Journalistic car reviews nonsense/lies
Discussion
Does anyone have specific examples of the common "lies" (white or otherwise) that motoring journos and so-called-experts say over the years.
I'm talking about things like when they say "The mark 2 Super Fandango X is great, you simply cannot detect the turbo lag" only for 5/10 years down the line when it's replacement comes and the review is "The mark 3 Super Fandango X is great, it removed the turbo lag that its predecessor suffered from". Then move forward a few years and the same thing about the mark 4 resolving all the (unmentioned at the time) flaws of the mark 3 etc.
I am not talking about turbo lag in particular, it's all sorts of things such as "Car X suffered simply no under/oversteer, just corners like on rails" then later on "Car Y is better than car X as it removes the tendency to under/oversteer that Car X always suffered from".
Obviously, cars get better over time and move the game along but I'm referring to "absolutes" rather than improvements. i.e. no turbo lag means exactly that, it means the same thing 10 years ago as it does now.
And then there's the stories of old cars that were great, a genuine classic etc., however peruse the reviews of the time and those cars were average or losers in the group tests, not liked by that very same journo/mag etc. They've become "cool" and some "hip" journos don't want to miss out on the bandwagon.
Also, the stories about how a car has great ride quality (or build, or handling, or performance etc.) yet its the very thing that you hear (anecdotally or on here etc.) about how that car is OK, however the ride quality is poor (or dodgy handling etc.). A common example is "you simply wouldn't know its a diesel" yet when trying one it's obvious that its a diesel.
Some stories seem to go full circle. The 205 GTi for example, started with "great handling hot hatch for the masses" to (a few years later), "an old style hot-hatch that will kill you if you push it and don't know what you are doing" back to "best hot hatch ever etc." but those exact qualities that made it (and others) great is exactly what makes modern equivalents with those traits classified as rubbish (or dangerous etc.).
Also great would be examples of the opposite, journos who have been consistent even to the denigration of their peers but turned out to be right after all these years. The one that pointed out that the Super Fandango mark 2 did indeed suffer turbo lag but no-one listened as the Super Fandano mark 2 was the "in car" that no-one could/would criticise.
I'm talking about things like when they say "The mark 2 Super Fandango X is great, you simply cannot detect the turbo lag" only for 5/10 years down the line when it's replacement comes and the review is "The mark 3 Super Fandango X is great, it removed the turbo lag that its predecessor suffered from". Then move forward a few years and the same thing about the mark 4 resolving all the (unmentioned at the time) flaws of the mark 3 etc.
I am not talking about turbo lag in particular, it's all sorts of things such as "Car X suffered simply no under/oversteer, just corners like on rails" then later on "Car Y is better than car X as it removes the tendency to under/oversteer that Car X always suffered from".
Obviously, cars get better over time and move the game along but I'm referring to "absolutes" rather than improvements. i.e. no turbo lag means exactly that, it means the same thing 10 years ago as it does now.
And then there's the stories of old cars that were great, a genuine classic etc., however peruse the reviews of the time and those cars were average or losers in the group tests, not liked by that very same journo/mag etc. They've become "cool" and some "hip" journos don't want to miss out on the bandwagon.
Also, the stories about how a car has great ride quality (or build, or handling, or performance etc.) yet its the very thing that you hear (anecdotally or on here etc.) about how that car is OK, however the ride quality is poor (or dodgy handling etc.). A common example is "you simply wouldn't know its a diesel" yet when trying one it's obvious that its a diesel.
Some stories seem to go full circle. The 205 GTi for example, started with "great handling hot hatch for the masses" to (a few years later), "an old style hot-hatch that will kill you if you push it and don't know what you are doing" back to "best hot hatch ever etc." but those exact qualities that made it (and others) great is exactly what makes modern equivalents with those traits classified as rubbish (or dangerous etc.).
Also great would be examples of the opposite, journos who have been consistent even to the denigration of their peers but turned out to be right after all these years. The one that pointed out that the Super Fandango mark 2 did indeed suffer turbo lag but no-one listened as the Super Fandano mark 2 was the "in car" that no-one could/would criticise.
ks that motor journalism. Sometimes variability of the test cars comes into it - Octavia Vrs, Focus RS mk1, Golf VR6 etc etc
Then the personal preference of road tester(s) involved. A lot of the old Autocar group tests used to have a 'Counterpoint' section at the end where one of the road testers involved didn't agree with the majority verdict
Then the personal preference of road tester(s) involved. A lot of the old Autocar group tests used to have a 'Counterpoint' section at the end where one of the road testers involved didn't agree with the majority verdict
The turbo lag example is one that's particularly close to my heart, but the journalists can only really review things compared to the competition at the time that the review is written. To continue with the example, when a journalist says "you can barely detect the turbo lag" it's actually hyperbole for "it's got marginally less lag than its competition"; by the time the next model comes out, the previous one is worse than all the competition so it's perceived to have lots of lag then the new one is miraculously slightly better and hence "you can barely detect the turbo lag".
Personally, I wish they'd use more actual measurements when reviewing cars. Obviously the subjective element is important, but an enormous number of factors of how a car drives can be objectively measured. I suspect most people would rather just read the hyperbole, though, so I don't think my wish is likely to be granted.
Personally, I wish they'd use more actual measurements when reviewing cars. Obviously the subjective element is important, but an enormous number of factors of how a car drives can be objectively measured. I suspect most people would rather just read the hyperbole, though, so I don't think my wish is likely to be granted.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 15th July 08:31
kambites said:
The turbo lag example is one that's particularly close to my heart, but the journalists can only really review things compared to the competition at the time that the review is written. To continue with the example, when a journalist says "you can barely detect the turbo lag" it's actually hyperbole for "it's got marginally less lag than its competition"; by the time the next model comes out, the previous one is worse than all the competition so it's perceived to have lots of lag then the new one is miraculously slightly better and hence "you can barely detect the turbo lag".
Having printed time-to-torque figures plotted out in a car test at a couple of different speeds would probably prove quite telling in a group test, particularly if they are all turbocharged.zeppelin101 said:
Having printed time-to-torque figures plotted out in a car test at a couple of different speeds would probably prove quite telling in a group test, particularly if they are all turbocharged.
Indeed. And I assume it should be easy enough to achieve with a rolling road (can all rolling roads drive the wheels as well as braking them?). You'd just have to get the rolling road to spin the engine up to the rpm at which peak power is generated, then slam the throttle open and measure how long it takes to actually hit peak power. It also hugely depends on which car you have driven previously. A few years ago I loved my Fiat coupe 20vt, but after spending a holiday in an E92 M3 it felt really old and weird.
I had a parttime job at a car rental company when I was a student and drove pretty much all vw,opel,audi,ford and volvo models of the time. Some cars were so bad you wonder why people would want to drive them, but if you had no other reference maybe they are acceptable. One I remember was a brand new Daewoo Lanos. Not only did it smell horrible (new cars should smell lovely!) but never had to work so hard to keep a keep going straight on the motorway. Yet they sold quite a few of them.
I had a parttime job at a car rental company when I was a student and drove pretty much all vw,opel,audi,ford and volvo models of the time. Some cars were so bad you wonder why people would want to drive them, but if you had no other reference maybe they are acceptable. One I remember was a brand new Daewoo Lanos. Not only did it smell horrible (new cars should smell lovely!) but never had to work so hard to keep a keep going straight on the motorway. Yet they sold quite a few of them.
Jurgen said:
It also hugely depends on which car you have driven previously.
True, but surely one of the most important skills that a motoring journalist should have is the ability to avoid that short-term "expectation conditioning". I certainly couldn't do it, but then I'm not paid to review cars. 
The normal E46 3 Series (and possibly later versions too) was a "great handler". In my experience, it was no better than some of the non-premium, fwd alternatives and you were hard-pushed to tell which end was driven, unless seriously provoked on a low grip surface.
Edited by MC Bodge on Tuesday 15th July 08:56
MC Bodge said:
The normal E46 3 Series (and possibly later versions too) was a great handler. In my experience, it was no better than some of the non-premium, fwd alternatives.
This ties in with the myth that cars with rear wheel drive handle better than front wheel drive - you only have to look at any 80s car review to know that this is total toss (or drive a first gen 1 series).Factual errors.
Like refering to a car's requirement, or not, to pay 'Road Tax' Yes, that means you Zog Ziegler of BBC Gloucester.
Or Top Gear Magazine on the VW Amarok being able to climb a 50% slope fully laden. Top Gear journo then states that this equals 45º; no it doesn't, it's 26º.
Like refering to a car's requirement, or not, to pay 'Road Tax' Yes, that means you Zog Ziegler of BBC Gloucester.
Or Top Gear Magazine on the VW Amarok being able to climb a 50% slope fully laden. Top Gear journo then states that this equals 45º; no it doesn't, it's 26º.
kambites said:
The turbo lag example is one that's particularly close to my heart, but the journalists can only really review things compared to the competition at the time that the review is written. To continue with the example, when a journalist says "you can barely detect the turbo lag" it's actually hyperbole for "it's got marginally less lag than its competition"; by the time the next model comes out, the previous one is worse than all the competition so it's perceived to have lots of lag then the new one is miraculously slightly better and hence "you can barely detect the turbo lag".
Personally, I wish they'd use more actual measurements when reviewing cars. Obviously the subjective element is important, but an enormous number of factors of how a car drives can be objectively measured. I suspect most people would rather just read the hyperbole, though, so I don't think my wish is likely to be granted.
Like the US? Whereby they actually measure, themselves, a slalom time, cornering g, 1/4 mile, braking distances etc.? It would be nice if they were a bit more thorough and actually could measure some of the stats the manufacturers tell them about a car.Personally, I wish they'd use more actual measurements when reviewing cars. Obviously the subjective element is important, but an enormous number of factors of how a car drives can be objectively measured. I suspect most people would rather just read the hyperbole, though, so I don't think my wish is likely to be granted.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 15th July 08:31
A fine case in point, my Monaro. That is listed, by innumerate sources, official and otherwise, as having a kerb weight of 1677kg. Kerb weight is defined as full of fluids (including fuel) and 75kg for a driver.
Mine was weighed in at 1,682kg. But that was with a full tank (probably few litres under, I had to drive it there...), no driver at all, and over 50kg removed from the car (I've weighed the bits)... So 1677 is clearly nonsense, or at very least, not including the 75kg (as BMW often do too).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff