Car journalists wield more power than they might think. People who read car reviews often make buying decisions based on what we write. Depending on the opinions journos deploy to print and pixels, automakers may see a lift in customer interest and sales, or a dip as buyers weigh a writer’s wary words. But the public doesn’t always agree with journalists, and may flock to a car that was reviewed poorly, or leave a model to flounder that journalists loved. When was a time that you disagreed with a car review?
The easiest answer for me is obviously the Smart Fortwo. I have been defending that car’s existence since before I even had a driver’s license. I was always the person who could see the brightness of that car between auto journalists’ complaints of slow shifting, slow acceleration, and a hard suspension. But that one would be too easy. Pretty much all of my Autopian Asks would be centered around Smarts if I focused just on that car.
My love for the unloved Smart had eventually led me to become a defender for everything that’s unloved. I can find something that I like about any car, no matter how much everyone else hates it. I find myself in that place today with the Mitsubishi Mirage, one of the favorite punching bags of the automotive YouTuber.
I won’t describe any review specifically here, and besides, I really don’t need to. Most of them largely follow a similar format of complaining that the Mitsubishi Mirage doesn’t have a lot of power, is filled with hard plastics, and feels like a generation or two behind the pack. Many reviews come to the conclusion that it’s a terrible car. You’ll often find such words as “asthmatic,” “lethargic,” “anemic,” and “tepid” used to describe the Mirage. Some folks might even say that the Mirage is unsuitable for highway use because of its lack of power.
I see the car in a different light. Yes, it’s devoid of many luxuries. Yes, it’s loud, and yes, it’s buzzy. What the reviewers say is not wrong, and the car is very easy to make fun of because of it. But at the same time, this was a car that was only $13,790 in 2014. Logically, you aren’t getting a fast car or one dripping with cutting-edge technology for that price. Want to drive it on the highway? It’ll do that, just put the pedal down further. Yes, you can get a better car by paying more money. The whole point of the Mirage is to be affordable transportation.
So, that’s the car I often find myself disagreeing with reviews on.
How about you? What car did you think reviews got wrong? Is the car worse or better than reviews say?
Almost every review of full-size trucks at Jalopnik. Why you would have someone who has already made up their mind that trucks are bad review a truck, I will never understand.
And at the risk of pissing off one of the founders of the site, I disagreed with David’s Cybertruck review. I got what he was going for with the comparison to Jeep (and it was very on-brand for him), but I don’t think the comparison was particularly accurate. That said, even if I think that particular article was trying a little too hard to be contrarian to the negative press at the time, I still generally appreciated the way The Autopian covered it.
Every time I read about Mazda Rotary knob on the center console, its something bad about it. It takes time to get used to but when you master it, its so quick to move around menus and such, specially if you are using carplay. I wish more cars came with it.
This is probably the best example of the most common journalist issue. Something which is objectively good but cannot be taken advantage of to its full existent in the week a reviewer has with the car.
I get it to some extent, journalists rarely get more than a week with a car, and like you said, the knob takes some adjustment, and Mazda going no-touch screen made some people mad about it. That said, the Mazda wheel is my favorite infotainment interface of all time, and it is so amazing on my CX-30.
I’ve gotten used to that knob and appreciate that I can do things without trying to touch a screen. People are knobs, that’s the problem.
They put that knob in there because so many people wanted Mazda to bring rotaries back
Every ho-hum review of the Subaru SVX. It’s kind of an amazing thing, especially given the agricultural cars they were making at the time. Okay, it’s an auto. But it’s a very uniquely styled, fast enough comfortable GT. I had one for fourteen years and still miss it for long drives.
Every single time someone complained about the BMW turn signal stalks that returned to center.
Typical turn signal:
BMW turn signal:
If you can’t figure that out I question if you should be operating a car on public roads…
Right on, Brother. Owning two BMW so equipped, I find every other car annoying.
I didn’t think BMW signal stalks were able to move beyond center to begin with. Learn something new every day…
Hah I owned an e90 and the single biggest complaint I had with the car was those bloody return-to-centre indicator stalks. I would have hated them less if I knew you could cancel them by tapping them in the same direction again. Still less satisfying and prone to unintentional activation compared to regular stalks though.
