Why are car reviews the opposite of reality?
Discussion
As a casual observation, reviews of cars in What Car, Autocar etc seem to be the opposite of reality - they seem biased towards what a car would be like to own for a year, with almost no regard to the reality of ownership over say 8 years.
For example, this week Autocar recommended a 10 year-old Volvo XC90 as the best used SUV to buy, despite it having the reliability record of a drunk teenager.
Similarly, this week Autocar reviews the best new SUV to buy and places the RR Sport 1st, X5 2nd and RR Discovery 3rd. No mention of the new Land Cruiser. Now... I could bet my house on the RR Discovery being a reliabity nightmare over 8 years with crap service but the Land Cruiser being a trouble-free.
My thought is that if you went and bought the car with the lowest score in an Autocar review you'd probably do ok. In fact I did that 10 years ago and bought a Honda Accord tourer, 2 stars on Autocar but it has now done 150,000 miles and cost £200 in repairs (alternator).
What is going on... I welcome peoples thoughts...
For example, this week Autocar recommended a 10 year-old Volvo XC90 as the best used SUV to buy, despite it having the reliability record of a drunk teenager.
Similarly, this week Autocar reviews the best new SUV to buy and places the RR Sport 1st, X5 2nd and RR Discovery 3rd. No mention of the new Land Cruiser. Now... I could bet my house on the RR Discovery being a reliabity nightmare over 8 years with crap service but the Land Cruiser being a trouble-free.
My thought is that if you went and bought the car with the lowest score in an Autocar review you'd probably do ok. In fact I did that 10 years ago and bought a Honda Accord tourer, 2 stars on Autocar but it has now done 150,000 miles and cost £200 in repairs (alternator).
What is going on... I welcome peoples thoughts...
Edited by Matt_T on Thursday 28th November 12:10
Their business depends on a constant churn of car consumption. With the rise of cheap finance in the previous decade, car media has come to rely more on people chopping and changing financed cars every couple of years. The thinking consumer who buys used and keeps the car longer aren't their actual audience.
Also if I had a constant stream of new vehicles to drive I’d probably end up liking the flashier and more luxurious ones as they stand out more than ones that just do the job and always work.
A Rangerover is likely to be nicer than a landcruiser if the reliability of the Range Rover isn’t your problem.
A Rangerover is likely to be nicer than a landcruiser if the reliability of the Range Rover isn’t your problem.
grudas said:
they're all paid by the manufacturers
Kind of that - if they make cool stuff that they desperately want to have on long term loan, or have great launch events, or spend a lot on advertising then they get good reviews.Perfect example is the launch of every single Audi A4 which will have headlines like "Audi finally catches up with the 3 series" and they'll make out it's a great car. Fast forward 7 years and the new Audi A4 has "finally caught up with the 3 series" and they'll call out the last one for driving and riding like a clown car. Rinse and repeat.
I don't pay the slightest bit of attention to the "soft" subjective reviews in the UK press now, they're as worthless as the billy bulls
t stuff What Hi-Fi turn out, written by muppets with a 3rd in English Lit and absolutely no real understanding of the product they're being paid to review. Most of them are little more than regurgitated press releases.GeniusOfLove said:
Perfect example is the launch of every single Audi A4 which will have headlines like "Audi finally catches up with the 3 series" and they'll make out it's a great car. Fast forward 7 years and the new Audi A4 has "finally caught up with the 3 series" and they'll call out the last one for driving and riding like a clown car. Rinse and repeat.
Aston reviews are the worst for this. "Cured all the problems of the old model" of which we're just hearing aboutmalaccamax said:
Aston reviews are the worst for this. "Cured all the problems of the old model" of which we're just hearing about
If anyone thinks car reviews are worth reading they should dig out the ecstatic 2004 reviews of a DB9, and then go and drive a 2004 DB9 and have a good prod and poke at it.There is a good reason they change hands for low teens at trade, and DB11 values are making the DB9 look like it did well.
