Archive for the ‘Car Reviews’ Category

People have been asking me for years why I don’t post car reviews to TrueDelta. Part of the reason: I wanted a unique format, and none seemed quite right.

Well, I found one that works, or at least hope I have! It’s based on the “Why (Not) This Car?” format we’ve been using for owner reviews. The biggest change: when comparing two cars, pros are no longer posted for one car and cons for the other. Instead, pros and cons are posted for the focal car, which is then rated against the comparison vehicle. We’ll be making the same change to the format for owner reviews in the next month or so (the tough part is converting reviews posted in the old format to the new one). I can also include photos in my reviews. We haven’t decided if and when we’ll add this capability to member reviews. If you’d like it, let us know!

I’ve posted a few reviews–to view them select “TrueDelta review” in the first drop down. Let me know what you think!

Car reviews

As noted before in “Comparison tests, what are they good for?,” even the most even-handed comparison tests reflect a specific set of specifically weighted criteria. Then there are those that aren’t even-handed. Car comparison tests don’t come much more tilted than the “Camaro vs. Genesis” comparison test in the June 2009 Car and Driver.

Let’s begin with the cover, which shows the Camaro nosing ahead of the Hyundai on a track and includes three bits of information on each car. The first, base prices: $23,000 for the Chevrolet Camaro, $26,000 for the Hyundai Genesis Coupe. Get into the magazine, and you’ll find that they rejected a Camaro LS because it had awful upholstery and mediocre tires. Upgrade to the LT, like they did, and two-thirds of the Camaro’s price advantage goes away. Adjust for remaining feature differences, and the cars’ prices are generally only a few hundred dollars apart.

Next on the cover, fuel economy: 29 MPG for the Camaro, 26 MPG for the Hyundai. EPA highway figures, of course. The city figures are an identical 17. In C&D’s testing, the Hyundai went slightly farther on a gallon of gas.

The third bit of information, horsepower: 304 for the Camaro, 306 for the Genesis Coupe. Not as potentially misleading as the other two bits. And yet, unsaid on the cover: the Camaro is over 300 pounds heavier, so the Hyundai has a significantly better power-to-weight ratio.

Go to the test and skim the results, and you’ll find that the Camaro does win, as suggested by the cover photo. Look more closely, and you’ll find that the Camaro wins by a single point. Actually check out the details, and you’ll find that, despite the connotations of that cover photo, the Camaro trailed the Genesis Coupe in every single track test. Acceleration, handling, braking–the Genesis Coupe was better, sometimes by a substantial margin. Moving to the subjective scoring, C&D rated the Genesis Coupe more “fun to drive” by a not insignificant two points. C&D notes a few times that the Camaro feels too big because of its size, mass, and small windows, and that it doesn’t invite precise steering inputs.

So how did the Genesis Coupe lose this test? Two factors. The first, ride quality, was affected by the optional Track Package on the car C&D tested. They note that they cycled through three Camaro test vehicles before settling on the one they liked best for the test. Why, then, didn’t they also evaluate the Genesis Coupe without the Track Package? Such a car might have gained more points in ride quality than it lost in handling and braking.

Even the four point spread in ride quality–a huge difference as scoring in these tests tends to go–wasn’t enough to fully erase the Hyundai’s lead in nearly every other category. To give the Camaro a one-point victory, C&D had to resort to the score of last resort: “gotta have it.” And heavily: the Camaro was given a monstrous six-point advantage–22 vs. 16, out of 25–in this 110% subjective category. To put it bluntly, the Camaro won this comparison test because, in C&D’s estimation, people want it more. Chalk one up to the power of a name and an effective PR campaign.

Even if we grant that “gotta have it” belongs in the scoring table at all–and I don’t, since I’d rather a test compare what the cars are like to look at, sit in, and drive and not the model name or the PR–the Hyundai’s 16 is crazy low for a car that offers so much performance for a price in the mid-20s.

The issue includes one other comparison test, between the BMW 328i, Infiniti G37, Audi A4 2.0T, and Acura TL. The TL, the least “gotta have” car in that test, with far more faults than strengths, received a 16. The Infiniti and Audi both received 20s. In the context of these scores, the Genesis Coupe’s 16 doesn’t hold water.

And the Camaro V6′s 22? Yes, there’s a lot of interest in the new Camaro, but generally for the V8. Maybe that’s why they couldn’t go all the way to 25, and so had to dock the Genesis Coupe’s “gotta have it” score to carve out the desired margin?

No disrespect meant to the Camaro. If it handles anything like the Pontiac G8 with which it shares a platform, it’s a fun car, and it looks great. I’ve driven neither car yet myself, and have no predisposition in favor of either. In other words, I’m no fanboy or hater.

My focus here has been strictly on the fairness of the test. And this is the most tilted comparison test I’ve come across in a long time. In the end, “gotta have it” is like the “reviewer’s tilt” score used by gamespot.com when reviewing games. It’s being used to ensure that the car the reviewers want to win actually wins, despite what the other scores happen to be. I’d be much more satisfied with C&D’s result here if they simply renamed “gotta have it” as “reviewer’s tilt,” since this would make the presence of the tilt explicit rather than cloaking it in “gotta have it.”

We’re in the process of developing a number of new features for the site, with the making it more interesting, useful, and relevant while buying a car and–the big challenge–in between purchases.

So when I first rolled out the “Why (Not) This Car?” survey in last month’s email, and 20,000+ members submitted only 136 reviews in the following two days, I began to wonder if all of this effort would be for naught. Maybe members just wanted the site to be about the numbers topics: reliability, fuel economy, and prices?

But then I listened to initial feedback, and made some changes and improvements to the review process. Also, I had stuck the introduction at the bottom of a lengthy email–there was a lot of news last month. It was the classic case of “burying the lede.” (One member informed me that “lede” is more proper than “lead” in this usage.) This time around, I put “Why (Not) This Car?” at the top, and made it the focus of the email.

Big difference. Over 1,000 reviews were submitted the day that email went out. And another 400 the next day. There are now over 1,700 of them, enough for many models that I’ve reorganized the results into three sections: comparisons for, comparisons against, and single-car reviews.

As a result, my confidence in the upcoming new features has been restored. In the future, the big news goes at the top of the email.

Got my latest issue of Consumer Reports today, and they tested the Toyota Highlander, Buick Enclave, Ford Taurus X, and Subaru Tribeca.

I’ve discussed before how Consumer Reports refuses to divulge how scores are calculated as a matter of “policy.” Well, while their detailed impressions of these models generally match my own, their secret scoring system yields a top place finish for the Toyota, a sizable six points ahead of both the Buick and the Ford.

I do wish they’d say how scores are calculated, because the narrative and ratings leave it unclear how the Toyota finished ahead of the others.

Noted advantages of the Highlander: acceleration, transmission behavior, fuel economy, second row comfort, access (unclear how the Highlander is better here), rearward visibility

Noted advantages of the Enclave: interior fit and finish, steering feel, third row room and comfort (big difference noted), split third row, and cargo room

The secret scoring system must weight the Highlander’s advantages more heaviy than the Enclave’s. But I suspect that many buyers have different priorities, such as a useful amount of rear seat space and cargo room, that give the Enclave the edge. The Ford also has more room for people and cargo room than the Highlander, and so could also come out ahead of the Toyota for many buyers.

Consumer Reports needs to make its scoring system transparent, so car buyers can determine whether or not they have similar priorities and, consequently, the same top pick.

Consumer Reports’ recent release of its “Annual Auto Issue” has people talking about its “best picks” once again. For the second year in a row they’re all Japanese. I don’t personally have a problem with that. As long as they follow a clear procedure, I’m fine with the results.

The problem is that while they probably follow a clear procedure, to those of us on the outside this procedure isn’t clear.

(more…)

A fierce debate has been raging over at Volvo forum Swedespeed. The thread got started when someone (without my knowledge) copied and pasted my entire review of the car (sadly without a link to the original, or even my name).

I hadn’t posted about the review there myself since I had no desire to be flamebait, and assumed that Volvo people love the new car. Just in case the review wasn’t yet inflammatory enough, my title — “Did they really think this would be good enough?” was replaced with “Be very careful before buying!!” Even so, it turns out I was wrong. While a few Volvo loyalists, some of them Volvo salespeople, have been defending the car, most are clearly disappointed.

Since discovering the thread, I’ve been posting in it myself. And at one point it dawned on me: Volvo’s S80 is similar in many ways to Acura’s RL (click for my review). With both cars, the brands are attempting, for the second time, to move into the $40,000+ midsize sedan market. Both cars, in seeking to adhere to their manufacturers’ distinctive cultures and traditions, fall short of what this market requires from even estalished competitors, much less new entrants.

Additional similarities:

– Engines with less power than the leaders, though at least the Volvo offers a V8

– Use of all-wheel-drive to overcome the limitations of a front-wheel-drive chassis

– Understated exterior lacking in presence (though the Volvo is more distinctive)

– Rear seat legroom marginal for adults, odd in a flagship

– Bland driving experience

The $50,000 sedan segment includes some very capable cars. For a new entrant to break into this segment, it had better be outstanding. Yet both Volvo and Acura have now twice developed cars that while very good are not outstanding. Acura has had to heavily discount the RL to get it off dealer lots, and I suspect the same will once again be the case with the S80.

If Acura and Volvo weren’t going to swing for the fences, why did they bother? Yes, Honda has always been about efficiency, and Volvo has always been about a lack of flash and an avoidance of excess. But if both companies want to uphold their traditions so firmly, then perhaps this just isn’t a segment they should enter.