I disagree with every car review that saying that stiff, sporty suspension in a daily driver is a good thing. I’m 23 but I hate how stiff and oversprung almost all modern cars feel. I don’t think automotive journalists put enough emphasis on ride quality. It’s probably one of the most important things in a car.
People bought Buicks for a reason. The Camry loses every comparison test, yet is the segment best seller for a reason.
Thank you! It shouldn’t be acceptable that the oldest car in my garage is also the most comfortable, but somehow it is, because automakers stopped caring
There is a happy medium between needing a kidney belt on a rough road and a wallowing barge. Wallowing barges are NOT comfortable either, unless you have a seasickness kink.
I find that people who think wallowing American barges are comfortable have simply never experienced a car that actually rides properly.
The criticsims aimed at the ’70s land barges were fully valid, but even the later Panthers and B-bodies had much better body control. Not sports cars by any means, but at least safe. The Fox bodies and competing fwd GM and Chyrsler product handled fairly well at the time.
I guess it depends on what you are comparing them to.
I have plenty of seat time in the Detroit three products from the mid ’90s to the present day thanks to constant work travel. They were generally pretty awful, with exceptions. The Taurus was had a very good ride/handling balance, and so did the Olds Aleros and the bigger one that I can’t recall the name of. But most were still pretty bad, and Panthers were embarrassingly bad.
And until very recently, the Americans (and the Japanese for that matter, and to some extent the Swedes too) just couldn’t figure out how to make a car handle well AND ride well at the same time. Something the British and French were masters at, and the Germans pretty good at other than the hur-dur stuff that all rides like a buckboard wagon.
This is an interesting and multi-faceted tradeoff space, and I’d like to hear Huibert Mees weigh in. My 78 Cougar when the suspension was stock was a *little* on the wallow-y side, but honestly not that bad, and very comfortable. The original 225/75r15 tires were too sloppy on steering tip in, but the 255/60r15s I swapped on solved that entirely. I put station wagon rear springs in it and it improved the float significantly without noticeably sacrificing ride quality. The one thing that sort of forces new cars to have stiffer springs is ride frequency – the ride frequency of the stock Cougar suspension was too low for modern freeway speeds, such that if you were unlucky in your combination of speed limit and expansion joint frequency you could hit the natural frequency of the suspension and it would start to bounce worse, and worse, and worse… but that never happened down at 55 mph or below. It was engineered for a different time.
I think the real root of poor ride quality in today’s cars is a combination of too stiff dampers/swaybars and (yes, that old favorite) too little sidewall in tires. The former was driven, I think, by the ‘every car needs to handle like a race car’ conceit that was flogged by every autojourno in the 30 year span starting in the 80’s through the 2000’s. The latter, as far as I can tell, is a misguided ‘big wheels look cool’ more-is-better forever idea whose time to die has well and truly come. I say this because, though thinner sidewalls can improve steering response sharpness, in my experience once you get down into 50 series sidewalls or less, you’ve already reaped all that benefit, and we’re way, way past that now. Even though they negatively impact fuel economy/EV range, they’re still what is fitted on the higher trim models. That means to me that any benefit must be irrational (i.e. aesthetic) rather than technical.
My recipe for a good riding car that doesn’t kill handling is a set of springs that gets ride frequency in the 1.5-2 Hz range, shocks for a damping ratio around 0.25-.3, tires with 50-65 series sidewalls, and enough sway bar to avoid dragging door handles around curves, but not chasing zero roll during cornering. If you want a ‘do it all’ car then adaptive dampers like GM MagneRide is way to achieve that, with the associated greater cost.
I completely agree with all of what you wrote. I don’t even particularly care about roll stiffness – some of the finest riding and handling cars are French, and seemingly need casters on the door handles. But it doesn’t matter a bit. Soft springs, long suspension travel, and firmish dampers with tires with some sidewall make for a lovely ride and fine handling as a rule.
As a general rule, I find “sport packages” ruin the ride rather more than they improve the handling. Big stinkeye at BMW in particular there. You can get 90% of the benefit by just fitting stickier tires in the original higher-sidewalled size, without the ride punishment.
Also agree that money can solve a lot or problems. 🙂 Air-suspension and the various electronically controlled dampers (or hydropneumatic suspension, for that matter) can work miracles, but TANSTAAFL.
I think 90s and early 2000s cars are the best as far as a nice balanced ride. Little bit of float but not too much and still handle decent. I do kinda like the big barges from the 70s though I think they’re cool. The wallowing ride is kinda nice in my opinion but not for a daily, only to cruise around in every once in awhile.
