Is modern journalism ruining cars?
Discussion
kiseca said:
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 agree with most of that kiseca - I tend to place more value in a crop of motoring journos talking about a car than someone on a forum who may never have ( or barely done a ride round the block in ) had a drive of a car he's dismissing.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.
Ultimately, I'd never buy a car without a few test drives but I've been influenced to try some I might not otherwise have by reading a conglomerate of car reviews by journos whose opinions I can relate to ( on other cars I've enjoyed )
I agree with both Racer Mike and Kambites. Its not the press that are the problem its us. We are complete suckers for the top trumps numbers game and pub bragging rights. I will make a simple case in point. Look at the prices now and unreal halo around old 911s, Porsche themselves gave up long ago making a car like that leaving a huge hole in the market. Nobody is making a new compact narrow body 200Bhp and torque/tonne steel bodied coupe sports car for one simple reason. If someone did today make a car like an old 911 it would cost at least 40 grand maybe much more and would have performance figures (the top trumps stuff) no better than a hot hatch at half the price. Nobody would buy it and the industry knows it so instead they make cars which 99% of the buyers will never use more than 20% of the available performance. Its our fault the car buying public entirely.
NJH said:
top trumps numbers game and pub bragging rights.
Totally agree. I love great sportscars but couldn't give a toss about the max bhp figure, ultimate 0-60 time or how quickly they can be thrashed round the Nurburgring.If it looks like a sportscar, it's a sportscar. If a sportscar drives well then it's a great sportscar.
NJH said:
Nobody is making a new compact narrow body 200Bhp and torque/tonne steel bodied coupe sports car for one simple reason. If someone did today make a car like an old 911 it would cost at least 40 grand maybe much more and would have performance figures (the top trumps stuff) no better than a hot hatch at half the price. Nobody would buy it and the industry knows it so instead they make cars which 99% of the buyers will never use more than 20% of the available performance. Its our fault the car buying public entirely.
Ah the mythical sports coupe with everyday accessible performance. Whilst no manufacturer has tried that recently in main supersports market. The GT86 is a telling example of why brilliant engineering of a sports coupe is not enough to generate massive sales success, on paper the car ticks all the boxes journalists and the majority of members on here ask for lightweight, RWD, accessible power, low(ish) cost. Yet sales have hardly set the world on fire, if anything you could call them a massive disappointment. Modern journalism?
What Car Nov 1979 (The Alfa Romeo Giulietta was tested against the Audi 80, BMW 316, Fiat 131 and Ford Cortina)
The Giulietta plays the role of the seductress rather than the faithful companion, Such is lure of the lusty twincam engine, the rasping exhaust note and the hairline handling that the car is hard to leave alone. Irritations such as the poor gearshift, the out of keeping interior and the indifferent ventilation soon become irrelevant, it is the car's dynamic qualities that count.
What Car Nov 1979 (The Alfa Romeo Giulietta was tested against the Audi 80, BMW 316, Fiat 131 and Ford Cortina)
The Giulietta plays the role of the seductress rather than the faithful companion, Such is lure of the lusty twincam engine, the rasping exhaust note and the hairline handling that the car is hard to leave alone. Irritations such as the poor gearshift, the out of keeping interior and the indifferent ventilation soon become irrelevant, it is the car's dynamic qualities that count.
b0rk said:
NJH said:
Nobody is making a new compact narrow body 200Bhp and torque/tonne steel bodied coupe sports car for one simple reason. If someone did today make a car like an old 911 it would cost at least 40 grand maybe much more and would have performance figures (the top trumps stuff) no better than a hot hatch at half the price. Nobody would buy it and the industry knows it so instead they make cars which 99% of the buyers will never use more than 20% of the available performance. Its our fault the car buying public entirely.
Ah the mythical sports coupe with everyday accessible performance. Whilst no manufacturer has tried that recently in main supersports market. The GT86 is a telling example of why brilliant engineering of a sports coupe is not enough to generate massive sales success, on paper the car ticks all the boxes journalists and the majority of members on here ask for lightweight, RWD, accessible power, low(ish) cost. Yet sales have hardly set the world on fire, if anything you could call them a massive disappointment. Tony33 said:
Modern journalism?
What Car Nov 1979 (The Alfa Romeo Giulietta was tested against the Audi 80, BMW 316, Fiat 131 and Ford Cortina)
The Giulietta plays the role of the seductress rather than the faithful companion, Such is lure of the lusty twincam engine, the rasping exhaust note and the hairline handling that the car is hard to leave alone. Irritations such as the poor gearshift, the out of keeping interior and the indifferent ventilation soon become irrelevant, it is the car's dynamic qualities that count.
Sounds about right to me. Describes exactly what the Giulietta was like, why an enthusiast (which is what a motoring journalist tends to be) would fancy it and why the average someone looking for a practical family saloon would prefer the Tina.What Car Nov 1979 (The Alfa Romeo Giulietta was tested against the Audi 80, BMW 316, Fiat 131 and Ford Cortina)
The Giulietta plays the role of the seductress rather than the faithful companion, Such is lure of the lusty twincam engine, the rasping exhaust note and the hairline handling that the car is hard to leave alone. Irritations such as the poor gearshift, the out of keeping interior and the indifferent ventilation soon become irrelevant, it is the car's dynamic qualities that count.
kiseca said:
Tony33 said:
Modern journalism?
What Car Nov 1979 (The Alfa Romeo Giulietta was tested against the Audi 80, BMW 316, Fiat 131 and Ford Cortina)
The Giulietta plays the role of the seductress rather than the faithful companion, Such is lure of the lusty twincam engine, the rasping exhaust note and the hairline handling that the car is hard to leave alone. Irritations such as the poor gearshift, the out of keeping interior and the indifferent ventilation soon become irrelevant, it is the car's dynamic qualities that count.
Sounds about right to me. Describes exactly what the Giulietta was like, why an enthusiast (which is what a motoring journalist tends to be) would fancy it and why the average someone looking for a practical family saloon would prefer the Tina.What Car Nov 1979 (The Alfa Romeo Giulietta was tested against the Audi 80, BMW 316, Fiat 131 and Ford Cortina)
The Giulietta plays the role of the seductress rather than the faithful companion, Such is lure of the lusty twincam engine, the rasping exhaust note and the hairline handling that the car is hard to leave alone. Irritations such as the poor gearshift, the out of keeping interior and the indifferent ventilation soon become irrelevant, it is the car's dynamic qualities that count.
Personally I think the modern day version of What Car? is more geared towards the run of the mill stuff.
NJH said:
Arguably one could also cite the poor sales numbers for Lotus. Personally I think the GT86 misses the mark for a few reasons though: 1) It looks awful 2) Its not 200 Bhp/torque/tonne but a bit short of that mythical metric 3) Why on earth is it so wide if the goal was simple back to basics fun, the car is just way to big. Did I say it looks awful? Hardly like the cutesy cuddly looks of old 911s that makes men of a certain age go all weak at the knees and loose of wallet. Having said all that I still believe that even if a company did take the GT86 concept and fixed the 3 things I note above it still wouldn't sell well.
Its only 7cm wider than an original Elise. Width is the least of its worries.It all adds up though, the whole car just seems much to big for what it is supposedly trying to be which isn't an Elise with a roof but a car that was supposed to hark back to simpler lower power cars of old. Both the overall width and front track width nearly 3 inches wider than the Porsche 944 turbo for example and frankly staggering 9 inches across the rear axle. It only gets worse if compared to any older "classic" small nimble sports cars. The rear track on the GT86 is a whole foot wider than the old torsion bar 911s for example. This car is nothing at all like it was claimed to be and has practically nothing in common with back to basics sports cars of old.
NJH said:
It all adds up though, the whole car just seems much to big for what it is supposedly trying to be which isn't an Elise with a roof but a car that was supposed to hark back to simpler lower power cars of old. Both the overall width and front track width nearly 3 inches wider than the Porsche 944 turbo for example and frankly staggering 9 inches across the rear axle. It only gets worse if compared to any older "classic" small nimble sports cars. The rear track on the GT86 is a whole foot wider than the old torsion bar 911s for example. This car is nothing at all like it was claimed to be and has practically nothing in common with back to basics sports cars of old.
That didn't sound right so I looked up some dimensions...The GT86 is only 40mm (1.6 inches) wider than the 944T (and 50mm shorter and 10mm higher).
The narrowbody 80's 911 is 120mm (4.7 inches) narrower than the GT86, but the widebody version is 50mm (2 inches) wider.
Perhaps you should do a little research before posting in future. I'd say they've done well to keep the GT86 as compact as it is given modern safety requirements etc. They really look small and compact on the road too, good looking cars.
Maybe you're just trying to emulate the modern journalism being discussed - exaggerated, overly opinionated attention-seeking with little genuine information to back it up.
Edited by GravelBen on Sunday 25th January 02:33
Tricky question.
Bland, everyday, functional cars are bought by the vast majority of buyers without much consideration of what motoring journos say imho. There is a small, shrewd, value-conscious percentage that will look to the most vanilla publications (Which?) for buying advice. They will consciously seek out 'impartial' consumer stuff as they don't give a crap about anything other than vfm, buying cars with the same logic they use for white goods purchases. Otherwise, they are bought on any number of whims; the missus likes them, vague sense of brand loyalty (Ive always had Fords), I see one every day on the way to work and it looks funky. There is a further, more detached group (often elderly or doing very small annual mileage) who do zero research and just stumble into whatever local dealer is closest- the kind of people who historically ended up in something like a City Rover, for example.
People with a bit of disposable (mostly image-conscious/ aspirational) and a passing interest in cars will be very much swayed by eg a TG/ Fifth Gear review, positively or negatively. These are the saddest of purchases, as TG reviews are 99% b*llocks turned out primarily to suit the given pieces desired narrative (all the BMW yuppie t
ts have moved to Audis etc).
'True' PHers will have a broader range of influences through content seen on PH/ EVO/ /DRIVE/ other forums etc. They will also be influenced to some degree by journos opinions/ reviews, but will also have their own knowledge/ preferences to go on, based on past experience. Even given how derided EVO is these days, they are probably responsible for a huge number of 911 purchases/ new M3s being disregarded within this group. Someone like Harry Metcalfe for example has huge sway with these guys, and he isn't the only one. In this sense, modern journalism may be 'ruining cars', but its heavily dependent on the journos taste/ preferences.
Overall, I suspect that modern journalism isn't really 'ruining' cars- we are just far more exposed to it through various channels. Someone who had to take the more traditional route to becoming a motoring journo (serving time working for various mags, getting themselves noticed through hard work and paying their dues) doesnt have much of a louder voice than anyone else these days. Inevitably, the quality of journalism we see is lower overall, given that every Tom, Dick and Harry has an opinion/ shoddy write up that can reach virtually everyone almost instantly.
Having never read old-school mags, I may not be best placed to comment, but were the old write-ups significantly better than the (admittedly self-aggrandising) stuff we see in eg EVO today?
Bland, everyday, functional cars are bought by the vast majority of buyers without much consideration of what motoring journos say imho. There is a small, shrewd, value-conscious percentage that will look to the most vanilla publications (Which?) for buying advice. They will consciously seek out 'impartial' consumer stuff as they don't give a crap about anything other than vfm, buying cars with the same logic they use for white goods purchases. Otherwise, they are bought on any number of whims; the missus likes them, vague sense of brand loyalty (Ive always had Fords), I see one every day on the way to work and it looks funky. There is a further, more detached group (often elderly or doing very small annual mileage) who do zero research and just stumble into whatever local dealer is closest- the kind of people who historically ended up in something like a City Rover, for example.
People with a bit of disposable (mostly image-conscious/ aspirational) and a passing interest in cars will be very much swayed by eg a TG/ Fifth Gear review, positively or negatively. These are the saddest of purchases, as TG reviews are 99% b*llocks turned out primarily to suit the given pieces desired narrative (all the BMW yuppie t
ts have moved to Audis etc).'True' PHers will have a broader range of influences through content seen on PH/ EVO/ /DRIVE/ other forums etc. They will also be influenced to some degree by journos opinions/ reviews, but will also have their own knowledge/ preferences to go on, based on past experience. Even given how derided EVO is these days, they are probably responsible for a huge number of 911 purchases/ new M3s being disregarded within this group. Someone like Harry Metcalfe for example has huge sway with these guys, and he isn't the only one. In this sense, modern journalism may be 'ruining cars', but its heavily dependent on the journos taste/ preferences.
Overall, I suspect that modern journalism isn't really 'ruining' cars- we are just far more exposed to it through various channels. Someone who had to take the more traditional route to becoming a motoring journo (serving time working for various mags, getting themselves noticed through hard work and paying their dues) doesnt have much of a louder voice than anyone else these days. Inevitably, the quality of journalism we see is lower overall, given that every Tom, Dick and Harry has an opinion/ shoddy write up that can reach virtually everyone almost instantly.
Having never read old-school mags, I may not be best placed to comment, but were the old write-ups significantly better than the (admittedly self-aggrandising) stuff we see in eg EVO today?
daveofedinburgh said:
Having never read old-school mags, I may not be best placed to comment, but were the old write-ups significantly better than the (admittedly self-aggrandising) stuff we see in eg EVO today?
Yes, books of reprinted articles from the 70's and 80's from Car magazine are available and show the sheer superiority of the writing then. many said that Car was worth reading even if one didn't have an interest in cars!lanciamug said:
Yes, books of reprinted articles from the 70's and 80's from Car magazine are available and show the sheer superiority of the writing then. many said that Car was worth reading even if one didn't have an interest in cars!
^Fair play.As I said, I'll bow to other PHers' superior knowledge here.
Bet EVOs photography is superior though!
Tony33 said:
ver 35 years ago motoring journalists preferred sporty handling, faster cars compared to practicality. It seems little has changed just the cars have got a lot quicker. The Giulietta had 122bhp and the Cortina a V6 2.3 lump pumping out 108bhp mated to an auto gearbox and a 0-60 of 15.3 seconds!
Personally I think the modern day version of What Car? is more geared towards the run of the mill stuff.
Personally I think the modern day version of What Car? is more geared towards the run of the mill stuff.
Good points.
daveofedinburgh said:
lanciamug said:
Yes, books of reprinted articles from the 70's and 80's from Car magazine are available and show the sheer superiority of the writing then. many said that Car was worth reading even if one didn't have an interest in cars!
^Fair play.As I said, I'll bow to other PHers' superior knowledge here.
Bet EVOs photography is superior though!
kambites said:
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 reason most articles read like the journalist hasn't driven the car, may even have not seen it and the article seems somewhat generic or doesn't cover any subjective aspects is probably because he hasn't driven the car.
Even when they do drive the car it is on the manufacturer's designed route and they are told what to say etc.
It's the curse of mass produced media. most of it is total junk and made up.
kambites said:
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. Cars are actually far better now that in the past; sure , I can cherry pick highlights I've driven like 205GTIs , hot Minis , some MGs and Triumphs but most of the past was porridge- and thirsty and unreliable porridge too. And way back when the star cars like early 911s and Dinos, Daytonas and CV8s etc were extremely rare- I'd had the car bug for at least two years before I even saw my first Ferrari.
Motoring journalism was however far better then - some good guys now but with people like Blain, Setright, DSJ, Bell, Lyons , David E Davis and Bulgin we have lost some utterly superb writers. And the current crop can irritate in the extreme- every bloody car is given some on track caning which rarely has any relevance at all to what most of us do. BY all means give 911s and Caterhams etc a good thraping on track and report on it but FFS I nether know nor care what the hell some 3 tonne SUV does on track . Pants on fire Catchpole (unfair possibly as he does write well) may enjoy burning a Cayenne's tyres to jelly but he ain't paying for them and who cares what it can do on track anyway?
Motoring journalism was however far better then - some good guys now but with people like Blain, Setright, DSJ, Bell, Lyons , David E Davis and Bulgin we have lost some utterly superb writers. And the current crop can irritate in the extreme- every bloody car is given some on track caning which rarely has any relevance at all to what most of us do. BY all means give 911s and Caterhams etc a good thraping on track and report on it but FFS I nether know nor care what the hell some 3 tonne SUV does on track . Pants on fire Catchpole (unfair possibly as he does write well) may enjoy burning a Cayenne's tyres to jelly but he ain't paying for them and who cares what it can do on track anyway?
I don't get this argument - reviews are supposed to highlight the subjective qualities of any particular vehicle - yeah, sometimes the hyperbole gets a bit much, but pages of objective stats and figures don't give me much of an impression of how a car will actually be to drive.
And to those people who think that personality-cult journalism is a recent thing, the much-revered CAR magazine of the 70s and 80s was full of stuff like that. Setright was a brilliant writer, but his writing was certainly as look-at-me as anyone at EVO is doing today. The rose-tinted glasses need to come off occasionally, or we end up sounding like old codgers longing for a past that never was.
And to those people who think that personality-cult journalism is a recent thing, the much-revered CAR magazine of the 70s and 80s was full of stuff like that. Setright was a brilliant writer, but his writing was certainly as look-at-me as anyone at EVO is doing today. The rose-tinted glasses need to come off occasionally, or we end up sounding like old codgers longing for a past that never was.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff