In this morning's Telegraph there's a review of the new Renault Grand Modus.
As is often the case the writer goes on for more than half the article about something else, in this case the consumption of diesels against the Prius. When he gets to the car he likes it but doesn't say what mpg he got. He quotes the theoretical maximum from the official figures. The interior shot accompanying the article is nothing like the car in my local dealers and looks like an earlier model. There must be alot to say about the car, so why not say it and give people a decent review?
|
He says that he got "Average Fuel consumption 60.1" - in a green shaded box at the beginning of the review. He also mentions fuel consumption achievable, in the last full paragraph of the the review.
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 06/04/2008 at 14:40
|
He says that he got "Average Fuel consumption 60.1" - in a green shaded box at the beginning of the review.
It also says the top speed is 115 mph and that the insurance group is 4E in the green shaded box but I'm not sure he drove it at that speed or that he checked with his insurance company. I wonder whether he's not just quoting from the press pack?
I think this is an interesting car. But, for example, ESP is optional and might be useful in soemthing like the Modus. The car in the picture has the sunroof. Also optional. The radio sounds cheap and i don't think the diesel is all that quiet. I wouldn't buy a car on the strength of a review but I'd rather hear about the car than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Clarkson does it like this, despite knowing a lot about cars, because his public expect it of him. Many others do it to obscure their lack of knowledge.
For proper road tests, Autocar and What Car do a pretty good job, although you have to remember that their testers are (mostly) young men whose driving style leads them to prefer BMWs wherever possible. This is not to run down BMWs but they don't suit everyone, and journalists find this difficult to understand.
One of the things this forum does best is the running reports that some of us do on our cars - I find them interesting, much more so than the endless debates on speed cameras, and I hope others do too. Keep them coming.
|
I think it was the Sunday Express a few decades ago that used to drive me mad, with the first half or two-thirds of the car-review column spent on completely irrelevant stuff, so the annoying habit is not new.
I second Avant's call for plenty of of practical real-world discussion here.
|
Such articles prove that most newspaper 'motoring' journos are merely there to entertain the reader, and Clarkson's probably best of the lot at it. The Telegraph is a welcome exception and the size of its Motoring section is testament to how seriously it takes the subject.
But if you want a real appraisal of a car you either read a specialist mag or go on a long term (more than 20 mins) test of a car you fancy.
|
|
|
>>I think it was the Sunday Express...
It was, indeed.
Also had a very optimistic financial page as I recall.
Clk Sec
|
It is the same with many restaurant reviews - A A Gill is a prime example of 2/3 rds lead in and 1/3 rd useful info!
|
|
It's just entertainment. 99% of the readers of these reviews will never actually buy one of the cars featured. The subject matter is merely a catalyst for diverting journalism. I quite like the rambling bits, anything which can raise a smile in these otherwise deeply tedious times gets my vote.
|
|
I sort of agree but only when it's a car I'd never own in a million years. When it's a fairly basic get you around motor I'd quite like another reasonable opinion.
|
|
What Car? has a very useful comparative stats section and its website is good for running side-by-side comparisons, but it is often wrong in details, like the adjustable steering wheel it claimed for the MGtf when it didn't have one. Furthermore, its lists don't alway match up to the relevant manufacturer's. I hope to compare reviewers' comments with my own experience of my new Hyundia i30 1.6 petrol Comfort when I reach 200 miles with it.
|
|
Many newspaper reviews are written entirely from press-packs - they don't actually drive the cars.
|
You're all spoilt! If you read the Guardian 'road test' in the Saturady magazine, the first 7/8ths are usually devoted to the off-the-wall marketing strategy by the manfrs. of the new model or an extended diatribe about the colour (..and what the road-tester's neighbours must have thought.. lord preserve us!) or the range of cupholders. I suppose the Guardian feels guilty anyway about cars at all & the lack of meat or info the the tests reflects the absolute minimum they need to tick the box. Rarely a word about enjoyment/fun or even practicality.
It reminds me of the ascetic monk taking the bare minimum of nutrients to sustain life through gritted teeth & thin lips.
|
That's really depressing woodbines. Can't help wondering why they have them at all.
It would be much better to test them properly - to the edge of destruction - with a view to pointing out how thoroughly carp they are.
'Repeated launches soon took the edge off the trick transmission, and very soon after that caused it to fail completely. The manufacturer's refusal to supply us with another test vehicle confirms that they too have little faith in this device, and are niggardly. Clearly the model needs further development. Nought out of ten.'
|
|
It might be more relevant, though less practical, to test examples of cars which have completed a minimum of 50k miles and include a report of any remedial work done during that period. I know some mags/journalists do "long term" tests and I feel they are far more revealing than a first impression of a new model. How they perform while blatting a few laps round a test track seems less important than how they stand up to long term normal use.
|
Road tests in mags/papers are only a rough guide and hardly ever very objective with the basis on handling ( who cares about on the limit handling? Try that in front of a police car and see how fast they pull you over ) and soft touch interiors.
Only the buyer knows how suitable a car is for their needs since we all have different needs and no one car can cater for all possible needs someone may have.
I only use the road tests as a guide of what to look out for when test driving in order to see if there is a real issue.
|
Car reviews do have their uses, but helping you to decide whether it's the car for you isn't necessarily one of them.
Most people use reviews to either confirm their prejudices, or add to the bank of their own data. Rarely are they the decisive factor.
I'll give the Telegraph and the Sunday Times' Drive top marks for all-round entertainment (with a certain DT contributor offering unrivalled consumer info), Autocar and What Car as the best of the mags (though Car's website has its moments) and regional evenings newspaper motoring supplements giving you the best guide to what's on sale locally.
Why, though, do so many of them seem to rely on the 'combined' fuel consumption figure? Everyone in the industry knows that the figure most people are likely to get close to is in fact the urban figure.
|
|
|
|
