Is modern journalism ruining cars?
Discussion
It's annoyed me for a while that reviews of ordinary, non-performance cars in ordinary, non-performance magazines seem to focus more on the performance aspects than anything else.
If I'm reading an Evo review of a Focus ST, then yes, the acceleration/grip/steering feel etc is relevant and it's of little importance that the thing drinks fuel.
If it's the What Car review of the mid-range model, then it's more important to know if it's got a decent amount of room, if the seats are comfy, if the engine makes an awful row at 70mph, how big the boot is, how much it'll cost to run and if it's generally easy to live with. As long as the thing isn't lethal around a bend or underpowered, most buyers are happy.
Or at least they would have been, before the combined efforts of journalists and marketing types convinced everyone that they really really need 180bhp, RWD, 18" wheels and rock hard suspension to drive between home, work and the local retail park.
I sometimes wonder, if this fashion for "performance" kit on mundane cars hadn't happened, would the average car in 2015 be on a par with a 1990s Rolls Royce in terms of refinement?
If I'm reading an Evo review of a Focus ST, then yes, the acceleration/grip/steering feel etc is relevant and it's of little importance that the thing drinks fuel.
If it's the What Car review of the mid-range model, then it's more important to know if it's got a decent amount of room, if the seats are comfy, if the engine makes an awful row at 70mph, how big the boot is, how much it'll cost to run and if it's generally easy to live with. As long as the thing isn't lethal around a bend or underpowered, most buyers are happy.
Or at least they would have been, before the combined efforts of journalists and marketing types convinced everyone that they really really need 180bhp, RWD, 18" wheels and rock hard suspension to drive between home, work and the local retail park.
I sometimes wonder, if this fashion for "performance" kit on mundane cars hadn't happened, would the average car in 2015 be on a par with a 1990s Rolls Royce in terms of refinement?
kambites said:
Devil2575 said:
Car reviews are just subjective opinions. Also not all car reviews focus on lap times and handling.
I think part of the point is that they shouldn't be. There are plenty of things you can measure objectively in a car review but they rarely bother. Cars are like Films nowadays - constant reboots, sequels and rehashes and very little original content - as such word space seems to be 1/3rd explaining what's different, 1/3 metaphors and the authors desire to talk grandiose rubbish about the location of the test and 1/3rd conclusion - very little depth.
Writers have forgotten the car and think they are more important.
Writers have forgotten the car and think they are more important.
Is modern journalism ruining cars? I think that is too broad a question to be answered simply and that you have to look at the effects of the different types of journalism, their target market and their publishing styles.
I.e. TV, internet and magazines all have differing approaches; of the three I would say that the media that captures the moving image has the highest potential for influencing car design and performance - it's easy, measurable and spectacular to show a car performing round a test track - and the statistics show that's what viewers want to see.
In magazines the readership can be much more disparate and focussed - the person that buys What Car probably has a different set of priorities and interests than he/she who buys Performance Ford.
Ultimately though, while undoubtedly having an influence, I suspect that it is the marketing departments who are driving (sic) the design, style and performance of modern automobiles, and they seem to be succeding.
Then again - there are probably many out there that would argue that modern cars are not 'ruined' at all and have we've never had it so good!
I.e. TV, internet and magazines all have differing approaches; of the three I would say that the media that captures the moving image has the highest potential for influencing car design and performance - it's easy, measurable and spectacular to show a car performing round a test track - and the statistics show that's what viewers want to see.
In magazines the readership can be much more disparate and focussed - the person that buys What Car probably has a different set of priorities and interests than he/she who buys Performance Ford.
Ultimately though, while undoubtedly having an influence, I suspect that it is the marketing departments who are driving (sic) the design, style and performance of modern automobiles, and they seem to be succeding.
Then again - there are probably many out there that would argue that modern cars are not 'ruined' at all and have we've never had it so good!
Devil2575 said:
Like what though? Whatcar gives objective info like boot space and I guess reviews could measure dB levels in the cabin, but other than that I'm not sure what you want. Lap times are objective but that appears to be what people are complaining about.