Wallowing barges make me car sick pretty quickly. A complete non-starter for me.
An ’80s series 3 Jaguar XJ6 rode like heaven and handled beautifully. 70 series tires helped, I’m sure, but there was suspension magic at one time that manufacturers have decided not fool around with anymore. And come to think of it, I had an 88 911 with the factory sports suspension option that had a more comfortable ride than a new Mazda CX5, for example. I don’t understand how that’s possible.
As long as this perceived ride comfort doesn’t come with additional body roll, I’m with you.
A car that wallows around is so deeply uncomfortable to me (to the point of nausea), I’ll stake a stiff but flat cornering car any day.
Stop using words like “Dynamic”, “Sporty”, “Engaging”, etc. when describing the driving characteristics of SUVs.
They are bricks. They are not aerodynamic. They are not designed to hug the road, or set any records on the skidpad. They are all mostly huge and unwieldly massive people/junk haulers.
Comparing their agility to things like Coupes and Sportscars is not only disingenuous, but also incredibly stupid.
Exactly and now after decades of that and the manufactures pandering to it, we have car based crossovers that lack any utility.
What’s wild is there are SUVs that have objectively higher performance than many sporty coupes. The BMW X3 M Comp for example pulls up to 0.99g on the skidpad while the Toyota GR86 gets 0.96. The aerodynamics aren’t as far off as you might think either. The non M BMW X3 has a drag coefficient of 0.27 while the GR86 has 0.29.
You can make a tall brick handle by giving it a suspension with all the give of steel beams and massive sticky tires that will be worn out in <10K miles. You’d best have an iron ass, because it’s going to ride like a buckboard wagon too. But people think a rough ride is “sporty”.
There is no comparing the ride and handling of my BMW wagon with that of a same-year X3. The X3 still handles like a BMW, but the ride is punishing in a way that my car simply isn’t.
Cannot say I have ever based any car decisions off just a review from a “professional” I normally go onto forums, user reviews and so on. I do this with most purchases I’ll compare “pro” reviews compared to every day joe blow.
I’ve had a Mirage as a rental. The best thing I can say about it is that the lack of power, “interesting” handling characteristics, and level of general refinement triggered nostalgic memories of the used-up ’80s economy cars I and my friends drove in high school in the mid-’90s.
The Mirage woukd have been an absolutely amazing car for $11-12,000, unfortunately, it was $17,000
I’ll get very specific (and Miata is always the answer):
Chris Harris on the MX-5.
He went as far as to drive around with a bag over his head because of shame he felt driving it.
He was wrong them when he wrote up the review. Wrong when he made the video, and I’m sure he’s still wrong about them now.
It’s funny because he’s very pro-roadster nowadays.
Folks should have him revisit the MX-5, as I think his perspective will have changed.
I have always been vehemently Anti-Mirage, and I will continue to be so. The biggest reason why is not because it was crappy to drive, got worse fuel economy than it should have, or because it was genuinely undrivable at higher altitude states like Colorado, but rather for safety. The car was 2k pounds wet, and had some horrendous small overlap crash tests, as well as not-amazing side impact tests.
For instance, the IIHS results for the side impact on the mirage were from it’s 2014 launch, and it got generally decent crash tests then, but since then, the test has gone from the old 3300 lb impact, to a 4200lb impact, because that is what the IIHS considers an AVERAGE vehicle in the US. The basic reality is car safety has come along a long way since the Mirage was released in 2014, cars have gotten far bigger and larger. Much of the buying public thinks new car=safe, and slapping 16 year old Timmy into a new 2023 mirage for 18k is objectively a much more dangerous proposition than say a 2019 corolla for similar or money, or even a Nissan Versa which had been updated since the Mirage launched.
It’s great to have cars available on the low end of the market, but even from new in 2014, and much more so by the end in 2024, the Mirage was only cheap, and nothing else. Nissan and Hyundai/Kia had far better cheap offerings that were not all that much more than the Mirage, but they offered far more technology, comfort, power, sometimes even fuel economy, and most importantly safety. The Mirage had the single highest death rate. Per IIHS: “The overall driver death rate for all 2020 and equivalent models during 2018-21 was 38 deaths per million registered vehicle years. The highest death rate was 205 for the Mitsubishi Mirage G4.” That’s over 5x the average. That is statistically significant. The Mirage is a bad car.