Edited by GeniusOfLove on Thursday 28th November 12:03
Gericho said:
Buy what you like, not what others tell you and you'll be fine.
I totally agree, especially when the last three BMW'S I have purchased were brand new pre ordered launch models, OG M2, M240IXDRIVE and the new M2 so deposit paid even before the first reviews were announced and obviously no test drives and they all latterly had various good/bad reviews but in reality I know what to expect and have not been disappointed, I've had the same approach for many many years, I make up my own opinions rather than relying on someone else's...Gastons_Revenge said:
Their business depends on a constant churn of car consumption. With the rise of cheap finance in the previous decade, car media has come to rely more on people chopping and changing financed cars every couple of years. The thinking consumer who buys used and keeps the car longer aren't their actual audience.
This.Speed addicted said:
Also if I had a constant stream of new vehicles to drive I’d probably end up liking the flashier and more luxurious ones as they stand out more than ones that just do the job and always work.
A Rangerover is likely to be nicer than a landcruiser if the reliability of the Range Rover isn’t your problem.
And this.A Rangerover is likely to be nicer than a landcruiser if the reliability of the Range Rover isn’t your problem.
Even long-termers are rarely for more than 6m / 10k miles, so they often don't have to find out what servicing and tyres cost.
These guys drive free cars ALL the time...so they're going to prefer the ones that make them feel good, with zero regard for running costs / long-term ownership.
It's probably the only reason Land / Range Rover are still in business - the mags love them and most buyers know they're getting rid of them in 2-3 years for another one. Now that depreciation / residuals / the used car market are wise to their problems, GFVs are dropping and they're costing more per month, so it'll be interesting to see what happens.
grudas said:
they're all paid by the manufacturers
Citation?It's a myth. Reviewers can only speak about their experience whilst reviewing the car. That experience may be gleaned from driving it from half-an-hour or several months. What you're seeing in a review is a snapshot of a moment in time. If the car's wheels fall off and then bursts into flames in that moment, I'm confident the reviewer will mention it.
Whilst there may be an element of new media types choking on the balls of whichever manufacturer they're sucking up to, I don't doubt the integrity of established motoring hacks. Manufacturers may dislike a poor review, but they don't throw their toys out of the pram if it's a fair review.
I remember when the Jag XE came out and Autocar/What car were putting out road tests saying it beat the 3 Series BMW. It was the usual British magazine Jag/Land Rover bias. The reality was that the Jag shaded the BMW in one single area, which was that it had a deft RWD ride/handling balance which operated better on British B roads than the 3 which is a little too stiff on those roads. As an overall product the Jag XE was nowhere near the 3 series, being the usual overweight (compared with the comp), poorly packaged saloon with a small boot and insufficient rear seat space. Also saddled with the horrific Ingenium diesel engine in most instances, possibly the most unreliable 4 cylinder diesel engine ever produced. Hence its no surprise that BMW 3 series numbers on UK roads absolutely dwarf those of the XE. The likes of What car also always seem fairly VAG biased. Recent reliability tables have VW/Skoda/Audi all near the bottom of the table and for me they are reasonable well built, but fairly average to drive FWD cars in the main...Stuff like Toyota seems to be brilliant to own, but aside from the GR Yaris, when does a Toyota ever win a group test?!
Gericho said:
Buy what you like, not what others tell you and you'll be fine.
This. I remember really lusting after the E92 M3 years back when Chris Harris had one brand new when he worked at Autocar. I watched all his videos on it, and read about it, and he was a big fan of it at the time for sure.
However when I finally bought one myself, and I lived with it day to day, I pretty much ended up hating it in that environment for example. It wasn't all bad don't get me wrong, and on open and empty roads it was sublime, but sadly my commute didn't have empty and open roads on it though.
New car smell goes an awful long way in a review 
I've never paid much heed to car review as they are basically soundbites, offering a single snapshot of the car at one point in time - usually brand new, in a warm and dry location full of smooth roads chosen by the manufacturer. How often are they asked to test a car in the Scottish highlands in December?
I do like the long term tests, e.g. the Fleet section in Evo. At least then they have the car for 6 months or more usually, and once that novelty of the newness has worn off they can be a bit more open about warts and all. And I do find (with Evo, at least) that they can be negative at times so I don't think there's envelopes swapping hands.
I've never paid much heed to car review as they are basically soundbites, offering a single snapshot of the car at one point in time - usually brand new, in a warm and dry location full of smooth roads chosen by the manufacturer. How often are they asked to test a car in the Scottish highlands in December?
I do like the long term tests, e.g. the Fleet section in Evo. At least then they have the car for 6 months or more usually, and once that novelty of the newness has worn off they can be a bit more open about warts and all. And I do find (with Evo, at least) that they can be negative at times so I don't think there's envelopes swapping hands.
How is a car journalist supposed to know what a new model will be like over an 8-10 year ownership?
Across all cars on the road, average ownership length is apparently 5.2 years and for new car buyers (the target reader of car mags) on PCP or leases it'll often be less.
If the XC90 content is the same as online, it's some notes from the original review, some data from their own reliability survey and a chat with someone that runs an indie Volvo specialist.
As for the Land Cruiser, you can't even order one at the moment - so for someone who actually wants to buy a car it's moot.
Across all cars on the road, average ownership length is apparently 5.2 years and for new car buyers (the target reader of car mags) on PCP or leases it'll often be less.
If the XC90 content is the same as online, it's some notes from the original review, some data from their own reliability survey and a chat with someone that runs an indie Volvo specialist.
As for the Land Cruiser, you can't even order one at the moment - so for someone who actually wants to buy a car it's moot.
The buzzword bingo I like to look out for are powertrain developments which are claimed to eliminate turbo lag when compared to a previous generation. First it was twin turbos that would eliminate lag, then variable vane turbos, then BMW did some little and large turbos, now we are at electrically driven turbos, every development of which claimed to eliminate lag compared to before…
That and reviews which claim that an EV would have much more range if it weighed less. I don’t expect car reviews to be detailed technical analysis, but getting the basics right of how a powertrain works in the real world would be nice
That and reviews which claim that an EV would have much more range if it weighed less. I don’t expect car reviews to be detailed technical analysis, but getting the basics right of how a powertrain works in the real world would be nice
carguy45 said:
New car smell goes an awful long way in a review
I've never paid much heed to car review as they are basically soundbites, offering a single snapshot of the car at one point in time - usually brand new, in a warm and dry location full of smooth roads chosen by the manufacturer. How often are they asked to test a car in the Scottish highlands in December?
I do like the long term tests, e.g. the Fleet section in Evo. At least then they have the car for 6 months or more usually, and once that novelty of the newness has worn off they can be a bit more open about warts and all. And I do find (with Evo, at least) that they can be negative at times so I don't think there's envelopes swapping hands.
I think I stopped bothering listening to even EVO on their long term tests when I read some utter dribbler of a journalist criticising the roof on his SLK350 that jammed and he disagreed when Mercedes Benz told him this was because he'd put a bit of cloth in the mechanism because he thought it was rattling.I've never paid much heed to car review as they are basically soundbites, offering a single snapshot of the car at one point in time - usually brand new, in a warm and dry location full of smooth roads chosen by the manufacturer. How often are they asked to test a car in the Scottish highlands in December?
I do like the long term tests, e.g. the Fleet section in Evo. At least then they have the car for 6 months or more usually, and once that novelty of the newness has worn off they can be a bit more open about warts and all. And I do find (with Evo, at least) that they can be negative at times so I don't think there's envelopes swapping hands.
Nobody stupid enough to look at a folding hard top mechanism and think putting a rag in it is a good idea should be listened to about anything. Literally anything. If he told me the sea was wet I'd want to go and put a foot in it to be sure.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff