To all the Auto & Motorcycle Mag's: A RANT

[Norm Olt]

So, please stop with all this "track day" crud! And WAY! over-optioned vehicles.

Maybe 1% of your readers ever even see their feet on the surface of a racetrack, much less ever drive or ride on one. Comparing the racetrack attributes of five 160hp 435lb 1000cc Sportbikes is meaningless unless it is just in the context of yet another vicarious video-game-like FANTASY. Whether the S550 or the A8 is faster around Sears Point (do they even call it that, anymore?) is not going to tip the average buyers decision one way or the other, is it? Much less so for someone buying a "Cute ute"?

More comparisons like the recent one between a 5(?) year-old previous Generation 3-Series BMW and a new one, which was interesting. Between a new BRZ vs. a used Boxter (or whatever it was). How's about a motorcycle magazine comparing a 10 year-old (lightly) used Sportster with a new one, taking into consideration the extra $'s that are almost always thrown at a new one before it ever leaves the showroom?

And while you are at it could at least one of the magazines test something other than the most fully optioned examples available? How's about just one test of the new Impala with the I-4? Why do they always get a 3-Series with enough optional crud on it to push it way, way into 5-Series territory. A Porsche with over $40K in OPTIONS?

How's about the new Cherokee with side-by-side comparison between FWD and the three AWD systems: if you are not headed towards the Rubicon Trail why do you need to climb a cliff face?

Testing $50K+ 1/2 ton pickups? Why not the one's people actually buy?

Cheers!

p.s. RANT DONE!

 

[apwillard1986]

I am always skeptical about subjective trade publications. Opinions are often bought. That fact, combined with the fact that better consumer and professional opinion can be found for free online has rendered them of little use.

I agree they are selling the vicarious experience. They do seem more content to compare super-cars that only the upper crust can reasonably afford than comparing vehicles people actually buy in any real numbers. I just don’t think if you are in the market for an AMG SLS Coupe that you need to be told it is a fantastic car or that it is slightly slower than the comparable Ferrari.

In fairness I will say that for manufactures it is generally good advertising to let one of these publications do a story on your product and when they want to you send the loaded example. That way it shows the best and gives the writers a reference for all of the available features.

 

[LoneRanger]

Actually, I think as far as in advertising, claims of what the vehicle or motorcycle can do at the limits of it's performance envelope do influence some buyers. For instance, look at some buyers of the top line Jeep Cherokee's and all the car ever does is get driven to the grocery, mall, and soccer practice by momma. Same happens with the four door Wranglers. People buy them for primary vehicles and tolerate the horrible highway manners and dismal fuel economy for the sake of having an off-road vehicle that the only off road it sees is the gravel lot at the ball fields. And not to leave out the sports car category. Top line Corvette Z06's driven around by gray hairs (or no hairs) who will never push them to anywhere near their limits. The list goes on. People who buy motorcycles with an "off-road" mode who just ride it like a touring bike or sport bike, never down a trail.... hey, I resemble that remark!

 

[SF0059]

I can understand where you are coming from.

However, I think the reason they often test "fully optioned" vehicles is because the driving experience is going to be similar on something decontented (unless it has a different engine/transmission combo).

Also, the vehicles are often provided by the manufacturer. I've read many articles where they requested a middle trim and the company sent something with all the bells and whistles.

I enjoy both, to be honest. I like the budget shootouts as well as the loaded boat battles.

And racetracks? I rather enjoy seeing cars pushed to the limits. Granted, 99.9% of vehicles will never see anything even close to their full dynamic potential. Most people won't be able to buy a vehicle that could tear up a racetrack. But it sure is fun to dream .

 

[eljefino]

Consumer reports is accused of buying base model (domestic) cars and then hating them.

Yeah the geegaws are cool on the deluxe model but you also get thicker sway bars and better/ bigger tires which helps the skid pad numbers.

 

[jeepman3071]

I find it funny when they have articles recommending a specific brand of product against other brands and that product has about 50 ads in the magazine. I'm sure the article isn't biased at all.

One example was a recent off roading magazine I flipped through. It had an article saying how "X" brand of suspension was the best in the market for the money. "X" brand happened to have a bunch of full page ads in the magazine.

 

[double vanos]

I've often thought of starting a YouTube channel testing ONLY base model cars. Why? They are the most affordable one in the range, and if a manufacturer can get the strippo model right, the high zoot model should be better!
My .002 !

 

[Mykl]

I guess it all depends. When it comes to sport bikes I actually do care about how it handles on a race track, because I can't think of any other reason to buy one.

 

[jrustles]

I agree, and even apart from testing 'methods' lot of these 'automotive journalists' are anything but. There are too many morons out there that "just don't know" and "can't quite put their finger on it" or think things just "seems" a certain way.


How about every automotive journalist first understand how cars work, how the industry works, how to drive and how to be even minimally objective before attempting to write on a car.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: apwillard1986
I am always skeptical about subjective trade publications. Opinions are often bought. That fact, combined with the fact that better consumer and professional opinion can be found for free online has rendered them of little use.


How many times have we seen a review for one model, only to find their 'favored' or another model mentioned more in the article than the vehicle it's supposed to be about.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: Norm Olt
So, please stop with all this "track day" crud! And WAY! over-optioned vehicles.

Maybe 1% of your readers ever even see their feet on the surface of a racetrack, much less ever drive or ride on one. Comparing the racetrack attributes of five 160hp 435lb 1000cc Sportbikes is meaningless unless it is just in the context of yet another vicarious video-game-like FANTASY. Whether the S550 or the A8 is faster around Sears Point (do they even call it that, anymore?) is not going to tip the average buyers decision one way or the other, is it? Much less so for someone buying a "Cute ute"?


I'm going to disagree with you right here are the very beginning of the article.

How is a motorsports magazine supposed to tell you the difference between two or more competing products without being able to test drive the vehicles in a safe environment.

Do you want every review to simply say:

Both vehicles are both capable of driving 65 mph on the highway.
You can't go wrong with either one.

That's not what I want to know when I read an article on sports cars or superbikes. I want them to put both vehicles through their paces before I ever slide behind the wheel, or grab the handlebars.

One great example is when a magazine track tested the Nissan 370Z, and they crashed it into a wall because the brakes failed. They let you know that there is a very serious flaw in the the brake cooling system on that car, and let everyone know about it before others joined them in crashing vehicles.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/z-m...t-lightning-lap

I also want to know if there's instability issues with a car's suspension at a track pace before I buy one. I don't want to plunk down many tens of thousands of dollars, only to pee my pants the first time I drive through the mountains or visit the track.

BC.

 

[IndyIan]

I think something like Grassroots Motorsports magazine, but for non-performance car buyers/enthusiasts could have a market.
Have some articles on used cars and maintenance, and some on new cars. And articles on the best $5-10-15-20k used cars.

 

[whip]

Most magazines that I read are motorSPORTS magazines. I want to know what the car/bike is capable of. push it on the track. If it's a test of a Honda Accord, then follow up the track test with a real world test. How does it ride? What kind of mileage does it get? I'm smart enough to read the article, and use the info in both test, and process it enough to make a buying decision.

 

[dparm]

I actually wrote a letter to the executive editor of R&T earlier this year with a similar complaint. I got a response that I was 'on track' and they're trying to do exactly what I suggested. Text of my letter below:




You asked a blunt and simple question while at Sky Harbor: "what do you want in R&T?"

As a guy in his late-20s, I will tell you exactly what I want, and that's a magazine that doesn't just regurgitate numbers and figures I can look up on a manufacturer's website. I don't buy cars because of a comparison chart showing leg room, wheelbases, or even the 0-60 times. Sometimes I don't even buy based on what's the better value or most practical. The way I figure it, I have time for that kind of vehicle later in my life.

I buy a car because of the subjective qualities. The intangibles. How does the car make me feel? Do I get a rush every time I drive this car? Do I connect with it on some level? Do I do a double-take every time I park it and walk away?

I understand that it is difficult to write about this since it's so very personal. But you guys are the experts and better writers than I'll ever be. I know you and the rest of the staff at R&T can help me understand the emotional and subjective appeal of the cars you drive.

Hopefully this made some sense, and thanks for listening.

 

[kkreit01]

Magazines are entertainment. There are factual numbers in the articles, and the rest are opinions. You'd rather read more "opinions"? I personally like the numbers, and take the opinions/ratings as a grain of salt. I do see many $50K trucks on the road. It's hard to buy one under $40K (talking sticker prices -- which would be what the magazines are quoting). Typically, the manufacturers do send the most-optioned vehicles they have: $24K Darts, $67K CTS 3.6, etc. I'm guessing they want their "best" represented?

 

[MCompact]

My favorite mainstream enthusiast magazine is Road & Track ever since the mid year reboot. It's different and tells it like it is more often than not.

 

[Cujet]

I've been reading the mags for 40 years. One thing remains constant. The initial positive review or test (seems to) never hint at the known problems. And, certainly never predicts next years very negative review.

 

[Cujet]

I've been reading the mags for 40 years. One thing remains constant. The initial positive review or test (seems to) never hint at the known problems. And, certainly never predicts next years very negative review.

I despise subjective reviews from a magazine test, especially so when testing data is not published.

Acceleration is brisk, for example. Really? How so? 0-60 in 6 seconds or 2.9? So, I admire the track times, the comparisons done on the same tires, the real results.

 

[fdcg27]

The tested vehicles invariably come from a manufacturer's press fleet.
The manufacurers supply heavily optioned vehicles since those are their highest margin offerings and so those are the ones they want featured in what amounts to free advertising.
Track tests?
"Hey, how'd you like to use my racetrack for free for a few days? Everybody who drives is going to have to present a signed liability waiver to me." This is free advertising for the track, and it'll be offered at a time when nobody else is paying to use it.
Lives there a member among us with a beating heart who wouldn't be more than pleased to drive a few free machines for a few free track days?
What about those vehicles that finish way down in a comparison test?
Doesn't matter.
The average brand loyalist will just discount the test.

 

[hattaresguy]

I believe proper road cars get worse as people try to stick them around a track faster.

As I have said before GT cars are where its at, and this is why Aston Martin even though they win none of the mag article comparisons with numbers, sells. They make great road cars for the road.