I was mostly salty that the AC couldn’t cool the car in AZ during the summer.
I don’t see it as a fault of the Mirage. I see it as the fault of all the other bloated garbage-mobiles on the road.
The explorer was a good one to ignore.
1st gen was perhaps the worst with its being thought of as a understeer monster with no brakes or acceleration. Nevermind it was way different in real life.
I’ve often thought the first-gen Explorers’ dynamics, especially as the first car someone ever had any wheel time in because it was what their parents had when they got a learners’ permit, is the reason why Millennials thought a Honda Civic was a sports car.
Also the Explorer was often the first truck like, body on frame, suv many people ever owned and were confused when it drove like a truck.
I find a lot of reviewers rag on cars where they missed the whole point of the vehicle or are reviewing it based on what they wanted the vehicle to be rather than what it actually is. Maybe they have some biases or they get wrapped up in the marketing nonsense. Could be the drive for click-bait, hot take articles, too.
My last DD was a ’12 MKZ. Many of the reviews on it weren’t great and they seemed to revolve around it not being sporty enough because they tried comparing it to other entry luxo cars that were trying to be sporty GT cars. They basically missed the point. For me, I bought it specifically to be a rolling living room with AWD for upper Midwest winters. On my fairly long commute and occasional road trips, it ate up the miles in quiet, unobtrusive comfort.
Reviewers also get skewed biases from cycling through new cars on a weekly basis, unlike actual car buyers. I know my thoughts on a CR-V would be different if I had a Macan the week before vs a Kia Soul.
This. So sorry my CRV doesn’t take corners on the track at 120, it doesn’t need to and isn’t for those people.
-crv owner
That generation MKZ is one that I keep thinking about picking up as a daily. What powertrain did you have, and how was the reliability? My folks had a 2.0T Fusion Platinum which was a platform-mate, and it was an excellent car for them.
Whoever decided Ford shouldn’t make cars anymore deserves to be kicked in the fork daily, for the rest of their existence.
Mine was the 3.5L V6 and AWD. I had it for 11 years in the salt belt and from 20k to 80k miles. No issues outside of maintenance except a rusted transmission cooler line at about 75k miles that I replaced myself fairly easily. The only real issue these cars (and all other Ford/Mazda with that engine) have is if the water pump fails it has a book time of 14 hours or so to replace at a shop so it’s an expensive repair if it happens. It’s DIYable and the parts are cheap but it’ll be a long weekend of swearing heavily.
I daily a Mirage. It’s fine!
I see a Mirage Ralliart around town and love it. I’d have desperately wanted one if they’d put a turbo on the little 3 cylinder it came with. What a fun little screamer it’d be, a discount GR Yaris.
I’ve never driven a Mirage, but I drove a Ford Aspire for a short while, and honestly I thought it was a fun car to toss around. That car was similarly panned by reviewers then and now. But it was fine for what it was.
The Mirage is, to use a favorite term of the comments section, a perfectly cromulent vehicle. In the 5-speed anyway. I’ve never driven another car where I felt a real sense of pride in the vehicle itself after making it up a particularly steep hill. Definitely not for everyone, but my wife has been driving one for a decade with zero maintenance beyond routine needed.
1) I mostly disagree with most new-reviews of Toyota Trucks (mostly pre-TNGA-F Chassis). Same song and dance every time. Outdated, low stress engines, not the latest tech, etc. Toyota trucks seldom rank highly on comparison tests (first gen Tacoma was dead last in C&D’s compact truck comparison test in 1995, FJ Cruiser and 4th gen 4runner didn’t win any tests either!). However, the 90’s-2010’s Toyota products are excellent. They are almost timeless, they often don’t break (as long as you keep them out of the salt), and are well thought out.
2) Volvo C30. These didn’t get a lot of love new. They often lost comparisons to the MK5 GTI and the R56 Minis. Yes, they didn’t handle as well as the Mini and didn’t have the practicality of the GTI, but my goodness are these slept on. When modified, they are EXCELLENT and make awesome noises. They are also more reliable than the two cars above. I miss mine dearly.
I think car reviewers sometimes miss the point of what is actually important to car buyers. Many people don’t care about the 0-60, the handling being sportscar sharp, or an interior filled haptic feedback buttons and acres of screens. Most people want something that has a decent amount of room, reliability, good resale, and is decently efficient. This is why Mazda always seems to win comparison tests but no one buys them. The Toyota is often less frustrating to use, has better packaging and efficiency, reliability, and better resale.
I despise 0-60 tests now and even when they were done on top gear.
Even now on YouTube, I don’t need to know how fast the full size F150 Tremor gets to 60, my 99 Toyota Tercel didn’t struggle with a 1.5L engine, cars these days won’t struggle either.
The Cadillac ELR, I know it was a less practical volt for too much money but it really did look like it was 10 years in the future standing still and it was otherwise a neat car.
I dislike when reviewers try to butter-up descriptions, to hide real flaws.
“floats over imperfections” does that mean: “wallows over a bump, and settles poorly”?
Or “track focused handling” should I read that as “punishment when crossing over rail lines”?
Not every goddamn fucken car needs a massive trunk and interior. Not everyone is hauling around 1/2 their possessions with them at all times. Bloody hell, I 100% blame clueless journalists for the ever increasing size of cars these days.
I am dealing right now with a family member who wants a new car, but she thinks they are all so damn big. I agree with her and give her a list of smaller vehicles. But if I also send her a review of that same car, it will usually get marked-down because it doesn’t have 10 cupholders and 1000 cubic feet of trunk space.
Similar deal with screens and touch controls. If jaded journalists don’t see all the fancy – and ultimately useless tech – in a new car, they bitch and complain, which usually means lower results in comparison tests. But actual drivers – even non-enthusiasts – don’t want more screens and pointless gimmicks. Yet that’s what gets the headlines. Look at how much time is wasted even on this site over gimmicky Chinese cars that aren’t even sold in the US.
Someone already posted this, but not even damn car needs a harsh “performance” suspension and rock hard seats. Where are you racing your commuter sedan to? American cars up until the early 90s had amazingly compliant rides, and yet for years and years every review journalists would hammer them because they weren’t rock hard Nürburgring-ready suspension settings.
There are few aspects of cars that journalists haven’t pushed automakers to make worse.
My partner dailies a 2007 Corolla SE and it is – fine. Economical, reliable, durable, comfortable with a usable amount of space. Small enough to park anywhere. It is not my first choice for long highway drives (that’s why I daily a Camry hybrid) but for an hour or so at a time is about perfect. It is not setting speed records, but easily keeps up with traffic and acceleration is acceptable 90% of the time. It weighs little so it does not need super hard springs to handle. I’m not autocrossing it, but it is actually a fun, tossable drive on the local twisting back roads (semi-rural western PA).
Our 5’8 daughter never complained riding in back (granted it was only 3 in the car) and the trunk was suitable for all but a long vacation or big Costco run. I’d almost bet it has the same or more room than my old Fox body LTD sedan.
Agree with reviews ragging on basic transportation like the Versa or Mirage. These are not competing with new cars, they are competing with used cars.
They’re built to a price, and we should celebrate them for another option at that pricetag.
I realize I was not clear… we need more of these simple, basic cars in our market.
Versa (with a manual, especially): Good
Mirage: Bad. So Bad.
Honda Fit: Nearly Automotive Perfection
I definitely agree about the Fit. My 2015 is 11 years old and it does everything brilliantly. We’re in the middle of yet another 4k mile trip right now.
Speaking of which, C&D said the 3rd generation wasn’t fun anymore. They were/are very wrong.
I also had a 3rd gen GK5 with the 6 speed manual. Some 205 width sticky all seasons and a rear sway bar turned it into one of the best handling cars I’ve piloted. It was hilarious.
My only beef with the car is that 6th gear is only 100 rpm from 5th gear. I wish 6th was a hair taller.
I’ve heard the same complaint. Ours is the CVT, which is the right transmission for our use case of local traffic and one big 5k road trip in late summer.
People don’t rag on the Versa or Mirage because they’re “basic transportation”, they rag on them because they’re shit cars.
Good and cheap small cars exist, just not really in the US.
I don’t tend to put much stock into opinion reviews of any kind, and usually just pick out the facts about what’s being reviewed.
I will usually dismiss a vehicle review that only focuses on the driver’s experience unless it’s for a two-seater sports car. If you’re reviewing a passenger vehicle, I think you should spend time and give some feedback on the passenger experience.
I will disagree with a reviewer who has not accepted the intention of the vehicle and doesn’t review it for what it’s trying to be. Don’t be disappointed the comfortable family sedan doesn’t handle like a sports coupe and go 0-60 in 1.5 seconds.
This is often why the Camry loses comparisons yet is the industry best seller.
“the dash is all hard touch plastic” complaints.
The only time I touch my dash is to clean it. As long as it looks nice, who cares if it’s hard or soft.
Ultimate solution, just watch John Davis and the Motorweek reviews. The standard to be used.
Ask me about that hard dash in 10 years when it still looks new, and the soft one is cracked/faded/warped….
Yep, former roommate had an ’07 Camry, and the dash had halfway liquefied because Toyota tried to make it ever so slightly soft to the touch. Went from soft touch to sticky, shiny, absolutely do not touch.
I recall when the soft dash pad was still advertised for safety – because seatbelts were not manly enough. And those old ones from the ’70s and ’80s cracked in a bad way in the sun.
The only time I care about that is if the hard plastics also have a rough texture, particularly at the top of the doors.
I rented a Chevy Cobalt one time that was nearly painful to rest your arm on the door with the windows down.
As a fellow door top arm dweller I agree. I hated the Flex I rented because the door top was out of easy arm reach, else I may have bought one.
I recently passed a guy in his Challenger driving with the window down and arm on the door.
He’s gonna have issues w/ that shoulder soon, as his elbow was up above his ear…
I tend to think of this beyond just what you’re touching.
First… if an automaker is willing to cheap out on something you can see and touch, what else are they cheaping out on?
But more importantly, in 2025 there are many materials and finishes that can be used that aren’t going to drive the cost up while enhancing quality over ’90’s grade plastics. So if an automaker is still not paying attention to these details, they’re just lazy.
I’m at the point where I pretty much don’t read anyone’s reviews about interior.
Case in point – I recently drove a new Lexus TX and then a new GX immediately afterward. The TX interior was luxurious as hell – it made the GX interior look and feel like bottom of the barrel garbage. But reading the reviews? You’d think the exact opposite.
Oof I definitely disagree. A hard plastic dash will look cheap, even when you aren’t touching it. The plastic texture just hits different on the eyes. And it’s something you’re looking at every day.
I would nominate every review for Corvettes since 1997 that complain about the interior. BMWs of similar eras had just as much plastic on the inside and nobody complained about it.
The automotive press is very biases against American cars.
Conversely, they give German brands one free-pass after another. This BMW costs $30k more than some Japanese or American rival? Oh, they will find many creative ways to justify it. That endless creaking from the instrument cluster in a new Mercedes? They will downplay it. But god forbid ANY American car costs more than $100k, no matter how justified that price might be, and journalists will nitpick the ever loving shit out of it.
Agreed. Corvettes get a bad rap, in general, in most automotive press.
The only thing I tend to agree with them on is the seats. The track-focused versions needed seats with more lateral support – it’s a hellova core workout trying to stay planted in an AX or track day.
The press would constantly hammer the Vette on its seats and pretended that changing them out wasn’t one of the easiest mods to do.
I dunno, I don’t know if the interior that was adequate in my old $700 ’97 Cavalier would pass muster in a brand new Corvette, but the gulf between the two wasn’t that huge.
From the other side, the C6 shows was GM *could* do that was fit for mission, and by that metric, the C5 is lacking unless you just don’t care (and no judgement if you do, because it’ll help get you a great bargain otherwise).
I rode in an early C4 once, and it was rough riding rattly mess. Honestly a Gen3 Camaro may have been better. They were all Go, no show.
Car journalists hate GM. It’s like a right of passage or something. Doesn’t matter if the car is good or bad or not.
GM cheaps out on the presser buffets.
BMW pays for shrimp cocktail.
GM ride and drives are at a local airport.
Porsche flies the press to Southern Spain
Guess who gets better reviews?
100%. Americans cars in general, but especially GM.
Their newest obsession is how GM is not supporting Apple Carplay in their newest EVs. Just about every YouTuber and car mag has gone on and on about it, but those same YTers barely ever mention that their beloved Tesla doesn’t support Carplay or Android Auto. Neither does Lucid. Or Rivian. And some early EVs from other brands didn’t either. For those brands it was OK, but when GM does it, it’s the end of the world.
