By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Agree with you there. Its hard to statisfy everyone, its impossible actually. If a reviewer has a different opinion on a car, the buyer will think its biased.
I read the Full Tests of the Chevrolet HHR, Lincoln Mark LT, and the Volkswagen Jetta, but I was unable to find a First Drive for any of them. I'm confused, don't you guys normally do a First Drive and then a Full Test??
Anyway, there are several new models to be released in the next 6 months. I am eagerly anticipating these models, and was wondering when a road test would be done.
First Drive
Buick Lucerne
Cadillac DTS
Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan
Lincoln Zephyr
Pontiac Torrent
Jeep Commander
Full Test
Chevrolet Impala
Volkswagen Passat
Dodge Charger
Hummer H3
Hyundai Sonata
BMW M6
Follow-Up
Chevrolet Corvette Z06
XLR-V/STS-V
BMW M5
I know the list is long, and sorry about that but I would appreciate your opinion on when a road test would be done. By the way, I was glad to read the Impala review as it sounds like the homerun that GM so desperately needs.
Thanks, and hope to hear about the GT.
Also, lets start testing and reviewing more mainstream cars before we do first drives of 750i's and F430s/
But it did peak my curiosity regarding magazine test facilities and proceedures. Is there a link or a forum that describes how Edmunds test cars? I am well aware that all magazine tests and comparos involve both objective testing and subjective opinion - and I am ok with that :shades: But how are the objective tests performed? What kind of facilites and equipment is used?
It's not a case of right or wrong, and I'm always kind of amazed that so many people DO see it as a case where someone is "wrong" or "biased" simply because they don't agree with ME.
I wholeheartedly agree and am amazed at just how bent out of shape some folks get if a magazine doesn't say the right things about their car purchase. But what amazes me even more is that in some cases angry folks have resorted to shooting the messenger. If a mag disses their car then the mag has no credibility
I truly enjoy reading all reviews when I am comparison shopping, there is no such thing as too much or "bad" information - information is just that, info. That info can be facts or opinion, but it is still info. It is the readers job to sort it out.
To that end I really appreciate what Edmunds offers us - thanks for a job well done :shades:
Those of you who are simplifying the complaint by saying "people call a magazine biased if they dont agree with the reviews" are not understanding my point. If I read a positive review of a car I dont want (Toyota, Nissan, etc.) I dont get bent out of shape because I have no desire for that car. My problem is that some people refuse to acknowledge the difference between modern cars is minimal and most of the criteria used to judge these cars is subjective. If Karl hates the Impala or every other GM vehicle on the planet that is fine, but that doesnt make it OK to trash those vehicles unless there is a solid, objective reason to do so. It's personal preference vs. the facts. My personal preferences lead me away from any Toyota dealership but I would never sit in a Camry and say "this is a piece of crap, when is toyota ever going to get it right". While some opinion has to be injected into a review to make it interesting, to a certain extent I could care less what the reviewer feels about the manufacturer of the car, that manufacturer's decreasing market share, quality problems that existed a generation ago, etc. We need less of that and more discussion of the vehicles attributes.
People here (Karl was one) seem think any comparison or review that doesn't point out glaring negatives is a joke. Karl noted that MT gives "soft" reviews and doesnt hammer away at the losing cars Edmunds-style and essentially calls everyone a winner. Actually MT does rank its cars now so the everybody's a winner concept has been retired. Could it be that the difference between the "winning" car and the "losing" car isnt really that big? Could it be that there really arent any "bad" cars left in 2005? Even Hyundais and GM products are decent nowadays. If a review pointed out the subtle differences between cars and said "Car X is worth consideration, but would lean towards the Toyota Y" than I would accept that. When the review says "Car X has a cheap interior that cant hold a candle to the class leading, more reliable Toyota Y and it's a perfect example of why GM has lost 30% of share in the last 30 years" than I tend to be a little annoyed.
I dont need car reviews to make a decison about which vehicle to buy, but many people look to sites like edmunds for solid car purchasing advice. For the people who do look to auto mags for advice I think it's important that personal preferences are pushed aside so the reader can have a fair picture of what a vehicle offers. If we are going to talk about reliability and resale value than those issues should be discussed on every vehicle, including those coming from Germany.
So you are saying the validity of the information isnt important? I think your standards are so low because you find that most reviews line up with your thinking. I find that people who are loyal import buyers are usually the first to say they dont believe bias exists in the media. Could that be because the media rarely has anything negative to say about the cars they love? If I was a person who abandoned american cars long ago and firmly believed that import cars are more reliable, better made, better engineered and carried more status than I wouldn't have a problem with the press either. If every article you read reinforces what you believe you aren't going to complain.
Maybe not all car mags are the type review that I would have read long ago when I had a Mustang, one of the real ones.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But that is part of the problem - almost ALL cars are really pretty good these days. If GM wants to break through the clutter and stop the erosion of its market share, it's going to have to do more than produce cars that are decent or "good enough." Like it or not, "good enough" won't get people out of a Honda, Toyota, Acura, Nissan, Infiniti, BMW or Lexus. The Cobalt and Malibu certainly aren't bad cars, but they are not going to get many buyers out of a Corolla or Camry.
GM desperately needs to win over buyers from other brands. They know it, and reviewers know it, too. And, unfortunately, there haven't been too many GM vehicles that are strong enough to do just that.
Given its resources, GM should be able to produce vehicles that are class leaders in their respective segments. And yet it seems to fall short too often. I think many reviews reflect a larger sense of disappointment not only with the cars, but the company that is making them.
And you. obviously, put more emphasis on 0-60 and 1/4 mile time.....what's your point?
I think the majority of people buy cars/trucks to get from one place to another. They don't buy them to drag race. The percentage of a person's time in a vehicle that they use the vehicles drag-racing abilities is probably extremely low where as the percentage that they use the vehicles interior amenities and comfort is extremely high (like probably 100%?)
That goes for a vehicles reliability also. If you had special powers and could know before the fact that your new car was going to be in the shop 3 times per year, would you still buy it?
Car companies EARN a reputation for being reliable, it can't just suddenly be assumed. Buyers have to take a car companies past history and weigh that in with the purchase.
Those of you who are simplifying the complaint by saying "people call a magazine biased if they dont agree with the reviews" are not understanding my point. If I read a positive review of a car I dont want (Toyota, Nissan, etc.) I dont get bent out of shape because I have no desire for that car.
It sure sounds like you do.
:-)
1487, we get it. You disagree with Karl and his opinions about GM vehicles in general. There's really no need to "counter" what he says here, or in a review, with multiple posts saying the same things over and over [emphasis added]. The subject of GM always seems to bring out the passions in people, so I'd suggest you join the current iteration of the general GM discussion over in the Can GM survive losing billions in sales and in the Stock Market?? topic.
What we really have here is a difference of opinion. And while it might be tempting to try and hammer away to change the other guy's mind, remember that you're going to change his opinion to match yours just about the same time that his arguments make you see things his way!
That's been GM's problem. Their market share has dropped so much, not because of the media, but because they've fallen so far behind the curve in putting out cars/trucks that people find more desireable from the competition.
Bottom line is, anyone buying a Camry or Accord, for example, know that they are most likely getting a car that will run to at least 150,000 (probably 200,000) miles, with no major mechanical hiccups, that will have tighter tollerances than an Impala or Malibu and will be worth more than those GM cars to boot when it comes time to sell. The interiors of the Honda/Toyota will be ergonomic. The controls will work well with more of a positive tactile feel.
Again, there's scant little that would make me want to make a trip to a GM showroom. Apparently, there's quite a few others who feel the same way I do given GM's marketshare drop.
But, all-in-all, we're going in circles here.
1487, if you like GM vehicles, buy what you like. It's not going to make a hill of beans difference to those of us who find other brands more to our liking. And, NO, I don't think there's a huge anti-GM conspiracy afoot with the the media. GM has dug their own hole they have to climb out of.
Just don't try to brow beat those of us who don't happen the share your GM zeal.
That was exactly my experience with my 1997 Camry. I sold it at 111K miles, not because of mechanical maladies, but because I wanted to get side airbags on an '04 model. I got $4300 for it selling it on eBay. How much would a comparable 1997 Malibu have been worth?
The '04, in turn, was given to my son, because he went back to school in California, and will obviously need a car there. It now has close to 25K miles, with zero problems so far (there was one recall for the side airbags, ironically, but in our particular car, the airbags were ok and didn't have to be replaced).
We replaced the '04 with an '05, and it's also a great car, but for some reason doesn't get quite the gas mileage of our '04.
The Camry and Corolla, Accord and Civic, and Altima sell because they are reliable cars, and the switchgear and ergonomics are great, as was pointed out earlier.
Styling is a purely subjective matter, but roominess and quietness are not. I've been happy with my Camrys and would gladly buy another.
The Malibu is not as good, I'm sorry, compared to the above. The Cobalt OTOH, I believe shows real potential.
When you talk about cheaper cars, features don't count, performance doesn't count, room doesn't count. Fit and finish and gap tolerances are what counts. Who says so? I go after the former, not the latter, although with Toyota and Honda, you can get it all!
About differences in cars, there is one area where differences can be huge: crash test results, especially in side-impact tests conducted by IIHS.
JD Power 90-day initial quality: Please give me a break! As someone who owned the same car (1980 Volvo 240) for 21 years, 90 days means squat!
That's the point. Are the cars uninspired from a design stand point? Probably. But, GM can't match their dependability with their uninspired designs. They can't match the smoothness or the high quality of build, either.
While an Accord or Camry is not my cup of tea, at least I can see their appeal based on the above. I can't see the appeal of most GM cars.
Most entry level car buyers are looking for trouble free, reliable, frugal cars. Styling takes a back seat. Same with most mid-class sedans. That's why Corollas, Civics, Camrys, Accords, loose so little on resale. Those that buy them know that they aren't going to be in the service dept. Plus, there's years of experience to prove their reliability/durability. Neither Ford, Chrysler nor GM can say that. At the very least, it looks like Ford and Chrysler are getting better, though. I don't see that with GM. But, to GM's credit, cars they've been making for awhile, with little update (like the Lesabre or Century), have proven to be durable and reliable. It's taken them years to get them to that point, however.
To make a blanket statement that Camry/Accord owners don't know the differenece between a DOHC or pushrod design is something I don't think most will agree with. Technology is something Toyota and Honda push religiously.
Not that technology for technology's sake is the end all to beat all. I happen to own a Mustang with a solid axle rear end. I'd be willing to put it's "old tech" up against newer tech any day.
Exactly. Most cars today ARE good. So the question for GM becomes, "How do we get all those butts OUT of Camry's/Accords, Corollas/Civics, and INTO our stuff?"
You also mention reputation. Like it or not, you have to face facts: currently Honda/Toyota has a better reputation than GM. And the ONLY way for GM to reverse that trend is to CONSISTENTLY turn out BETTER product than their competition. Not 'as good as' or 'on par with' or anything else. BETTER. That's not 'better' than the old GM model; that's 'better' than the competition. And when you are only 'on par' with your new offerings (Cobalt/Malibu) against competition which is at the end of it's cycle and scheduled for complete redesign (both the Camry/Corolla and the Accord/Civic), then you are in trouble.
Do you think GM lost all that market share through the '80s and '90s because Honda/Toyota was putting out product that was 'as good as' GM? No. The imports gained market share by offering BETTER product, even though the cost was higher. GM can cut prices all they want; but unless they can offer BETTER product than the competition, they won't gain market share. GM knows this.
I'm talking about how the Camry and Accord don't do anything for me despite this holy reputation of reliability. As a car guy, and plain jane car like the Camry does nothing for me despite it's legendary reputation.
210delray: Nonsense. The Altima feels cheaper inside than any current GM midsized car I've been (which would be all of them). Maxima fares no better in my book. Just rode around and one of those a couple of weeks ago and did not feel like a $30k+ car inside to me. I'm not even talking about fit and finish here. It just felt cheap, period (to me).
I've never witnessed Toyota push technology in advertisement. I've witnessed a cocky attitude where they tell you you want a Toyota because it last forever. I've seen Honda ads where a cartoon character tells us he wishes he looked as good as an Accord LX coupe with fashionable 15" wheel covers. I'll bet all the people I know what Accords, Camrys, Corolla or Civics (none of which I could see myself driving), which is many, could tell you anything technical about the car other than the cylinder count. They'll tell you they'll purchased it because it's dependable, which i'm not disputing. For me, that doesn't sell me the car. A car is more than an appliance.
I don't pay attention to crash results either. If you get hit hard enough, you're gonna be in bad shape, period. No real life crash will be equivalent to a laboratory experiment, period. I like some of GMs cars, you guys don't. Fine. I don't own GM stock so they're financial troubles don't hurt me. I like the new '06 impala for my parents and will instruct them to look at it because it has more features they would appreciate than an Accord or Camry. It's W-platform is the same as their Intrigue's from '98. Hey, when was the last time the Camry's platform was new, hmmm... I think '92? Anybody?
First, I disagree that GM has anything that matches them. Their interiors aren't as good, and even I can see that. (This is more pronounced in the Malibu and G6 than in the compacts though.) They don't look better - you can call Toyota's cars bland, but you can't say that GM's aren't. The Corolla feels better to drive than the Cobalt too. More feedback, even if it isn't much, and it's lighter.
And let's say you're right, and GM's offerings are just as good as Toyota's. If I'm on a budget, I'll buy the GMs. If I can afford the premium for Toyota's reputation, I'm going to buy the Toyotas. That's what people do when they see two products that look the same - buy on reputation. Plus, a lot of people are scared by the sales - they see it as a bad sign, as settling for less. So they go for the Toyota. And why not? There's no aspect in which a Malibu is visibly better than a Camry, or a Cobalt better than a Corolla. That's what matters - not the fact that the differences are minimal.
If I'm on a budget, I'll buy a Hyundai.
People look past the price of Toyota and Honda, because they want to buy a car they trust. They simply want to buy a reliable car. Honda and Toyota have been making quality cars for years, and now its paying off in sales and repeated buyers.
No issue with you not liking the Camry or Accord. But, are you saying you like GM's offerings in the same class? That's OK, too. I just don't see it.
I'd bet if the presentation you get at a Honda or Toyota dealership has been anything like the ones I've received, you'd have a good idea of what technology exists in either brand.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, then reliability and safety are not on your priority list. I'd say you would be in the minority.
For the record, the last all new Camry was done 3 years ago. I believe. The last all new Accord came out 2 years ago. Both usually get a complete re-design every 3-4 years.
Hey, if that Impala floats your boat, go for it. Just from the pics I've seen (looks like ther first gen Lumina to me), I don't think I'll be cruising over to the Chevy store for a closer look. That, along with the points rorr makes, are the reasons GM's market share has dropped like a stone.
nOPE. :P
"Again, comments keep arising back GM in the '80s and such."
There is a reason for this, and YOU (oops, darn caps lock key) brought it up when you mentioned "reputation". Reputation, good or bad, is based on past history. I'm not sure how you would go about divorcing the history of GM from any discussions about reputation.
"Heck, i don't even own a GM car."
Then you might want to update your profile because it still says you own a '98 Olds Intrigue.
"Again, the topic gets changed to how you guys know more than GM and if you were in charge, you wouldn't be as stupid as the current leadership."
I don't think I've ever seen this sentiment expressed. I don't want to try and clarify for everyone else, so I'll just clarify my position: for GM to stop losing, and to start regaining market share (ie. have a higher % of brand loyalty than their competition), they must offer better products than their competition. And GM knows this. This is not news to GM. The problems they have however is that the competition is very stiff and the competition is constantly looking for ways to make THEIR product better at a cheaper price. Do I have the answers? Sure. Build a better car for a cheaper price. :P (which means, I don't know what the answer is.....)
The reason I brought up the bad old days of the '80s (actually, beginning in the mid 70's) is that the conditions which existed then which enabled the imports to erode the stranglehold the domestics had on the market do not exist today for GM to reverse the slide.
:confuse: A Host asked me to move a discussion about Test Proceedures over here and I did so! You did not receive the benefit of all my posts on the subject, nor read these carefully it appears. You could have no idea what I am thinking nor could you possibly know anything about my standards :confuse: When I stated I wanted all information I specifically broke that into two categories: facts and opinions. By using the word fact, I meant just that FACTS, not errors.
I'm sorry you had just jumped into my discussion (as I said I moved it here at Host's request). My only agenda, if you can call it that, is that Consumer Reports is a useful and "reliable" (certainly AS reliable as any other) SOURCE of information. CR was discredited in another forum because it was falsely claimed that they do not have a test facility, which is ludicrously false!
The only reason I agreed to continue the discussion over here was to get information about the other magazines test facilities. Interestingly not ONE SINGLE post has been made about anybody elses facilities or equipment. :confuse:
I find that people who are loyal import buyers are usually the first to say they dont believe bias exists in the media. Could that be because the media rarely has anything negative to say about the cars they love? If I was a person who abandoned american cars long ago and firmly believed that import cars are more reliable, better made, better engineered and carried more status than I wouldn't have a problem with the press either. If every article you read reinforces what you believe you aren't going to complain.
What are you talking about? Does this supposedly have anyhting to do with someting I said?? Why is this a reply to me? :confuse: I have stated many times that ALL magazines are biased and that it is the readers job to separate the reported facts from the biased opinions. :shades:
Much of the testing is done on public roads, with occasional stints on various race tracks, depending on the type of car being tested.
"I find that people who are loyal import buyers are usually the first to say they dont believe bias exists in the media. Could that be because the media rarely has anything negative to say about the cars they love?"
By and large I think that usually when people speak about 'bias in the media', they are referring to the political end of the media universe, rather than automotive reviews. Unless 1487 is attempting to paint all loyal import buyers as being apolitical (since the only ones who apparently DON'T believe in 'bias in the media' are apolitical), I'm not sure what he's driving at? For the record, I'm an import buyer (not sure how one qualifies as a 'loyal' import buyer; I did buy a Ford in the '90s). And I also believe media bias exists. I'll leave it to the reader to decide which way I think the media is biased
If you'd like to discuss your opinions of how and why things are done at Consumer Reports, head on over to the Comsumer Reports - Testing & Review Methods discussion.
I'll be moving some of the posts that were made here dealing primariliy with car testing methods at CR to that topic so you may continue there.
The problem is that average customer has a vague opinion that GM built junk back in the 1980s, and doesn't care whether to find out whether that is still true for 2005. Which is why it is much more crucial for GM than for Toyota to break through the clutter with really top-notch vehicles that receive lots of favorable publicity.
Toyota has a good reputation. GM doesn't. Those reputations stem from vehicles built in the 1980s and 1990s. It's as simple as that.
chavis10: It's W-platform is the same as their Intrigue's from '98. Hey, when was the last time the Camry's platform was new, hmmm... I think '92? Anybody?
The W-body platform debuted in 1987...and was delayed even then. It was supposed to debut for either 1984 or 1985, if I recall correctly, but Roger Smith's 1984 reorganization of GM threw the company into chaos and delayed several key programs, one of which was the W-body.
Let's leave this topic for our look into Karl's day to day adventures!
Anyways when you come back I'd appreciate it if you could respond to my post #1538.
Thanks.
I though you guys did First Drives, then a Full Test a bit later?? How can this be??
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Also, I have some recommened comparions for Edmunds. G6 GTP vs Altima V6 vs Accord V6 and Impala SS vs Maxima vs Acura TL vs Charger..
The writing bias is different - C&D preferring fire breathing performance, CR perferring a practical yet fun mode of reliable tranport.
I agree with the practical side of choice for test cars. An Accord and Camry are fairly predictable. Let's read about the Impala that I might buy--the middle motor or lower motor or BOTH. Let's read about the 500 and what it doesn't have that is implied by the references to Ford's Volvo line being the origin of the car.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Dodge Charger RT
Mazdaspeed 6
Subaru Legacy
Chevrolet Impala SS
Pontiac Grand Prix GXP
Nissan Maxima
That seems like a fair matchup. The horsepower ranges from 250-350, and the sizes are all similar. It'd be interesting to see which GM car is better, the Grand Prix or Impala.I'm guessing Impala.
yeah, it was sorta cool looking. luckily it was white so it didn't look too much like a hearse , like all those other snoop dogg 300s or whatever the bling those things are.
i looked for srt-8 tags on the charger as it hoofed by, and i did not see any. i suppose the srt-8s aren't available yet, or maybe i won't know how to recognize them until one removes my 05 goat's doors.
as much trash as i might talk about the new charger, any flashback to old school mopar power is going to be 1000x more interesting to me than any mustang other than a mustang svt/cobra/type-R/whatever.
so what' s next, a new dodge challenger? yeah, if they do it right, which it seems snoop+lee know how to do, except apparently they forgot the manual shift in the srt8 - boo hiss.
from the tests i've read, the srt-8 is faster than the 05 goat. a couple tenths of a second to 60 does matter to some of us even if we pretend it doesn't.
as much as i'd like to wait for a fortuitous track-lineup that puts me next to an srt8, i would have a hard time resisting a stoplight race with an srt-8 to the speed limit + 10, under the right conditions, no LTDs nearby, no pedestrians nearby. with my m6 goat i'd be at a disadvantage - i cannot shift it well yet - it's too different than the decades of manual-shift z28s i've owned, different feel, different optimal shift points, no hurst shifter.
speaking of shifters, i'm looking forward to reading what Karl thinks of his GT's shifter when he gets back from his break-in drive to the newly found 10th planet at about 90 AUs from Sol. it would be an honor to have my goats doors removed by any ford non-mustang GT. i've never even seen a non-mustang ford GT on a road back here on earth - have any of you seen one?
in other news, i the malibu maxx. if GM puts a diesel in that nerdly looking car i'll buy one tomorrow. ok, i'd probably accept a hybrid if GM doesn't have the gonads to ever sell another diesel car..
i like any car that reminds me of the amc pacer.
The test fleet should relflect the market in general. I dont think edmunds has long term tested any of the new Cadillacs of the last five years. I do remember they had the last generation STS in their fleet. They definitely need to to get the current STS or SRX in their fleet. The Impala should be in there as well.
It's fun to read and think about exotics like the recent F430 Spider, but pretty much no one can afford one, or no one has the need for such a car. Exotics are only for the wealthy for showing off, nothing else.
It's already August 2005, and I've found no full test on the Chevrolet Cobalt sedan. I can't understand why, because obtaining a car like that shouldn't be a problem. On the other hand, we already have tests on 2006 models like the IS350, Ridgeline, and the HHR which is basically a Cobalt wagon.
I also want to know there are 3 midsize pickups in the long term fleet (Tacoma, Frontier, Canyon). The Tacoma and Frontier are both pretty much tied so why buy both.
I think the new STS, Fusion, and Lucerne should be the next long term vehicles. The latest long term fleet only has 5 domestics, Mustang, Pacifica, Magnum, Malibu, Canyon.
By comparison event, I mean where some sponsoring party (manufacturer, dealer group, etc.) sets up an actual comparison between cars and lets people drive them.
Or do manufacturers, sponsors, etc. simply trot several of a specific new model to show the press the new features/performance, etc.?
Wrt general public opportunities, I know of only one such event; GM's travelling autoshow, where they pitch their lineup against a limited number of competitors from USA and overseas, and let folks drive them back to back (but at low, "safe" speeds save for the Corvette full throttle acceleration run. Significant omissions; nearly all of Audi's and Chrysler's lineups. If Karl has ever attended this, it would be interesting to hear his opinions of it.
I'd rather see more normal cars too, but you do have to keep some variety.