Fiat 500 looks like a thimble on wheels...

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
That's fine, but most of the really savvy people have left the magazine over the past ten years or so, so I'm not sure that I'd give much weight to anything written in it.
I'd be more inclined to pay attention to someone who actually owns a Fit.


As would I, assuming that the owner has also driven the 500 and has spent plenty of time playing with both at their limits.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: 91344George
I don't call a rag like C&D, the last word on anything.

Considering all the ad dollars from the manufacturers you can't rule out the "possibility" of payola. But I agree that the Mazda 2 is much better than the Fit. It just doesn't have the Honda name on it.


Not the last word. Just one collection of opinions.

I still give them credit because, as far as I can remember, my impression of every car I've ever driven has jived with that of C&D. Until I have a contradictory experience, or they stop actually criticizing vehicles like almost every other automotive publication, I'll keep reading. But I did see some evidence of influence or payola in one of their 10-Best lists, when they gave the CTS a spot instead of the G35 or G37 even though the Infiniti easily beat it on the last comparison test.



I have actually had lunch with David E. Davis way back when he ran C&D. They had trouble getting certain brands to test because they were known to call a spade a spade.

Still the same attitude. Their motto is "intelligence, independence, irreverence". Like you, their opinions usually jive with mine, and they still say it's [censored] if it is. Read their latest review on the Hyundai Veloster!

The G37 lost because it is a dated platform. Infiniti has too many issues to be on that hallowed list. And it has no comparison to the CTS-V.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
I have actually had lunch with David E. Davis way back when he ran C&D. They had trouble getting certain brands to test because they were known to call a spade a spade.

Still the same attitude. Their motto is "intelligence, independence, irreverence". Like you, their opinions usually jive with mine, and they still say it's [censored] if it is. Read their latest review on the Hyundai Veloster!

The G37 lost because it is a dated platform. Infiniti has too many issues to be on that hallowed list. And it has no comparison to the CTS-V.


He was an industry icon and an interesting man. That's cool that you got to have a real conversation with him.

I have read the latest issue. That was a fairly harsh review considering it was in the "Drivelines" section. Usually you have to wait for a comparison to get a true picture of the car! The two TTAC reviewers of the Veloster were similarly unimpressed by it.

Dated platform or not, it was on the 10-Best list the year before (2007) and had handily beaten the CTS in a comparison test in the same issue. Here's an old thread with some discussion on that:

https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1041529

 

[rpn453]

I should add that I'm not trying to argue that the 500 isn't fun or enjoyable to drive, just that many small cars are not, and more than just C&D have said that other small cars do better than the 500 in that regard. Here are some Michael Karesh outtakes:

"Perhaps because of all the extra bits in the valvetrain, the 1.4 doesn’t care to rev and growls unhappily when forced to."

"Shifts aren’t satisfying, either. A high-mounted shifter might work in a cargo van, but in a hatchback with sporting pretensions it’s no joy. One didn’t work in the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix, and it doesn’t work here. The lever’s somewhat clunky operation wouldn’t be welcome even in a cargo van."

"My expectations (or at least hopes) were highest with the 500’s handling. But the high seating position takes a predictable toll. Steering reactions aren’t especially quick. A Mazda2 feels friskier, a MINI more dialed-in and direct. Tossable the 500 is not. Instead, it tries too hard to behave like a larger car. Like the Ford Fiesta, it’s tuned for people who want the appearance of a small, cute car but not the feel of one."

"Sadly, and unlike the Ford, what was achieved with the handling was not achieved with the ride. Even the smallest bumps dramatically upset the diminutive FIAT’s composure. The lightly loaded rear end never passes up an opportunity for a game of hopscotch. Granted, I drove the Sport variant, but if the ride is so unsettled that carving a clean line through a less than glass-smooth curve becomes a challenge, then there’s really no point in making the suspension so firm. Of the many cars in my memory bank, including the thoroughly unrefined Mazda Protege5 I own, this one rides the worst."

"To give credit where credit is due, noise levels within the 500 are bearable, if those of a small car. Despite its low weight, the 500 feels considerably more solid than a Mazda2, if not quite so much as a German-engineered MINI. To put it bluntly, the car doesn’t seem cheap."

Karesh Fiat 500 Review

But Murilee enjoyed driving it:

Martin Fiat 500 Review

 

[91344George]

Sorry, but C&D, and most of the other US car "rags" I've read over the past 25 years always seem to "pander" to certain makes regardless of whether they actually deserve the kudos. This makes me instantly suspect of them. The fact is that many automotive journalists are "pandered to" with freebies from the car makers and this can and DOES affect their opinion of various products. It is a soft form of "payola". Of course we can't leave out the advertising issues.

 

[SteveSRT8]

That's precisely why I prefer C&D. They are actually in deep shiite with many manufacturers because they say what they feel and do not write glowing reviews for them.

They obtain some cars surreptitiously due to their poor relations!

I would readily agree as far as MT, R&T, and many others. But C&D stands alone.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: 91344George
Sorry, but C&D, and most of the other US car "rags" I've read over the past 25 years always seem to "pander" to certain makes regardless of whether they actually deserve the kudos. This makes me instantly suspect of them. The fact is that many automotive journalists are "pandered to" with freebies from the car makers and this can and DOES affect their opinion of various products. It is a soft form of "payola". Of course we can't leave out the advertising issues.


You certainly can't take everything they say as unbiased - and many of the single-car reviews are sales brochures - but that's true of absolutely everything one reads. Which makes do you feel they've pandered to? In addition to that issue I had with the CTS being included on the 10-Best list, they also gave the new-at-the-time Camaro a win over the Genesis Coupe by using "gotta have it" points. But anyone paying attention could see that, and they got enough complaints that the category was eliminated shortly after. It's also obvious from other comparison tests that they don't generally pander to GM. I suppose one could make the argument that BMW must have been influencing C&D for most of the last 25 years, because nobody could possibly make vehicles that outperform the competition for that long. The trashing of recent BMWs might even confirm that the payments stopped and C&D is getting revenge for the failed relationship. But many who truly enjoy driving also seem to really like that run of BMWs.

Do you have any sources of accurate automotive reviews? I'm always looking for that sort of thing. It is hard to find. C&D and TTAC are the only ones I've found tolerable.