How relevant are car road tests to you?

[SonicHedgeHog]

I've been researching my next car like mad and one of the things I'm noticing is that the areas where my preferred choice is apparently weak are not in the least bit important to me. I'm not interested in "on the limit handling", how "playful the rear end is" or who I can or cannot keep up with on the fabled deserted B road. The way it handles on track is irrelevant, as is its lap time.

95% of my driving is either on the motorway, in town or laden with shopping or people. What I want is a car that looks good and has enough poke to be fun on a slip road or coming off a roundabout. And obviously I need it to do all the usual boring practical stuff as well.

So I suppose my question is, how many of us automatically discount a particular car because a magazine road tester has decided it isn't as good as something else? How many of us have looked at the 'star ratings' in the back of magazines and immediately been put off by a three or four word negative comment? I know I have and that is why I am revisiting some of the options that someone had previously discounted for me.

Along the same lines, how many people have bought a car partly because of all the hype and then discovered some pretty serious failings? As an example, one car is apparently the best in its class and yet when I sat in it I couldn't see anything out of the rear or over either shoulder. That is going to seriously piss me off regardless of how brilliant it is around the Nurburgring.

[Thorburn]

SonicHedgeHog said:

I've been researching my next car like mad and one of the things I'm noticing is that the areas where my preferred choice is apparently weak are not in the least bit important to me. I'm not interested in "on the limit handling", how "playful the rear end is" or who I can or cannot keep up with on the fabled deserted B road. The way it handles on track is irrelevant, as is its lap time.

95% of my driving is either on the motorway, in town or laden with shopping or people. What I want is a car that looks good and has enough poke to be fun on a slip road or coming off a roundabout. And obviously I need it to do all the usual boring practical stuff as well.

It sounds like you're researching in the wrong magazines then?

If you buy a magazine aimed at enthusiast driving, then you can expect to find comments aimed at the enthusiast driver.

Personally I'll read the reviews or group tests to find out what sounds interesting in my price range, but I won't just automatically buy the winner or the one with the highest score - I'll go out and try the ones that sound like they are worth considering for my needs.

[y2blade]

it all depends on the tester and who he is aiming his review at

for example
EVO reviews are largely irrelevant, to the extent that I no longer bother with that magazine at all

I don't care how quick a XXXXX can lap the Nurburgring or how settled it will feel entering Copse

[300bhp/ton]

SonicHedgeHog said:

I've been researching my next car like mad and one of the things I'm noticing is that the areas where my preferred choice is apparently weak are not in the least bit important to me. I'm not interested in "on the limit handling", how "playful the rear end is" or who I can or cannot keep up with on the fabled deserted B road. The way it handles on track is irrelevant, as is its lap time.

95% of my driving is either on the motorway, in town or laden with shopping or people. What I want is a car that looks good and has enough poke to be fun on a slip road or coming off a roundabout. And obviously I need it to do all the usual boring practical stuff as well.

So I suppose my question is, how many of us automatically discount a particular car because a magazine road tester has decided it isn't as good as something else? How many of us have looked at the 'star ratings' in the back of magazines and immediately been put off by a three or four word negative comment? I know I have and that is why I am revisiting some of the options that someone had previously discounted for me.

Along the same lines, how many people have bought a car partly because of all the hype and then discovered some pretty serious failings? As an example, one car is apparently the best in its class and yet when I sat in it I couldn't see anything out of the rear or over either shoulder. That is going to seriously piss me off regardless of how brilliant it is around the Nurburgring.

Anybody who takes car reviews serious enough to not look at that car needs their head examining.



For me, I like a car, then I'll read up on it rather than the other way round. And after that I'll then make up my own mind, even if it differs from that of the motoring media.

[SonicHedgeHog]

I read all the magazines so this isn't due to selective reading. If you read any road test on, for example, a hot hatch it will focus on the same things. My point is that how many off us regularly attack a roundabout or series of bends with such vigour that the ultimate ability of the car is important?

Everyone on this site is an enthusiast to one degree or another so I am not suggesting performance is unimportant. What I am saying is that road testers seem to focus on stuff that matters maybe once a month if you're lucky while giving very little credit to stuff to matters day to day.

[y2blade]

300bhp/ton said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

I've been researching my next car like mad and one of the things I'm noticing is that the areas where my preferred choice is apparently weak are not in the least bit important to me. I'm not interested in "on the limit handling", how "playful the rear end is" or who I can or cannot keep up with on the fabled deserted B road. The way it handles on track is irrelevant, as is its lap time.

95% of my driving is either on the motorway, in town or laden with shopping or people. What I want is a car that looks good and has enough poke to be fun on a slip road or coming off a roundabout. And obviously I need it to do all the usual boring practical stuff as well.

So I suppose my question is, how many of us automatically discount a particular car because a magazine road tester has decided it isn't as good as something else? How many of us have looked at the 'star ratings' in the back of magazines and immediately been put off by a three or four word negative comment? I know I have and that is why I am revisiting some of the options that someone had previously discounted for me.

Along the same lines, how many people have bought a car partly because of all the hype and then discovered some pretty serious failings? As an example, one car is apparently the best in its class and yet when I sat in it I couldn't see anything out of the rear or over either shoulder. That is going to seriously piss me off regardless of how brilliant it is around the Nurburgring.

Anybody who takes car reviews serious enough to not look at that car needs their head examining.



For me, I like a car, then I'll read up on it rather than the other way round. And after that I'll then make up my own mind, even if it differs from that of the motoring media.

well said

[Thorburn]

y2blade said:

it all depends on the tester and who he is aiming his review at

for example
EVO reviews are largely irrelevant, to the extent that I no longer bother with that magazine at all

I don't care how quick a XXXXX can lap the Nurburgring or how settled it will feel entering Copse

That's a little harsh on Evo, a lot of what they write is about how a car feels when driven spiritedly on the road.

[kambites]

There should be plenty of road tests that test how good a car is as a motorway cruiser.

[stuckmojo]

Not very relevant for me. I still want a 370z a lot more than I will ever want a Focus RS, which I find absolutely unattractive to me, no matter what Sutcliffe writes.

[SonicHedgeHog]

You're missing my point. I am not saying I read a review, see who wins and then buy the winner. Here's a recent example. The Audi RS5. Widely reviewed as the worst car in its class, however, it looks great, goes like stink, has a brilliant cabin, useful 4wd, good residuals, good practicality and brilliant build quality. However, read the reviews and you apparently need mental care if you buy one. You have to buy the more involving M3 despite it being less practical, slower, older, more common, due for replacement, less well built...

I'm not suggesting we all start subscribing to What Car?, but I am starting to think that road tests in some of our more focused car magazines are more of a hindrance than a help.

[angusc43]

I take it all with a pinch of salt, really. I probably read Evo more that any other mag but they very rarely say "go and buy the Merc" in a group test as the Bimmer/Porsche/Audi is usually 0.0002 secs quicker round Eau Rouge or whatever.

When one of the staff run a Merc as a long termer, however, things are usually much more realistic (or more aligned to how I use my cars, anyway) and the Mercs tend to do a bit better.

I love reading Evo but I just apply the real world filter to their conclusions. My E500 may not be as fast as the equivalent Bimmer round a track but it did a fabulous job schlepping from London to Norfolk and back with the wife and kids over the weekend. Sometimes I had all the settings in "sport" mode - and at other all in "comfort".

[y2blade]

Thorburn said:

y2blade said:

it all depends on the tester and who he is aiming his review at

for example
EVO reviews are largely irrelevant, to the extent that I no longer bother with that magazine at all

I don't care how quick a XXXXX can lap the Nurburgring or how settled it will feel entering Copse

That's a little harsh on Evo, a lot of what they write is about how a car feels when driven spiritedly on the road.

sorry if I don't agree with the PH bible

the OP asked "How Relevant are car road tests to you?"
I answered his question

[The Wookie]

Horses for courses, read the full review rather than the verdict and star rating and you might find them more useful. The informations in there if you look for it, but you don't have to agree with the journo's priorities or conclusions

I tend to line up my priorities similarly to most journos, and car with dodgy control weighting or poor handling would annoy me far more every time I drove it than virtually any other practical shortcoming

Edited by The Wookie on Monday 6th December 10:33

[300bhp/ton]

SonicHedgeHog said:

You're missing my point. I am not saying I read a review, see who wins and then buy the winner. Here's a recent example. The Audi RS5. Widely reviewed as the worst car in its class, however, it looks great, goes like stink, has a brilliant cabin, useful 4wd, good residuals, good practicality and brilliant build quality. However, read the reviews and you apparently need mental care if you buy one. You have to buy the more involving M3 despite it being less practical, slower, older, more common, due for replacement, less well built...

I think this is a classic case of - go drive them yourself and to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.

[SonicHedgeHog]

angusc43 said:

I take it all with a pinch of salt, really. I probably read Evo more that any other mag but they very rarely say "go and buy the Merc" in a group test as the Bimmer/Porsche/Audi is usually 0.0002 secs quicker round Eau Rouge or whatever.

When one of the staff run a Merc as a long termer, however, things are usually much more realistic (or more aligned to how I use my cars, anyway) and the Mercs tend to do a bit better.

I love reading Evo but I just apply the real world filter to their conclusions. My E500 may not be as fast as the equivalent Bimmer round a track but it did a fabulous job schlepping from London to Norfolk and back with the wife and kids over the weekend. Sometimes I had all the settings in "sport" mode - and at other all in "comfort".

That's what I am getting at. The long term tests are far more relevant than a long weekend of hooning.

[y2blade]

SonicHedgeHog said:

angusc43 said:

I take it all with a pinch of salt, really. I probably read Evo more that any other mag but they very rarely say "go and buy the Merc" in a group test as the Bimmer/Porsche/Audi is usually 0.0002 secs quicker round Eau Rouge or whatever.

When one of the staff run a Merc as a long termer, however, things are usually much more realistic (or more aligned to how I use my cars, anyway) and the Mercs tend to do a bit better.

I love reading Evo but I just apply the real world filter to their conclusions. My E500 may not be as fast as the equivalent Bimmer round a track but it did a fabulous job schlepping from London to Norfolk and back with the wife and kids over the weekend. Sometimes I had all the settings in "sport" mode - and at other all in "comfort".

That's what I am getting at. The long term tests are far more relevant than a long weekend of hooning.

100% agree with you

[ewenm]

Most reviews are irrelevant to me. Modern cars are all pretty reliable, have decent service schedules, decent levels of kit, fit and finish. There will always be individual examples that fail early.

I tend to have a shortlist of cars that I like (given whatever criteria it needs to meet), test drive them and choose based on that. Whether a journalist thinks car X is better than car Y or not really doesn't matter to me.

[SonicHedgeHog]

300bhp/ton said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

You're missing my point. I am not saying I read a review, see who wins and then buy the winner. Here's a recent example. The Audi RS5. Widely reviewed as the worst car in its class, however, it looks great, goes like stink, has a brilliant cabin, useful 4wd, good residuals, good practicality and brilliant build quality. However, read the reviews and you apparently need mental care if you buy one. You have to buy the more involving M3 despite it being less practical, slower, older, more common, due for replacement, less well built...

I think this is a classic case of - go drive them yourself and to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.

You're quite right, but the hammering that some cars take in the press does discourage me from doing that. Buying a car is a mixture of fun and tedium. I don't want to spend weeks test driving everything so I need to whittle down the field to a selection of cars and I use the magazines to do that. What I am finding at the moment is that I arrive at a dealer and sit in a "great" car only to immediately discover I hate it because of some unreported major flaw.

[ewenm]

SonicHedgeHog said:

300bhp/ton said:

SonicHedgeHog said:

You're missing my point. I am not saying I read a review, see who wins and then buy the winner. Here's a recent example. The Audi RS5. Widely reviewed as the worst car in its class, however, it looks great, goes like stink, has a brilliant cabin, useful 4wd, good residuals, good practicality and brilliant build quality. However, read the reviews and you apparently need mental care if you buy one. You have to buy the more involving M3 despite it being less practical, slower, older, more common, due for replacement, less well built...

I think this is a classic case of - go drive them yourself and to hell with what anyone else says or thinks.

You're quite right, but the hammering that some cars take in the press does discourage me from doing that. Buying a car is a mixture of fun and tedium. I don't want to spend weeks test driving everything so I need to whittle down the field to a selection of cars and I use the magazines to do that. What I am finding at the moment is that I arrive at a dealer and sit in a "great" car only to immediately discover I hate it because of some unreported major flaw.

Exactly - your criteria for a great car is different to the journalists. what you see as a "major flaw" they don't even notice. If you're lucky you'll find a journalist with broadly similar likes/dislikes to you and their reviews might be useful, but otherwise you're down to your own testing.

[The Wookie]

SonicHedgeHog said:

Here's a recent example. The Audi RS5. Widely reviewed as the worst car in its class, however, it looks great, goes like stink, has a brilliant cabin, useful 4wd, good residuals, good practicality and brilliant build quality. However, read the reviews and you apparently need mental care if you buy one. You have to buy the more involving M3 despite it being less practical, slower, older, more common, due for replacement, less well built...

Good example, most reviews (at least the ones I've read) will identify the traction advantage, the cabin, the looks, the quality, the residuals. One could argue that a casual reader might not be aware of those benefits if they hadn't read the article.

None of the articles I've read have stated you have to be insane to want an RS5, in fact what comes across to me is that they want to like it, there's an obvious desire for it to be better than the M3, and an obvious disappointment when compared to the RS4, which is pretty damning of the driving experience.

But at the same time, everyone has got an opinion, and it's predictable that an enthusiast (as all journos surely are) driving cars in a class whose purpose is to entertain the driver, will pick the car that entertains the driver most, regardless of the skin deep aesthetics.

To be honest though, I think they usually get it spot on. I put forward my old man as an example; he loves his cars and driving, but hasn't really got a clue about the finer points of handling, and he'll only pick up a car mag if he's going to be sat on a plane, and even then it's more likely to be a copy of Motorsport so he can read the columns and stories rather than the in depth car reviews. Generally he's as uninterested in the anorak side of preceedings as is possible for a car enthusiast.

Despite this lack of knowledge and awareness of press opinion, I can count one high end car of 20 or 30 where having spent a couple of days with it he's had an opinion that hasn't closely matched that of the prevailing journalistic opinion.