Why Auto Express is rubbish

[the pits]

I've always thought of it as a bit of a pikey version of Autocar but this week's article on the Sagaris has confirmed it once and for all. Auto Express is pants.

The car looks great in blue but the review is very thin - it gets a measly four short columns in total.

But shockingly its full of errors about the car and just comes across as written by someone who doesn't know anything about cars and doesn't care much either.

It's full of contradictions: 'The ride is firm, but still forgiving' is followed later by 'the ride can sometimes be jarring'. Worse though is: 'the led lighting used to illuminate the major controls is dazzling at night.' ...er... doesn't muggins realize that you can dim the led's? There's more 'the throttle needs to bu used carefully to get the best from the engine.' What? And: 'Raw and unpolished, the car isn't as advanced as the tuscan 2'

Utter cock!

This rubbish was written by some caravan towing volvo driver at best.

[plfrench]

I used to subscribe to Auto Express about 10 years ago, but since came to my senses realising that it was not worth spending my money on. I now subscribe to Autocar and Evo, both are quality publications which seem to make a lot of sense. CAR is awful too IMHO.

Paul.

[targarama]

plfrench said:

I used to subscribe to Auto Express about 10 years ago, but since came to my senses realising that it was not worth spending my money on. I now subscribe to Autocar and Evo, both are quality publications which seem to make a lot of sense. CAR is awful too IMHO. Paul.

I agree about Car, and their layout is stil lawful (hard to read text on dodgy background colours), but in recent months they seem to have improved and seem to be moving back towards being an enthusiasts mag as opposed to a more colourful version of What Car.

I only buy AutoExpress at the airport for something to read on the plane, some stuff is interesting. Sounds like a non-sports car enthusiast journo picked the short/long straw for the Saggy.