Noise levels, ride quality (using something akin to seismometers), grip levels in different conditions, interior space, stopping distances,... even steering feel and throttle response could be measured if they could be bothered, although there wouldn't be much point for mainstream cars. The BMW Good /Audi Bad argument because "Can I Drift It" IMO is representative of majority opinion on PH, going by the tone in the bi-weekly RWD vs. FWD thread.
I've also stopped reading car mags but it's because, well, I guess I've just reached saturation. I can predict what they are going to say about the cars and they just seem to be running out of superlatives now. There are no surprises any more, and also modern cars seem to be dominated by grip and that shows in the road test literature. I get enough info to keep up through the internet now.
I never understood the popular opinion that journalists are usually wrong though - or aren't living in the real world. These people use these cars as daily drivers, do long term tests, have families snd kids to take to school and shopping to do just like the rest of us. Some of them may value certain qualities differently to what I would so might reach a different conclusion about a car to me but that doesn't make them wrong, and when they explain their conclusion it's usually not difficult to translate that to my own needs.
If we take the Z06 as an example I'm certainly going to value the opinion of someone who drives hundreds of cars a year over someone on the internet who has driven a Z06 and not much else. I suppose Clarkson could be wrong about that car but around here it seems he's wrong just because he's Clarkson.
I've also stopped reading car mags but it's because, well, I guess I've just reached saturation. I can predict what they are going to say about the cars and they just seem to be running out of superlatives now. There are no surprises any more, and also modern cars seem to be dominated by grip and that shows in the road test literature. I get enough info to keep up through the internet now.
I never understood the popular opinion that journalists are usually wrong though - or aren't living in the real world. These people use these cars as daily drivers, do long term tests, have families snd kids to take to school and shopping to do just like the rest of us. Some of them may value certain qualities differently to what I would so might reach a different conclusion about a car to me but that doesn't make them wrong, and when they explain their conclusion it's usually not difficult to translate that to my own needs.
If we take the Z06 as an example I'm certainly going to value the opinion of someone who drives hundreds of cars a year over someone on the internet who has driven a Z06 and not much else. I suppose Clarkson could be wrong about that car but around here it seems he's wrong just because he's Clarkson.
I think it is, yes. So many reviews concentrate on what the car is like on the track, 99% of passenger cars will never see a track and are completely unsuitable for that kind of usage. To me what makes a good performance road car is largely unrelated to its track handling, there simply isn't space on roads to drive like that, I will never push to the edge of the handling envelope on the road. What I am interested in is how the engine delivers its power, the quality of the damping, how do the gearbox ratios match the engine in the real world, how noisy/comfortable/practical is it etc etc.
This is why I think quattro Audis make superb road cars and I would pick one over most BMWs, no the balance and the handling at the edge won't be as good but for everything that actually matters on the road I think they do it better.
This is why I think quattro Audis make superb road cars and I would pick one over most BMWs, no the balance and the handling at the edge won't be as good but for everything that actually matters on the road I think they do it better.
Pommygranite said:
Cars are like Films nowadays - constant reboots, sequels and rehashes and very little original content - as such word space seems to be 1/3rd explaining what's different, 1/3 metaphors and the authors desire to talk grandiose rubbish about the location of the test and 1/3rd conclusion - very little depth.
Writers have forgotten the car and think they are more important.
The issue is that pretty much all cars are ok these days. It isn't a case of one being awful and another on brilliant. The differences between cars competing for the same market share is largely irrelevant to the majority of drivers. Objectively a Focus and an Astra aren't really that much different. Sure the focus might handle marginally better and have better steering feel but most drivers wouldn't know the difference. What really differentiates them is branding and no matter how people might choose to explain their choice of one over the other the reality is that the differences are subjective. So what do you fill your review with? Writers have forgotten the car and think they are more important.
I can't see quite how much influence motoring journalism has over car design. Only a small and dwindling proportion of the public gives motoring journalism any time whatsoever. The vast majority of car sales are of cooking models within mundane ranges mostly specified with smallish wheels and softish suspension. For as long as the fashion for larger wheels and harder suspension has been around the media (and motoring fora) have complained these options ruin the ride. Yet the fashion continues. Audi's S Lines have been near constantly slated as riding terribly yet are as popular as ever. Same for M Sports.from BMW.
Cars are quieter than they've ever been, on the whole roomier, safer. And so on.
I'm sure objective measurements can be found within some publications should the public seek them but I doubt editors find the small portion of the public that buy their magazines or click onto their sites rate these factors highly when choosing to part with money or expose themselves to online advertising.
I guess, as explained so far I'm not seeing much evidence of journalism 'ruining' cars.
Cars are quieter than they've ever been, on the whole roomier, safer. And so on.
I'm sure objective measurements can be found within some publications should the public seek them but I doubt editors find the small portion of the public that buy their magazines or click onto their sites rate these factors highly when choosing to part with money or expose themselves to online advertising.
I guess, as explained so far I'm not seeing much evidence of journalism 'ruining' cars.
Personally, if I want to find out about a car I'll just pound google for information - spec sheets, long-term reviews, owners reviews, forums etc. I don't read much motoring magazines but from the brief glances I've had there are still plenty of car reviews that focus on real world experience.
If I want to watch a car review video for entertainment, of course I'd rather watch a skilled driver thrashing a car round a track, describing the car on the limits and also driving for the camera a bit or doing a bit of country road hooning. I don't want to see how well damped the cup holders are or exactly how flat the back seats fold.
Point being, both types of journalism / information are out there, it's pretty easy to decide what to read/watch according to what you want to find out.
If anything can be found guilty of "ruining" cars, if that is the case at all, then it's almost definitely from the car manufacturers themselves in terms of meeting stricter legislations, marketing BS, treating cars as status/fashion objects and the fact that the public fall for it all.
If I want to watch a car review video for entertainment, of course I'd rather watch a skilled driver thrashing a car round a track, describing the car on the limits and also driving for the camera a bit or doing a bit of country road hooning. I don't want to see how well damped the cup holders are or exactly how flat the back seats fold.
Point being, both types of journalism / information are out there, it's pretty easy to decide what to read/watch according to what you want to find out.
If anything can be found guilty of "ruining" cars, if that is the case at all, then it's almost definitely from the car manufacturers themselves in terms of meeting stricter legislations, marketing BS, treating cars as status/fashion objects and the fact that the public fall for it all.
Edited by vrsmxtb on Saturday 24th January 10:17
When I was last looking to replace my car I watch many reviews from carbuyer on youtube, it helped tremendously. More realistic and relevant to potential owners than all the other entertainment orientated reviews, which of course serve their purpose; entertainment and nothing else.
I still bought a '12 640d despite seeing the small bloke squished in to the back seat!
I still bought a '12 640d despite seeing the small bloke squished in to the back seat!
I think that part of the problem is that there aren't many "bad" cars around these days.
Only a few years ago you had a wide spectrum from the perceived "quality" car makers at one end to the "cheap cars as basic transport" at the other. Now, with very few exceptions, the "thrown together by Communists" end of the market has largely disappeared. Any magazine group test has to try to compare and contrast three or four cars which differ only by degrees. And the magazines have pages to fill. So, if the scribblers can't think of anything interesting to say about the cars, they have to produce enough words to comply with the Editor's requirement for 3000 words somehow.
On the plus side, photographs in car magazines have improved in recent years. As long as the snapper doesn't get too carried away and spends more time photoshopping than photographing.
Only a few years ago you had a wide spectrum from the perceived "quality" car makers at one end to the "cheap cars as basic transport" at the other. Now, with very few exceptions, the "thrown together by Communists" end of the market has largely disappeared. Any magazine group test has to try to compare and contrast three or four cars which differ only by degrees. And the magazines have pages to fill. So, if the scribblers can't think of anything interesting to say about the cars, they have to produce enough words to comply with the Editor's requirement for 3000 words somehow.
On the plus side, photographs in car magazines have improved in recent years. As long as the snapper doesn't get too carried away and spends more time photoshopping than photographing.
jhonn said:
Then again - there are probably many out there that would argue that modern cars are not 'ruined' at all and have we've never had it so good!
Is it bad-form to quote yourself? 
For the sake of further musing (and being a bit of a contrarian), how many are of the opinion that modern cars are in fact (a bit, or more than a bit) 'ruined'?And if so, how, and compared to what?
The modern (newish) cars in our family (A Fiat 500 and a Jeep GC) are fine, and I would say are in all regards better than the equivalent type/model of say.. 10 years ago.
Dermot O'Logical said:
I think that part of the problem is that there aren't many "bad" cars around these days.
This^^^ x10.It would take an extremely skilled and experienced automotive engineer, with a host of high speed data logging equipment to, for example, determine the objective difference between the steering performance of a 3 series BMW and an Audi A4. No cars handle "badly" these days, all are quiet, have decent performance, perform well in a crash, have a decent level of std kit.
As a result, i suggest you buy one based on the colour and if you like the way it looks....... ;-)
Not all journalists are like that. Andrew Frankel wrote a really nice piece in the Daily Telegraph yesterday (can view online) about Rowan Atkinson and the sale of his F1. For me Frankel is one of the more thoughtful journalists out there... in my view it is no co-incidence that Frankel was at Car Magazine when LJK Setright was writing for them - probably one of the most respected motoring writers ever.
Also interesting if (like me) you remember that it was Frankel who did the test feature on McLaren F1 in 1994 when it came out.
Also interesting if (like me) you remember that it was Frankel who did the test feature on McLaren F1 in 1994 when it came out.
eldar said:
Who actually listens to motoring journalists?
See the point I made earlier: "There are motoring entertainment shows and there's insightful motoring journalism. One is watched by millions, the other read by few."I.e., if you're listening (and watching), these days it's likely to be 'entertainment' rather than 'journalism'.
Max_Torque said:
Dermot O'Logical said:
I think that part of the problem is that there aren't many "bad" cars around these days.
This^^^ x10.It would take an extremely skilled and experienced automotive engineer, with a host of high speed data logging equipment to, for example, determine the objective difference between the steering performance or a 3 series BMW and an Audi A4. No cars handle "badly" these days, all are quiet, have decent performance, perform well in a crash, have a decent level of std kit.
As a result, i suggest you buy one based on the colour and if you like the way it looks....... ;-)
I wouldn't say that modern journalism is ruining cars at all. If anything, I'd say it's saving them.
The general public buy cars in the same way they buy computers or clothes. They want something new that performs well and has a prestige brand name. People aspire to own a BMW or an Audi in the same way they aspire to own an Apple Mac. The brand and product is perceived to be prestige, high performance and high quality. The high performance bit is largely irrelevant to most people, but what they perceive as performance isn't actually that....it's cleverly designed to give that impression.
If we take the computer example, many people will buy a MacBook Pro because it's an Apple and it's 'high performance'. They'll turn it on and marvel at how quick everything loads, and use that as a way to justify spending £2000 on a computer. In reality, a computer half the price, running the same software would be just as quick at doing what they use it for. Unless the user is doing vast amounts of photoshop, video editing or simulation, the genuine power of a MacBook is totally wasted. Because of the way it's designed though, people don't feel short changed, as they get the perception of high performance from day to day use.
Switching back to cars, people want a BMW because 'it's a drivers car'. They buy in to the fact the M3 is developed by a select group of engineers who hone it to be the ultimate drivers machine. The fact of the matter is, 99% of owners won't ever be able to drive it quick enough to experience the difference from a 316d. They may say they can notice the difference, but really, it's just clever marketing and clever engineering. A razor sharp throttle, heavy steering and a jiggly ride give people the impression that the car is fast and handles well. In reality, it could understeer like a pig on limit and they'd never know!
This is where people like EVO, Pistonheads etc come in. They're there to keep the manufacturers in check. A disproportionately huge amount of time, money and effort is spent developing cars for 1% of the owners and 5% of the motoring press. If Top Gear wasn't there to do big burnouts, and EVO wasn't there to do epic journeys across Wales and Europe, then marketing would have won a long time ago. We all read reviews of the latest M3 and lambast BMW based on the fairly average reviews given by the media, and we all sing praise on companies like Toyota for making the GT86 so 'driftable', however, an absolutely tiny percentage of owners will ever genuinely know the difference. If someone like EVO gave 5 stars to the Nissan Micra 1.0 and declared it 'the most incredibly balanced car they've ever driven' I absolutely guarantee that within a week, people on here would be agreeing. It would be quite an interesting social experiment actually!
And lets get one thing straight......The Nurburgring doesn't ruin cars, and it certainly doesn't make their ride jiggly. No manufacturer sets a car up solely to get a lap time there (including all the Nurburgring specials like the Megane and GTR) and if the ride was based purely on its performance round that track, it would ride a hell of a lot better than the average car. Anyone who's ever driven it to any extent would know that a soft compliant car will be a great deal more manageable and a lot quicker than any super stiff, uncompliant 'sport pack'.
The Nurburgring is a marketing tool that does nothing more than attract people who like to think they care. It's the same as buying a Northface Arctic jacket to wear on the weekly shop to Waitrose. Does it withstand -20degC wind? Yes. Does it also function fantastically well in a wide range of conditions like the English Summer? Yes. Is it's ability to be waterproof compromised by performing well in the arctic? No. Is it's functionality compromised by the constraints of fashion? Yes. Same issues, different product....
The general public buy cars in the same way they buy computers or clothes. They want something new that performs well and has a prestige brand name. People aspire to own a BMW or an Audi in the same way they aspire to own an Apple Mac. The brand and product is perceived to be prestige, high performance and high quality. The high performance bit is largely irrelevant to most people, but what they perceive as performance isn't actually that....it's cleverly designed to give that impression.
If we take the computer example, many people will buy a MacBook Pro because it's an Apple and it's 'high performance'. They'll turn it on and marvel at how quick everything loads, and use that as a way to justify spending £2000 on a computer. In reality, a computer half the price, running the same software would be just as quick at doing what they use it for. Unless the user is doing vast amounts of photoshop, video editing or simulation, the genuine power of a MacBook is totally wasted. Because of the way it's designed though, people don't feel short changed, as they get the perception of high performance from day to day use.
Switching back to cars, people want a BMW because 'it's a drivers car'. They buy in to the fact the M3 is developed by a select group of engineers who hone it to be the ultimate drivers machine. The fact of the matter is, 99% of owners won't ever be able to drive it quick enough to experience the difference from a 316d. They may say they can notice the difference, but really, it's just clever marketing and clever engineering. A razor sharp throttle, heavy steering and a jiggly ride give people the impression that the car is fast and handles well. In reality, it could understeer like a pig on limit and they'd never know!
This is where people like EVO, Pistonheads etc come in. They're there to keep the manufacturers in check. A disproportionately huge amount of time, money and effort is spent developing cars for 1% of the owners and 5% of the motoring press. If Top Gear wasn't there to do big burnouts, and EVO wasn't there to do epic journeys across Wales and Europe, then marketing would have won a long time ago. We all read reviews of the latest M3 and lambast BMW based on the fairly average reviews given by the media, and we all sing praise on companies like Toyota for making the GT86 so 'driftable', however, an absolutely tiny percentage of owners will ever genuinely know the difference. If someone like EVO gave 5 stars to the Nissan Micra 1.0 and declared it 'the most incredibly balanced car they've ever driven' I absolutely guarantee that within a week, people on here would be agreeing. It would be quite an interesting social experiment actually!
And lets get one thing straight......The Nurburgring doesn't ruin cars, and it certainly doesn't make their ride jiggly. No manufacturer sets a car up solely to get a lap time there (including all the Nurburgring specials like the Megane and GTR) and if the ride was based purely on its performance round that track, it would ride a hell of a lot better than the average car. Anyone who's ever driven it to any extent would know that a soft compliant car will be a great deal more manageable and a lot quicker than any super stiff, uncompliant 'sport pack'.
The Nurburgring is a marketing tool that does nothing more than attract people who like to think they care. It's the same as buying a Northface Arctic jacket to wear on the weekly shop to Waitrose. Does it withstand -20degC wind? Yes. Does it also function fantastically well in a wide range of conditions like the English Summer? Yes. Is it's ability to be waterproof compromised by performing well in the arctic? No. Is it's functionality compromised by the constraints of fashion? Yes. Same issues, different product....
Edited by RacerMike on Saturday 24th January 14:05
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff