Sychophantic (and biased) motoring media?

[williamp]

SidewaysSi said:

s m said:

highway said:

In 1995 you couldn't find a Clio Williams to test. I ordered one based on the reviews. These included statements inferring you could live with a Ferrari 512 over a B road. The Williams was, all that plus a bag of chips. I sold my (then mint) 1.9 Gti to pay for my Williams 3.

I know you shouldn't compare new with used but I thought it was a MASSIVE sideways step. It wasn't faster than the 1.9 or better in any noticeable way. It certainly didn't feel worth the extra £7k I parted with over the value of the 205.

This was the era where a few years earlier the Fiat Tipo 16v was rated as the best hot hatch you could buy according to many motoring mags. When was the last time you read a thread on PH regarding anyone wanting one of those?

The magazines are fickle. Autocar and Evo have history of giving rave 'first drive' stories,only for the same cars to finish poorly,in group tests later on. Large pinch of salt. I'd never buy based on reviews again.

Very true, people tend to have selective memories regarding car reviews

I remember it-it got good reviews but was never class leading I don't think. Much like the Renault 19 etc.

I genuinely can't think of any examples where there has been a significant change in press reviews over time.

Performance car magazine at the time said the tipo was better then the golf gti which, in mk3 guise wasn't very good at all. If the gold was branded as a 2 litre gl rather then the gti, then fair enough...

fast forward a few issues and the headline ran: Has the Golf GTI finally lost its crown?? (despite never regaining it lots of times before). I think the Golf GTI lost is crown hundreds of times, despite never really having it!!

And don't forget sniffpetrol from the summer:

"...How to write a car blog

So you’ve set up a car blog, you’ve given it a feeble, clichéd name that’s some sort of piss-weak pun or soggily macho reference to power, you’ve written a sub-header that claims you take a sideways glance at motoring whatever the frig you think that means, and you’ve somehow persuaded a couple of manufacturers to lend you press cars. Now all you need to do is write a road test. Here’s how to do it:

Start with a grand, sweeping and self-regarding statement about your life and/or share one of your half-baked opinions as if the reader gives a flying st about either.

Make a clunky link into the car itself, followed by an excessively detailed paragraph about its market positioning and aims which you’ve copied almost verbatim from the press pack.

Give your opinion on the exterior styling by saying it’s ‘smart’ and then move onto the interior, remembering to say it is ‘well laid out’ as if describing the table at a formal dinner.

Regurgitate all the numbers from the back of the press pack without bothering to convert nm to lb ft and then move into an assessment of straight line performance, always noting that it is ‘more than adequate’ and making some reference to ‘licence losing speeds’ so as to knowingly imply that at some point you bravely took it up to 84 on a motorway. Remember when talking about this aspect to use the phrase ‘mile muncher’ in a horribly self-satisfied way that makes it seem like you’re the first person to think of this phrase.

Move on to an assessment of the handling, making full use of tedious clichés like ‘the twisties’ and describing the level of grip via some sort of cloying, sub-Clarkson analogy. Proudly analyse the handling balance as if you are Jackie Stewart tearing it around Spa and not just a ham-fisted clit who circled a local roundabout four times until there was understeer.

Oh, and don’t forget to make pompous reference to ‘the [insert name of website] test route’ as if this is an official and internationally recognised thing and not, as is actually the case, some roads near your house.

At this point you should make a tiny, tiny criticism of some small aspect of the car to show that you’re hard hitting. And then follow it with quick acceptance that actually this microscopic flaw isn’t really an issue. Oh God, oh God, oh God, please don’t stop lending me free cars.

Wrap things up with a lazy, soft lob conclusion in which you decide the car is class leading or at least as good as some other cars of about the same size, though of course these are also good as well because all cars are good, especially when they’re arriving at your house for a week with a full tank of fuel. Don’t worry that this model has been on sale for three years and no one is interested in any of the milky and unimaginative things you have to say about it.

Before you publish your test, don’t forget to write an ‘about’ page in which you describe yourself as ‘opinionated’ or ‘outspoken’, completely ignoring that anyone who describes themselves as such almost certainly isn’t.

And that’s it! You can now tell people you are a motoring journalist and they will nod and smile as if being introduced to Woodward & Bernstein rather than, as is actually the case, a feckless tit who just wants free cars to drive around in and is offering little to no entertainment or informational value and wouldn’t know an original thought if it came on the free branded USB stick.

Best of luck!



Next blog > Your achingly self-conscious opinions on speed cameras, like it’s 2001 all over again.

[SidewaysSi]

williamp said:

SidewaysSi said:

s m said:

highway said:

In 1995 you couldn't find a Clio Williams to test. I ordered one based on the reviews. These included statements inferring you could live with a Ferrari 512 over a B road. The Williams was, all that plus a bag of chips. I sold my (then mint) 1.9 Gti to pay for my Williams 3.

I know you shouldn't compare new with used but I thought it was a MASSIVE sideways step. It wasn't faster than the 1.9 or better in any noticeable way. It certainly didn't feel worth the extra £7k I parted with over the value of the 205.

This was the era where a few years earlier the Fiat Tipo 16v was rated as the best hot hatch you could buy according to many motoring mags. When was the last time you read a thread on PH regarding anyone wanting one of those?

The magazines are fickle. Autocar and Evo have history of giving rave 'first drive' stories,only for the same cars to finish poorly,in group tests later on. Large pinch of salt. I'd never buy based on reviews again.

Very true, people tend to have selective memories regarding car reviews

I remember it-it got good reviews but was never class leading I don't think. Much like the Renault 19 etc.

I genuinely can't think of any examples where there has been a significant change in press reviews over time.

Performance car magazine at the time said the tipo was better then the golf gti which, in mk3 guise wasn't very good at all. If the gold was branded as a 2 litre gl rather then the gti, then fair enough...

fast forward a few issues and the headline ran: Has the Golf GTI finally lost its crown?? (despite never regaining it lots of times before). I think the Golf GTI lost is crown hundreds of times, despite never really having it!!

If that's the only example, I am not bothered. A headling on a front cover of a magazine does sell and the Golf is probably the original hot hatch etc.

If they said the Tipo beats the Golf then later reversed this, it is more of an issue.

As I said, I can't think of an instance. Possibly the Focus RS MK1 but they seem to vary in quality and I belive owners have tweaked them so that doesn't count.

[s m]

SidewaysSi said:

s m said:

highway said:

In 1995 you couldn't find a Clio Williams to test. I ordered one based on the reviews. These included statements inferring you could live with a Ferrari 512 over a B road. The Williams was, all that plus a bag of chips. I sold my (then mint) 1.9 Gti to pay for my Williams 3.

I know you shouldn't compare new with used but I thought it was a MASSIVE sideways step. It wasn't faster than the 1.9 or better in any noticeable way. It certainly didn't feel worth the extra £7k I parted with over the value of the 205.

This was the era where a few years earlier the Fiat Tipo 16v was rated as the best hot hatch you could buy according to many motoring mags. When was the last time you read a thread on PH regarding anyone wanting one of those?

The magazines are fickle. Autocar and Evo have history of giving rave 'first drive' stories,only for the same cars to finish poorly,in group tests later on. Large pinch of salt. I'd never buy based on reviews again.

Very true, people tend to have selective memories regarding car reviews

I remember it-it got good reviews but was never class leading I don't think. Much like the Renault 19 etc.

I genuinely can't think of any examples where there has been a significant change in press reviews over time.

I think that illustrates the point quite well - The Tipo was in the bigger hot hatch class, stuff like the Golf Gti 16v, Escort RS2000, Astra Gsi, Civic VTi, Renault 19 16V, Sunny Gti, Rover 220Gti.

Pretty much any hot hatch group test for that class it was in, it took the overall decision

Autocar put it up against the RS2000, Astra GSi, and Civic VTi


Tipo got the nod








Fast Lane magazine had it against the 220Gti, Escort Rs2000, Civic Vti and Astra GSi


Tipo won







PERFORMANCE CAR had a big group test with all the top runners in


Tipo won








CAR magazine did a group test twice - first time up against some weaker contenders



Tipo won










CAR magazine did it again with the Tipo 16V and the rest of the class front-runners

Tipo won











I can't honestly think of any group tests it didn't win.

