Why do magazine reviews say such stupid things sometimes?
Discussion
Just reading the MG6 review on the Evo website.
What struck me was the Evo Rating comments:
I mean, if they are saying the feel is just right for the price - what the smegs the problem? Surely that's a plus point, not a negative?
At what price should you expect a premium feel?
Do any cars at this price and size offer a premium feel? If not, then why single out the MG?
Or is it more the case that they really couldn't find anything wrong with it, but where too childish to actually say so, so just had to complain about something - even if that something is meaningless drivel???
What struck me was the Evo Rating comments:
Evo said:
evo RATING
[+] One of the best in its class to drive
[-] Don't expect premium feel at these prices
WTF say don't expect a premium feel at these prices?? [+] One of the best in its class to drive
[-] Don't expect premium feel at these prices
I mean, if they are saying the feel is just right for the price - what the smegs the problem? Surely that's a plus point, not a negative?
At what price should you expect a premium feel?
Do any cars at this price and size offer a premium feel? If not, then why single out the MG?
Or is it more the case that they really couldn't find anything wrong with it, but where too childish to actually say so, so just had to complain about something - even if that something is meaningless drivel???
marcosgt said:
I think it's an acknowledgement that EVO readers fall into two categories.
Those who drive Clio Sports and Caterhams because they love driving and those who drive Audis, BMWs and Porsches because the key rings look good in the golf club bar...
M.
That doesn't really justify it though. And I'm not singling it out due to the car, it just happened to be the article I was reading.Those who drive Clio Sports and Caterhams because they love driving and those who drive Audis, BMWs and Porsches because the key rings look good in the golf club bar...
M.
How can something accurate, correct and more importantly expected be a negative point?
It would be like reviewing an Elise and saying
[-] Don't expect it to drive on wet grass well
300bhp/ton said:
marcosgt said:
I think it's an acknowledgement that EVO readers fall into two categories.
Those who drive Clio Sports and Caterhams because they love driving and those who drive Audis, BMWs and Porsches because the key rings look good in the golf club bar...
M.
That doesn't really justify it though. And I'm not singling it out due to the car, it just happened to be the article I was reading.Those who drive Clio Sports and Caterhams because they love driving and those who drive Audis, BMWs and Porsches because the key rings look good in the golf club bar...
M.
How can something accurate, correct and more importantly expected be a negative point?
It would be like reviewing an Elise and saying
[-] Don't expect it to drive on wet grass well
Perhaps they fear accusations of favouritism if they specify particular brands or models as segment benchmarks.
To be honest the [+] is a bit wooly too. "ONE" of the best in class? Which class? How many are better? Which ones are better? Which are worse?
Does the article make the curt summaries clearer perhaps? Perhaps its unfair to judge a whole review on a dozen words?
M
I think it's fair enough - it's only a summary after all, I'm sure they go into more detail in the article. After all, comments on here constantly demonstrate that the exact type of plastic used in the interior of a car is extremely important to some people.
In a way, I think they're using the "negatives" to provide another positive, because they're saying that the worst thing about the car is something that you wouldn't expect the car to do anyway and something that I couldn't care less about.
In a way, I think they're using the "negatives" to provide another positive, because they're saying that the worst thing about the car is something that you wouldn't expect the car to do anyway and something that I couldn't care less about.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 24th May 09:52
marcosgt said:
Perhaps they should have been more specific and said "Lower quality interior than a XYZ".
Perhaps they fear accusations of favouritism if they specify particular brands or models as segment benchmarks.
To be honest the [+] is a bit wooly too. "ONE" of the best in class? Which class? How many are better? Which ones are better? Which are worse?
Does the article make the curt summaries clearer perhaps? Perhaps its unfair to judge a whole review on a dozen words?
M
The article is brief, but ok. They cite the Focus and Mondeo. Implying it's a Focus rival (which price wise it is) but halfway between the Focus and Mondeo for space.Perhaps they fear accusations of favouritism if they specify particular brands or models as segment benchmarks.
To be honest the [+] is a bit wooly too. "ONE" of the best in class? Which class? How many are better? Which ones are better? Which are worse?
Does the article make the curt summaries clearer perhaps? Perhaps its unfair to judge a whole review on a dozen words?
M
Evo said:
MG6 1.8T TSE review
Rating:****
The MG badge returns on a Ford Focus rival, the MG6 1.8T TSE turbo hatchback. Any good?
What is it?
The return of the MG badge, the MG6 is a roomy hatchback powered by a 158bhp, turbocharged development of the old 1.8-litre K-series engine. Painted and trimmed bodies arrive from Shanghai, along with crates containing engines and gearboxes. The whole lot is assembled at Longbridge.
Technical highlights
Under the five-door body is an entirely new platform which owes nothing to recent Rovers. The rear suspension is a clever three-link design functioning as a semi-trailing arm but without the unwelcome camber changes. Inside, there's quite a sophisticated trip computer and info screen. But with prices starting at £15,495, don't expect the re-stating of any art.
What's it like to drive?
Sit in the MG6, and you have to bin all notions of conventional design subtlety and premium-class signifiers. It's a curious cabin but not without appeal, once you've assimilated the aesthetic. There's a giant padded hood over two incongruously small dials, and a slab of hard plastic set prominently above the glovebox. Yet the windscreen pillars are fabric-covered and the top-spec test car has leather seats and a carbonfibre-ish finish on the centre tunnel. Fit and finish are fair but this is clearly a cheap car to make.
A lot can be forgiven when you drive the MG6. It steers (using hydraulic assistance) with delightful feel, weight, precision and transparency, and the mix of supple springs, taut damping and progressive cornering-attitude adjustability on the throttle makes the MG6 an unusually deft, light-footed and intimate driving companion. Dynamically it's one of the best cars in its class; the engineering chief drives a Lotus Exige, and it shows.
The engine isn't so good, sometimes feeling keen but other times a bit flat under load as though the management is retarding the timing. The gearchange could be more precise, too. However, the driving position is fine and the leather-rim steering wheel is good to hold.
How does it compare?
Bigger than a Focus, smaller than a Mondeo… it's the size 'upper medium' cars used to be, and to be commended for that. The MG6 won't worry premium rivals on their terms, but as a roomy driving machine at a decent price it makes a surprisingly strong case for itself.
Anything else I need to know?
The factory is ramping production up now, and sales start on April 7. The top TSE model, with 18in wheels, costs £18,995, and a four-door saloon will follow along with that diesel.
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/265942/mg6_18t_tse_review.htmlRating:****
The MG badge returns on a Ford Focus rival, the MG6 1.8T TSE turbo hatchback. Any good?
What is it?
The return of the MG badge, the MG6 is a roomy hatchback powered by a 158bhp, turbocharged development of the old 1.8-litre K-series engine. Painted and trimmed bodies arrive from Shanghai, along with crates containing engines and gearboxes. The whole lot is assembled at Longbridge.
Technical highlights
Under the five-door body is an entirely new platform which owes nothing to recent Rovers. The rear suspension is a clever three-link design functioning as a semi-trailing arm but without the unwelcome camber changes. Inside, there's quite a sophisticated trip computer and info screen. But with prices starting at £15,495, don't expect the re-stating of any art.
What's it like to drive?
Sit in the MG6, and you have to bin all notions of conventional design subtlety and premium-class signifiers. It's a curious cabin but not without appeal, once you've assimilated the aesthetic. There's a giant padded hood over two incongruously small dials, and a slab of hard plastic set prominently above the glovebox. Yet the windscreen pillars are fabric-covered and the top-spec test car has leather seats and a carbonfibre-ish finish on the centre tunnel. Fit and finish are fair but this is clearly a cheap car to make.
A lot can be forgiven when you drive the MG6. It steers (using hydraulic assistance) with delightful feel, weight, precision and transparency, and the mix of supple springs, taut damping and progressive cornering-attitude adjustability on the throttle makes the MG6 an unusually deft, light-footed and intimate driving companion. Dynamically it's one of the best cars in its class; the engineering chief drives a Lotus Exige, and it shows.
The engine isn't so good, sometimes feeling keen but other times a bit flat under load as though the management is retarding the timing. The gearchange could be more precise, too. However, the driving position is fine and the leather-rim steering wheel is good to hold.
How does it compare?
Bigger than a Focus, smaller than a Mondeo… it's the size 'upper medium' cars used to be, and to be commended for that. The MG6 won't worry premium rivals on their terms, but as a roomy driving machine at a decent price it makes a surprisingly strong case for itself.
Anything else I need to know?
The factory is ramping production up now, and sales start on April 7. The top TSE model, with 18in wheels, costs £18,995, and a four-door saloon will follow along with that diesel.
In fairness I don't have any objections to the article itself.
Great Pretender said:
Imbecile.
They're in the second category... 
Read a bit more into it... Am I so wrong?
Ok, SPECIFIC brands/models don't apply strictly (in case that's what upset you), but EVO DOES seem to straddle the range of cars from things like Atoms and Caterhams to Cayennes and X6s...
Obviously the readers with interests at the extremes will look for different things in any car.
M.
I took it to mean nothing more than that any car in this price bracket will be a compromise and that the manufacturer of that particular car had skimped on the quality of the interior materials and instead spent the money on better than average suspension components, etc.
Conversely, I'm sure there are other cheap cars that mimic the ambiance of more premium rivals but have crude and outdated underpinnings.
Conversely, I'm sure there are other cheap cars that mimic the ambiance of more premium rivals but have crude and outdated underpinnings.
Edited by Risotto on Tuesday 24th May 10:00
kambites said:
I think it's fair enough - it's only a summary after all, I'm sure they go into more detail in the article. After all, comments on here constantly demonstrate that the exact type of plastic used in the interior of a car is extremely important to some people.
In a way, I think they're using the "negatives" to provide another positive, because they're saying that the worst thing about the car is something that you wouldn't expect the car to do anyway and something that I couldn't care less about.
I suppose. I didn't think of it quite like that. But I do see your point.In a way, I think they're using the "negatives" to provide another positive, because they're saying that the worst thing about the car is something that you wouldn't expect the car to do anyway and something that I couldn't care less about.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 24th May 09:52
yonex said:
When I saw this I knew it would be something Rover related. Why is it a big deal stating that the car is built to a price?
There is nothing wrong with saying that. I just don't see how it's a negative.If I buy a Clio I wouldn't expect it to be like a 7 Series BMW inside. Expectations on this level are set by the price and market segement.
for instance, if the car cost £28-35k, I'd have very different expectations of what I'd be getting for my money.
300bhp/ton said:
There is nothing wrong with saying that. I just don't see how it's a negative.
If I buy a Clio I wouldn't expect it to be like a 7 Series BMW inside. Expectations on this level are set by the price and market segement.
for instance, if the car cost £28-35k, I'd have very different expectations of what I'd be getting for my money.
It is a negative in the reviewers eyes in comparison to other cars at that price point. He/she obviously felt the interior of the car was fairly cheap. Some people like interiors to be more than functional.If I buy a Clio I wouldn't expect it to be like a 7 Series BMW inside. Expectations on this level are set by the price and market segement.
for instance, if the car cost £28-35k, I'd have very different expectations of what I'd be getting for my money.
yonex said:
It is a negative in the reviewers eyes in comparison to other cars at that price point. He/she obviously felt the interior of the car was fairly cheap. Some people like interiors to be more than functional.
I suspect that's what the reviewer meant, but to be fair that not what he said (unless you consider the Focus to have a "premium" interior). kambites said:
I suspect that's what the reviewer meant, but to be fair that not what he said (unless you consider the Focus to have a "premium" interior).
evo said:
Sit in the MG6, and you have to bin all notions of conventional design subtlety and premium-class signifiers. It's a curious cabin but not without appeal, once you've assimilated the aesthetic. There's a giant padded hood over two incongruously small dials, and a slab of hard plastic set prominently above the glovebox. Yet the windscreen pillars are fabric-covered and the top-spec test car has leather seats and a carbonfibre-ish finish on the centre tunnel. Fit and finish are fair but this is clearly a cheap car to make.
re: Focus, yes it looks nicer than that, feel I dont know as I haven't seen the MG thing in the flesh. I have to agree with the review, to me the manufacturer has failed to hide the cost cutting with a poor design.
They praised the dynamics though so if I had one on a list next to an Astra then it would be on the test drive list, others will probably make the same call.
marcosgt said:
I think it's an acknowledgement that EVO readers fall into two categories.
Those who drive Clio Sports and Caterhams because they love driving and those who drive Audis, BMWs and Porsches because the key rings look good in the golf club bar...
M.
Who on earth would show off because they own an Audi or a BMW Those who drive Clio Sports and Caterhams because they love driving and those who drive Audis, BMWs and Porsches because the key rings look good in the golf club bar...
M.
Aren't those just run of the mill family cars? The Next or Tesco of the automotive world?I love driving for driving's sake and have owned two Caterhams, and currently own an Elise; but like a lot of people I also have a need for a 4 seater with a big boot, a roof rack and enough comfort and quiet to cross countries. I own a BMW because of all the cars I tried that had those practical criteria it was the nicest to drive (by quite a long way actually). Anyone thinking I bought it for any other reason is, to be honest, just demonstrating that they're a badge snob. The same can apply to a Porsche owner, Audi owner or anyone else really.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff