions don't matter. In fact, this whole tempest in a teapot would not have occurred unless those original posts were presented. I just fail to see the point in telling people this sort of thing, and personally consider it not a very civilized act.
I have just been informed by a roving host that one of my posts was removed because the thread was not about Karl's approach. I would imagine this post will be shortly removed as well, although Karl's original remains. So read quickly!
Thanks for responding honestly, fairly and intelligently!
I hope this sub-thread doesn't get whacked because I think it does have relevance here. But then, it wouldn't be the first time I've had a problem with what is and is not on topic (or is or is not within the rules) and had posts deleted.
Disagreement noted. With all due respect, I think your profession (psycology if I'm not mistaken; if so I apologize) probably encourages the unfettered sharing of opinions more so than, IMO (how's that for irony?) is warranted here.
Besides, I don't think the editor's really need to encourage us to share our opinions all that much. I don't think some of us could be discouraged from sharing our opinions even if the editors had the ability to physically reach out and smack us upside the head.
LOL
The first model year of a car that never achieved even below-average reliability..
If you can buy it for under $2500, and then dump it the first time you get a $500+ repair, you might consider it..
Otherwise... .run away!!
regards,
kyfdx
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
1. Driving Nirvana in jeweled boxes,
2. bad erector set creations that nobody can love for long,
3. solid mainstreamers "safe", if boring, for reliable transport
Just wondering...
2- Saturn
3- Toyota
1- BMW -- they still offer driving nirvana, and they still come in a jeweled box, but the box has some freaky contours on it that muck up the box's proportions.
Audi, on the other hand, has a box worthy of a Tiffany's window display, though the driving is mere Vahalla rather than Nirvana (meaning still very good).
2- Saturn -- Saturn is probably the best example of GM having all the potential in the world...and realizing none of it. The lack of investment from the mothership has got to be illegal in some way. In spite of it all, the brand still has amazing loyalty because of the dealer experience (where many other GM divisions are lacking). The division is only a couple solid models away from greatness. Let's hope the Sky and Aura represent a move in that direction.
3- Toyota -- How can you fault a company that makes money almost as fast as it gobbles market share? Toyota's aren't for everyone...though the sales numbers make you wonder who isn't buying them?
2. Saab-The were pretty innovative before GM, and had their own significant cult following.
3. Would agree on Toyota-Had a Camry for twelve years, was super-reliable, comfy enough to go long distances, and just feels well-engineered all around. For the money, I am not sure my BMW is much better.
Arm rests, too. So things look tacked-on instead of designed-in, like better ergonomic designs.
-juice
The e90 of course now has the window controls in the wrong place - on the door. Otherwise it's pretty much as it should be.
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.
You've never owned a Kia, have you?
I have no difficulty admitting it is less than perfect. Waaayyy less than perfect. Less than average, even.
But it WAS cheap (bought it used), has good fuel economy, and, umm, I'm sure there is something else good I can write. Ummm, it's bright blue exterior is easy to spot in a parking lot.
My Mazda3 hatch I replaced it with is, of course, the best compact economy car ever made. (Not that mine is 'economy' with all the options I put on it). :P
Jason
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 there is a First Drive on a brand new model, it may appear positive because the review is often full of comparisons with the previous model. More HP, more features, more fuel efficient engine.
So it seems natural that the review would appear positive. If the new model isn't noticeably superior the the outgoing model something is seriously wrong.
Jason
Very good (and accurate) vehicle evaluation of an older Kia, especially for an owner.
Basically, you're saying that in spite of its weaknesses you thought it was a good deal with price and fuel mileage taken into account.
Plus, you were still astute enough to step up to a Mazda 3 when opportunity (and finances, I'm assuming) allowed.
Keep this up and you could be a good automotive journalist.
A frighteningly good question.
There seems to be a race going on between vehicle performance upgrades (from technology, primarily), and vehicle performance restrictions (from the government and safety advocates, primarily). Cars keep getting more powerful...and more loaded down with safety technology (and, yes, convenience/luxury technology). Plus the emissions standards are getting ever tighter (so far technology has kept up with them and maintained performance, except for those dark years of 1974 through about 1984). And don't even get me started on oil supply and gas prices.
But you've also got urban sprawl and population growth constantly eating up formerly great driving roads (I wrote a column about this recently when they instituted a draconian speed limit on Mulholland Drive -- possibly the most famous driving road on the planet). http://www.edmunds.com/news/column/carmudgeon/105685/article.html
So the answer to your question is -- a "definite maybe" with my own personal feelings leaning toward a "probably yes, it will be persecuted out of existence." At the very least, the nature of driving enthusiasm will change. Instead of being the sort of "wild west" atmosphere it once was, it will become "regulated enthusiasm" where car clubs have to rent a track to really experience their cars' performance, because the public roads will be choked with traffic and high-tech speeding ticket cameras that automatically deduct the fine from your bank account.
Or maybe I'm just getting old and falling into the whole "Things ain't like they used to be when I was young-in'."
sorry, had another random thought. they stopped making convertibles for a while because they were unsafe. they have made a mild comeback (gt 40's too).
To entice manufacturers to contribute as well, the track should be designed so they can benefit by using it (a different kind of Milford "toilet bowl", Willow straight, etc.) on a specified day.
Wouldn't the biggest problem, aside from cost of land near populated cities like LA, CA, be liability waivers?
But-given the increased performance, isn't this a good thing? I don't consider this any burden, especially given the potential consequences of driving fast cars and having and accident (either one's own fault or that caused by another).
Someday is already here,Kurt. I believe there are already private facilities of the kind you suggest operating in Europe. As we speak,there is a proposal before the town of Tamworth, New Hampshire for a private road course for use by members of a "club".
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93