Top Gear magazine hadn't started.
Motor had merged with Autocar some years before

[s m]

highway said:

In 1995 you couldn't find a Clio Williams to test. I ordered one based on the reviews. These included statements inferring you could live with a Ferrari 512 over a B road. The Williams was, all that plus a bag of chips. I sold my (then mint) 1.9 Gti to pay for my Williams 3.

I know you shouldn't compare new with used but I thought it was a MASSIVE sideways step. It wasn't faster than the 1.9 or better in any noticeable way. It certainly didn't feel worth the extra £7k I parted with over the value of the 205.

Interesting point highway. My friends had the 1.9 205s and one of them ( having owned 2 205 1.9s from ) took the plunge on a Clio Williams. I had the 309 as, after test driving both the 205 and 309, I preferred the drive of the 309.






I was a bit disappointed in the Clio as well, it seemed as you say to be no great step forward over the 205/309.

[Diablo85]

Great thread!

Let's take a look at a more recent 'controversial' group test.

Auto Express conducted a head to head to find out which one of these three was the best exec:

+ Audi A4
+ Jaguar XE
+ BMW 3 Series

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am3RWu94bh4

The conclusion doesn't feel justified enough (rigged?) ...as seen by the number of dislikes and comments from viewers.

Also,

1. What the f**k is she wearing?
2. Why does it feel like no one could be arsed?
3. Why do we keep hearing someone taking a piss in a metal bucket?

Edited by Diablo85 on Sunday 24th January 17:05

[highway]

I'm a a big Lotus fan. Had 5, bought them all new. The first was the best. An early 1998 car with the fantastic MMC brakes. It also had quite an aggressive geo which was standard from the factory at the time. I don't think there was ever an admission but the other two S1's I had came with much more under steer dialled in. Anyway, fantastic little cars. However, Autocar proclaimed at the time that the Elise had, I quote, "a saloon car ride".

Even against some of the more lumpen saloons of the period (late 90's) you would need to be bonkers to think an Elise possessed ride quality even vaguely comparable to a mediocre saloon car.

I remember reading those mag articles about the Tipo. A hateful looking thing from an era where Fiat service and quality was vaguely shocking
The Renault 21 Turbo another hero car for the magazines then with many reckoning it superior to a Sapphire Cosworth. I think Renault had lots marketing budget back then.

Last one I'm certain about was the 993 RS. Absolutely rubbished at the time. They all love it 20 years on....fickle.

[SidewaysSi]

highway said:

I'm a a big Lotus fan. Had 5, bought them all new. The first was the best. An early 1998 car with the fantastic MMC brakes. It also had quite an aggressive geo which was standard from the factory at the time. I don't think there was ever an admission but the other two S1's I had came with much more under steer dialled in. Anyway, fantastic little cars. However, Autocar proclaimed at the time that the Elise had, I quote, "a saloon car ride".

Even against some of the more lumpen saloons of the period (late 90's) you would need to be bonkers to think an Elise possessed ride quality even vaguely comparable to a mediocre saloon car.

I remember reading those mag articles about the Tipo. A hateful looking thing from an era where Fiat service and quality was vaguely shocking
The Renault 21 Turbo another hero car for the magazines then with many reckoning it superior to a Sapphire Cosworth. I think Renault had lots marketing budget back then.

Last one I'm certain about was the 993 RS. Absolutely rubbished at the time. They all love it 20 years on....fickle.

I think saloon car ride may be optimistic (but that is subjective) but they haven't changed their views on the Elise years later. Likewise, I have not seem anything recent about the 21 Turbo, but how many still exist to be able to conclude on its abilities in the 21st century?

As for the 993RS, I remember magazines raving about it then. Sutcliffe drove one around Europe, visiting many major tracks and loved it. I don't think "rubbished it" is entirely accurate.

[s m]

highway said:

I'm a a big Lotus fan. Had 5, bought them all new. The first was the best. An early 1998 car with the fantastic MMC brakes. It also had quite an aggressive geo which was standard from the factory at the time. I don't think there was ever an admission but the other two S1's I had came with much more under steer dialled in. Anyway, fantastic little cars. However, Autocar proclaimed at the time that the Elise had, I quote, "a saloon car ride".

Even against some of the more lumpen saloons of the period (late 90's) you would need to be bonkers to think an Elise possessed ride quality even vaguely comparable to a mediocre saloon car.

I remember reading those mag articles about the Tipo. A hateful looking thing from an era where Fiat service and quality was vaguely shocking
The Renault 21 Turbo another hero car for the magazines then with many reckoning it superior to a Sapphire Cosworth. I think Renault had lots marketing budget back then.

Last one I'm certain about was the 993 RS. Absolutely rubbished at the time. They all love it 20 years on....fickle.

I remember the 964 RS getting quite a slating for being too stiff and unyielding as a road car ( except from one of the Performance Car testers ). Don't recall the 993 RS articles.


The Renault 21 Turbo did get some great reviews, notably in Performance Car mag.

They were excellent handling though, I'd agree with that from personal experience

[Mound Dawg]

zeDuffMan said:

The mags that focus on sports cars and higher end machinery worry that if they give a negative review, they won't be invited to the next press event.

It's only when a car's successor comes along that you begin to learn about the flaws of the previous generation.

I've often thought this when reading reviews of new model 911s. You usually get something like "the front end doesn't bobble around like the old on did" and "that annoying weight transfer under braking is gone".

Go back to road tests of the outgoing model and...

Nothing. It was a paragon. Unlike the outgoing one of course which was riddled with faults.

Every Golf has been described over the years as much improved over the previous one including the (now much derided) Mk 4. Which only became derided when the 5 appeared.

[highway]

The 993 RS was definitely not considered a hero car on launch by the UK motoring press. The 964RS was slated for being too hard and too stiff for UK roads. I still have the mags somewhere Im sure.

[KarlMac]

There only saying nice things because if they don't then they wont get invited back again. The journos need the manufacturers more than the other way around.

Only opinion worth considering is cold, hard data when supplied by Autocar/Motortrend etc...

[coppice]

Generalisations don't apply to this topic- the truth is that it depends on the medium as much as the journalist. A local paper motoring columnist will almost invariably produce some anodyne text, often recycling press release text verbatim , and his copy will often appear next to some advertising from the local dealership. I wouldn't characterise that sort of prose as sycophantic , but it will praise more than condemn and will pull even a gentle punch of criticism - and anybody who expresses surprise at this is being disingenuous.

The specialist motoring press often attracts some kneejerk criticism - but I suspect that's often because it makes the person doing the criticism feel rather more self important about their own judgement than their actual experience might justify . Of course there have been some stinkers but there have been some wonderful journalists too who aren't afraid to say what they mean even if it means jeopardising the magazine's relationship with a manufacturer . Car was the obvious example - journalists of the calibre of Green ,Bell , Cropley and Bulgin said what they thought. Autocar too pulls few punches(although it pulled many in the 60s and before ) - look at the mauling they (and others) gave to the Mk 4 Escort which contributed to Ford realising they had to up their game .

I am no great fan of Evo but I do not doubt the objectivity of nearly all they say - to suggest dark forces at work because Porsches attract such praise is to ignore the fact that perhaps Porsche just make really good cars .Similarly, Andrew Frankel (who is near ubiquitous ) does not seem remotely inhibited from givng poor cars a kicking in print.

Bias? I don't think so- but as so much evaluation of a car goes far beyond objective figures and well into subjective personal opinion it's inevitable that one's own likes and dislikes will creep into an account of car's good and bad qualities.

[s m]

highway said:

I remember reading those mag articles about the Tipo. A hateful looking thing from an era where Fiat service and quality was vaguely shocking
.

They were quite boxy but by all accounts a very good handling hot hatch

Rarely see a Sedicivalvole now

[havoc]

s m said:

I remember the 964 RS getting quite a slating for being too stiff and unyielding as a road car ( except from one of the Performance Car testers ).

And compared to a lot of modern performance metal they're supposed to be comparable in ride/stiffness. Times move on, perceptions move on.

I'd agree with an earlier poster about JLR - they definitely seem to be the darlings of the UK media right now, despite consistently 'underestimating' kerb weight and despite not really offering anything that the competition don't (Jag, certainly...LR/RR are a slightly different prospect). The market seems to be voting with its' feet though vs Jag - can't remember when a Jag last hit forecast sales volumes.

As for the OP - the trouble is that almost all modern cars are actually pretty decent - it's become hard to pick genuine faults. So you need to read the group tests and (as others have said), somewhat read between the lines.

[RB Will]

GreenArrow said:

So all the reviews of the new 911 Carrera are gushing with praise

Top gear mag review was fairly meh and the journo said he preffered the old model.

In general I think most journos dont have a clue and will just rewrite the press pack or what they have been told about the car.
Some journos are vastly experienced and some are racers so have a bit more idea.

I remember a story Clarkson told about Tiff Needell, he went off to the press launch for something got given the manufacturer spiel and press pack, got wined and dined then the afternoon was spent driving the cars on track. All the journos were driving like lemons, except Tiff who actually knew what he was doing and could evaluate a car.
The reviews all came out in their various publications giving glowing reviews talking about an amazing chassis and how they were drifting about etc and nearly word for wording the press pack.
Tiff had his review as the car was pretty average and handled like a wobbly understeering mess.
(words not 100% accurate but sentiment is correct)

I would actually love to spend some time with some journos and see how they road test cars. I have always wondered how they have managed to gauge how cars are on limit etc on the road as doing so would require extreme talent/ commitment and some screws loose. It takes some particularly irresponsible behavior to get near a normal cars limits on the road let alone anything special

[s m]

highway said:

Last one I'm certain about was the 993 RS. Absolutely rubbished at the time. They all love it 20 years on....fickle.

Had a quick look back at the Autocar mentions. They had it on 2 consecutive Annual Handling Days - the second time they certainly seemed to like it less at the second one

[RumbleOfThunder]

twoblacklines said:

SidewaysSi said:

Steering feel, chassis balance, agility, body control, oversteer etc.

I don't want this to be another Audi bashing thread as certain people like that sort of thing but in general they offer very little for the keen driver.

Again more BS.

Mostly people compare a sub 3 month chassis age car to a 10 year old chassis car and then base their reviews on that.

Chris Harris compared an Rs3 to an m135i...the rs3 based on a car that came out in 2003 and the bmw that came out in 2012 and then wonders why the bmw feels better?

I see the same when mclaren fanboys sit there mouthing off about ferraris they have never driven. They always compare the 675lt to the 458 when the 488 is more of a direct comparison.

Are you a bit fking slow? While those 135i and S3 were both are on sale, why shouldn't they be compared?! Just be honest, you're a sour Audi owner who doesn't like BMW's because they are invariably better received by motoring publications. What's more plausible, they're all in BMW's pocket, or they happen to prefer them based on merit?

twoblacklines said:

Stickyfinger said:

Audi A3 2ltD waves willy at Ford Fiesta driver....what has the world come to ?

yeah not much difference between a 2007 audi and a 1996 fiesta 1.2 is there

OOOH well why didn't you say it was on 07? . Please tell me it's in the imagine trim as well . I'm not into willy waving (a losing game on here anyway), but if you think you can lord it over anyone while you have one of the most insipid vehicle's on UK roads, you can get real.

[twoblacklines]

themanwithnoname said:

If it helps chap, I've a story for you, apologies it's longer than intended.

Nearly a year ago I started a hunt for a 'fun' car. I'd been tractoring about for 3 years in a BMW 120d up and down the country, a change of job meant that I was going to be commuting locally and that meant I no longer had a diesel requirement. However, the reason the 120d is important to this story - it was everything a car you spend a lot of time in should be - reliable, comfortable, quiet, good feedback, that kind of thing - and I'll admit, come the weekend, I did enjoy flinging it round a corner from time to time - bloody great chassis, boring engine, what can I say.

Anyway, I had a short list of criteria in the following order:

Fun
Quick
Reasonably practical
Able to return 25mpg if required.

Now. I have a deep seated problem. I like estate cars, just can't get enough of them. It left me with a purchasing quandary, you guessed it, who makes fun, quick estates?

Obviously I took out another BMW with a big petrol engine (I was bored of the same old dash and whatnot), didn't fancy a Merc, toyed with the idea of a ZT260, then sobered up, you know the drill.

Anyway, a few years back I'd given an S3 a go, and found it lacking, but recalled it was quite nice inside, so I looked up what I could afford in an S6 - what's not to like? A revvy V8, reasonably handsome looking, plenty of equipment, 340ish bhp, awd, suportive comfy seats. There were a couple locally, so out we went on a few roads I know quite well, the sales chap quite happy for me to have a play and whatnot, and do you know what I found?

A heavy, dead feeling, surprisingly unsprightly feeling, lump of a car. Don't get me wrong, the numbers on the dash told me that things were happening, likewise the scenery going past quicker etc. but it felt dead, numb, remote, over thereish. I was actually disappointed, as on the forecourt, it did all the right things. So much so, I tried another, which also felt the same. So, I surmised that unless I'd managed to find two very tidy but broken ones, this was not the car for me.

Also had a quick go in an RS6 of the same kind of age. Once again all the right things were on the sales card and on the badges - V8, Turbos, lots of equipment etc etc. and the look of it, with its arches all bulgy and winking at me, made the right noises, oooh I was looking forward to it. However come test drive, lots of numbers on the dash, blurry scenery, very impressive sweep of the needle, but once again, cold, dead, numb and lacking any real feedback. There I was hoping for the experience to be great as the car ticked all the boxes, but it was not to be.

Anyway, my search went on, and after much headscratching, research and investigation went for something with 10 less horsepower, and nearly 500kg less weight, a lot less errm, refined, and an immeasurable amount more fun.

My overall point being, despite the press singing their praises, despite the roads being awash with them, all of the Audis I've had the chance to drive have been to me, a bit of a dull, dynamically lacking, numb experience. No tingle, no fizz, not one single bit of hyperbole to exclaim. Very good cars no doubt, but not for me, not an enthusiasts choice.

So given the choice between an R8 and something equivalent - I'll take the equivalent, having never driven the R8, but liking the idea of the V10 variant - perhaps I'd give an older Gallardo a go, or maybe because I'm wired that way, something a bit rawer and more analogue feeling, not that I know what a Gallardo feels like, but something angry and aggressive, something you wouldn't introduce to your mum.

For the OP - yes, the media will always suck up to the marketing teams with the best junkets. Do your own research, and don't believe most of the stuff you read, and that goes double for anything someone is paid to write, on a junket on the manufacturers' dime.

So your criteria is

Fun
Quick
Reasonably practical
Able to return 25mpg if required

And so your idea of that is a big v8 saloon...which you then compare to "something with 10hp less and 500kg less" (which you won't tell us what it is...) and on that basis you automatically choose all non-audis in the future?

Do you realise how moronic that is?

That is like me having the criteria of

Fun
Quick
Reasonably practical
Able to return 25mpg if required

Test driving a bmw 750iL, deciding it is not fun and chuckable and therefore never buying a BMW, ever.

[s m]

havoc said:

s m said:

I remember the 964 RS getting quite a slating for being too stiff and unyielding as a road car ( except from one of the Performance Car testers ).

And compared to a lot of modern performance metal they're supposed to be comparable in ride/stiffness. Times move on, perceptions move on.

Oh yes, those comments re the 964RS will have been made as judged against its contemporaries


Drive a few 80s sports saloons against a modern one and they feel softly sprung in comparison

[twoblacklines]

RumbleOfThunder said:

OOOH well why didn't you say it was on 07? . Please tell me it's in the imagine trim as well . I'm not into willy waving (a losing game on here anyway), but if you think you can lord it over anyone while you have one of the most insipid vehicle's on UK roads, you can get real.

If BMW were SO MUCH better than all audis then I would own one.

Wait, my last car was a BMW too.