I think that's part of the problem people have with reviews. They don't satisfy if the review doesn't agree with their opinion... at least that's generally how it seems to happen in "enthusiasts' circles like the forums here.
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've been reading all your recent car reviews, and I have a few questions.
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.
For example, when testing cars most readers can't afford such as Ferrarri F430s, you articles don't mention how bad reliability is for the brand. I remember you guys had a long term 550 Maranello and that thing was an absolute dog. It was in the shop more times than it was on the road. However, some cars are exempt from such reminders when replacements are reviewed. All we want to see is fair reviews. I've been looking back at some of Karl's remarks and gives me insight on how these people really think. Now, what I read on the website won't strike me as much of a surprise anymore if other editors share his views. I couldn't believe some of things he was saying, as a supposed automotive journalist.
Also, lets start testing and reviewing more mainstream cars before we do first drives of 750i's and F430s/
Some members (in other forums) have falsely accused Consumer Reports of not having a quality test facility or qualified/trained engineers. I grew tired of hearing that CR tests cars subjectively by dishwashing detergent lab techs on the way home from work. I know that is blatantly false but apparantly some believe it
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?
I tend to look at reviews of anything, from any source, be it magazines, web pages, TV, or whatever, as me asking the question, "What do YOU think?" just trying to get opinions.
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:
Many of you are missing the point. What I am reading here is that we shouldn't expect objective reviews because cars are too complex to be reviewed like appliances. That is absolute BS because the job of a reviewer working for Edmunds, or any other consumer oriented car mag, is to tell shoppers if a car is worth their money. Edmunds tries to put itself on a pedestal above the "buff mags" if you pay attention to some of Karl's earlier comments. While Edmunds isn't as performance oriented as C&D or MT, they are not always objective. Basically Edmunds puts emphasis on brand image and material quality (both subjective) instead of 0-60 and quarter mile times. I think a lot of it depends on the reviewer because I do read some reviews here that deal with the merits of the vehicle.
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.
" 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."
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.
Read a magazine called Automobile in the satellite hospital waiting room today. Its reviews I expected to be the typical CD, MT speed, greed, and not what I need to read. It had a Porsche Cayman and CTS, BMW, and something else comarison alongwith Mustang and Charger comparos. But it was a lot more informative than I ever expected on the pluses and minuses of each car.
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.
1487: 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.
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.
Basically Edmunds puts emphasis on brand image and material quality (both subjective) instead of 0-60 and quarter mile times. I think a lot of it depends on the reviewer because I do read some reviews here that deal with the merits of the vehicle.
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.
As pf flyer said back in post 1514 (am I allowed to quote you?):
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!
Don't confuse cars that may be decent (what GM may or may not make) with cars that are wanted (Camry's or Accords).
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.
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.
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.
Camry and Corolla or two of the most uninspired cars on the road, period. I would never buy either one, ever (unless new models are drastically different). A lot of people buy things that everyone else has. I know a few people who are thinking of purchasing Altima's. I instructed them to check out the Hyundai Sonata. One of them told me in their opinion, "Nissan's are better products than Hyundai," based on the fact that people had Altima's and had no problems. I then noted the J.D. Power initial quality study where Malibu and Sonata were ranked higher than Accord, Camry, Altima, etc. Also Hyundai overall ranked higher than Nissan and Honda. I got no response. A lot of people who don't know or care about cars other than for transportation will be pleased with the sterile Camry and Corolla. But to assume that a Cobalt or Malibu won't pull anyone away from a Camry or Corolla is false in my opinion. If people would actually go to the dealership and look at or drive the cars, I doubt they'd coming away thinking they are riding in an inferior product. Most people keep buying Camrys and Accords over and over. That's fine. However, I'd bet when their lease is about to end, they go right back in that dealer and get the new version without even looking at something else. I don't consider the Camry a leader or benchmark of the segment by any means. The Accord is a little bit better in my book. I have to agree with 1487, I think most cars are good nowadays. For y'all people to sit here and pretend that Corollas and Camry's sell because they are such superior products is a joke. One of you was right though, it's reputation. My Mazda has weak a/c performance, bad fuel economy and weird transaxle antics, however, I don't think I could ever see myself piloting the Jelly bean on wheels (Corolla). It's funny how car reviews blame stagnant sales or poor product launches on plain jane styling or something similar when the Camry and Corolla have been exactly that for years. IF you wanna say they're successful because of dependability, just say that and don't act like Toyota has some magic in it's cars that no one else can duplicate. When you talk expensive cars, quality doesn't matter a lick. It's all about how close you can get to BMW's magic ride handling compromise. 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. Oh don't let me forgot, no pushrods even though most buyers of a Camry probably don't know what a pushrod or camshaft is. Double standards across the board.
Nonsense. What do you mean by "uninspired?" My co-worker got his dream car, the Passat, and after 5 weeks of bungled repairs at the local dealer (started out with a bad water leak), VW bought the car back. Now he has a Camry.
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!
"IF you wanna say they're successful because of dependability, just say that and don't act like Toyota has some magic in it's cars that no one else can duplicate."
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.
"I have to agree with 1487, I think most cars are good nowadays. For y'all people to sit here and pretend that Corollas and Camry's sell because they are such superior products is a joke. One of you was right though, it's reputation."
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.
Rorr, is your caps lock key broken? First off, I'm not the marketing prodigies that most of you are. Again, comments keep arising back GM in the '80s and such. I don't know anything about GM in the ''80s and don't care. Last time I checked it's 2005. Heck, i don't even own a GM car. 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. Spare me, I don't care. I'm sure making cars when your losing millions and millions of dollars is a piece of cake and you folks would have no problem doing so.
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?
I don't agree that the Camry and Corolla are only as good as the competition.
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 the GMs. If I can afford the premium for Toyota's reputation, I'm going to buy the Toyotas.
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.
I'll just add to what rorr stated, that the offerings from GM in the '80s, '90s AND '00s are, at best, on par with their competition, not BETTER (which given GM's poor reputation, is what they have to be)! On par with (and I would debate that they are even that) isn't going to cut it.
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.
"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.
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.
: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:
I don't think any of the car buff magazines have dedicated test facilities, except maybe Road & Track, and even in R&T's case, the facility is only rented/used (not owned) by the magazine.
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 hope you don't mind if I tag on a comment which (for some reason) has been bugging me.....
"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
Even though my last two new cars were from Ford, it was based on practical reason. I bought a '99 Cougar because that was the only car available as a 2-door hatch instead of with a tiny trunk opening (nothing from Honda or Toyota). With my Freestyle, there wasn't a similar car available with the same space inside (I didn't want a minivan). I did buy a used Corolla because I was just looking for a small econ car and there were lots of cars that fit my needs, so I went with the high quality toyota. So given the choice, I look at what's available in my price range that meets my needs and from that point I compare the brands, but I don't start with the brands.
Since this topic is really about Karl's day to day experiences as an editor and reviewer of cars, let's try and keep this centered on his Edmunds work.
chavis10: Rorr, is your caps lock key broken? First off, I'm not the marketing prodigies that most of you are. Again, comments keep arising back GM in the '80s and such. I don't know anything about GM in the ''80s and don't care. Last time I checked it's 2005.
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.
I noticed that on five recent road tests on the Pontiac Torrent, Chevrolet HHR, Lincoln Mark LT, Volkswagen Jetta, Mitsubishi Eclipse it said Full Test. However, when looking around this site I didn't find a First Drive for any of them.
I though you guys did First Drives, then a Full Test a bit later?? How can this be??
Karl explained First Drives a few pages back (when he was talking about First Drives usually being more positive). All the driving seems to be done on the manufacturer's terms - they invite you and pick the time and place. When edmunds.com can actually borrow a car, they go straight to the Full Test.
How does Edmunds get the cars for drives? Purchase them from unknowing dealers or are they cars supplied by manufacturers that have prepped them for reviewers to test?
They only buy Long-Term Test cars. The rest are press cars. That isn't necessarily a good thing - testers can be pretty abusive. Press cars are never broken in properly, and Sport Compact Car has said that they usually dyno 5-10hp lower than good examples.
CAn someone explain the logic behind what long term test cars are selected. First of all they are not balanced between american and import and secondly there are some pretty significant models (mostly domestic) that have come out in the last few years that havent been part of the fleet. It seems that the cars being picked are largely picked because they are cars the editors would buy themselves. I'm not saying that other mags dont do the same, but I dont get the logic. What is the point of long term testing an Accord or Camry or Honda Pilot? Test vehicles that have inproven track records and see how they hold up. I cant see anyone really being interested in a long term test of an Accord.
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..
Ironically, CU and Car and Driver often __agree__ on results from their tests. The writing bias is different - C&D preferring fire breathing performance, CR perferring a practical yet fun mode of reliable tranport.
I am interested in how the sourcing of the cars affects the review. I recall a review where a GM car was loaned for a day for driving. Honda had provided a car for a couple of days and then switched it for another model (4 then 6 cyl maybe) and maybe even a third (manual vs automatic). Of course having the same car for a week with variations resulted in a glowing review. The GM car (G6 or Grand Prix) was not so well received.
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.
I had that 2nd comparison test idea a while back, so let me expand on it.
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.
i saw a new charger the other day, aerial view from our xc90 as it drove by us on a 4 lane state road. . 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. if srt8 is faster than the goat, that is getting my attention even more. who know's what's next if iacocca keeps chillin with Calvin B.
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 agree with what you said. I think more focus needs to be put on cars that cost under $40K since that's what most people can afford. I remember edmunds did a long term test on a Ferrari and I thought that was pointless. That is simply a matter of editors selecting a car they would love to drive even though 99% of the public will never consider purchasing that car. Since sports cars are less popular these days I dont see why Edmunds should bother having more than one at a time in their test fleet.
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.
I'm with you there about expensive car tests being pointless.
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.
I'm curious as to roughly how many "comparison events" Karl might have the opportunity to attend in a given year (excluding all "Edmunds-organized/sponsored" events).
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.
You took the words out of my mouth. I was also going to say the Fusion should be in the long term fleet. I can't understand the logic in getting a 2005 A4 when they tested the 2002 A4 when it came out. The 2005 is revised, but not nearly all new. It's just a freshened version of the 2002 with more power and an uglier front. That was a waste of a test fleet spot if you ask me. STS, Fusion, Lucerne and Impala need to be added in the next few months. I hope they dont get the new civic, the freshened accord or any other slightly updated import cars.
On the other hand, you need to review exotics and aspirational cars to attract occasional readers. I bet sports cars articles get read more than family car articles, even if no one buys them in the end. (It's like halo cars, but for magazines.)
I'd rather see more normal cars too, but you do have to keep some variety.
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.