The killer is that you can still get all your music, contacts, maps and messages coming in through GM’s system, so it is a nothing-burger. But automotive journalists are usually too lazy to actually figure those things out, and they want something to complain about.
Tom Voelk is one of the best reviewers out there and I appreciate his willingness to go in-depth on these cars rather than simply tell the audience what they expect to hear. He reviewed one of the new EV Caddys recently and said it was no big deal that CP wasn’t directly supported.
There is cheap plastic, and there is good plastic. GM only discovered good plastic a few years ago, and they still hate to actually use it.
This – our ’07 Corolla is full of hard plastic, but it does not feel cheap and has worn like iron. It has a nice graining and feels solid. The ’88 Buick I had in college felt like it was literally built of Rubbermaid inside. Same soft flex and sandy texture.
Come on… I won’t disagree about media bias against GM but late 90s/early 2000s BMW are beautifully put together and those interiors have held up a hell of a lot better than GM products of the same era.
Most of my complaints are with the match ups in comparisons. I think many consumers will shop to a budget more so than a vehicle class, but journalists want to compare vehicles that are a similar size so you end up with odd mismatches where one vehicle is more expensive by 10s of thousands and they complain the cheaper vehicle feels cheap, and loses because of it. This happened for years with the Mustang and Camaro being compared to the M3. The M3 is a much more expensive car, I should be nicer and handle better, but since that was complained about, that’s what automakers improved, now look. The Camaro is dead and the Mustang is way more expensive than it was. I blame journalists for killing the affordable pony car.
Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.
I guess, except now we don’t have anymore knives because they are either no longer made or turned into guns. What if I can’t afford a gun? What if my use needs something cut instead of shot? Then what?
I agree with your point, it’s fun to see how they stack up performance wise, the domestics often punched above their weight. But yes, X thousand dollars more does bring more refinement.
I am mad that I can only upvote you once.
Spot-on with the comparison test miss matches, especially any time an overpriced German car is put up against someone else. The German car could cost $50k more, they will still find some way to give it points for “value”. The bias is so transparent, it is infuriating.
I also agree with the lack of affordable muscle cars. God forbid a car doesn’t have tech that most users will turn off – car magazines and YT channels won’t even review those base model cars.
For a bit, Chevy made a non SS Camaro that could be had with the lt1 v8. It was a very base model with a v8. It was 455hp Camaro for around 35k right up until the Camaro went out of production. This was not promoted at all, I can’t find anywhere where they actually gave someone one to review, but imo it was exactly what the Camaro needed to be.
And not the greatest muscle car (that could actually handle!) in our lifetime is now dead. Damn shame. I look through the used car listings on these all the time. Soo tempted.
This. It annoys me to no end when the review is clearly viewed through an impossible lens by the reviewer. I get that everyone has expectations and biases, but it isn’t that hard to keep them reasonable.
I recently saw a review of the slightly refreshed base-model Ford Lightning. The author noted it was the lowest trim, then spent the entire review bashing it because it didn’t have the offroad prowess of a Raptor, the interior luxuries of a Platinum, or the battery range or base price of an extended range Model 3. I get the points they were trying to make – it was a basic truck and therefore wasn’t that nice – but the comparisons they made to drive home their point were nonsensical and removed any and all credibility the review may have had.
The push toward hard, sport suspensions on EVERYTHING. Yes, the malaise era land yachts absolutely deserved the ride and handling criticism. But later cars like the Fox bodies or Fwd A-bodies honestly were not bad. Not everything needs to handle like a Porsche.
100% agreed and yet anything that wasn’t rock hard suspension would get marked down in comparison tests.
A Panther or late B-body rides, brakes, and handles lightyears better than the old ’60s carryover frames. They were never meant to be canyon carvers.
And yet they were still terrible. Just LESS terrible. Didn’t make them any good. Marginally competent.
I have FAR too many miles in those things thanks to Hertz having had a sense of humor as to what “upgrade” meant back in the day.
I learned to drive on an ’85 Colony Park, dad later had a slew of Town Cars and Grand Marquis. No, they were not GOOD, but better than my high school ’78 LTDII.
You can be a lot better than terrible, and still be terrible. A guy with an IQ of 60 is a lot smarter than one with an IQ of 40, but he’s still no genius.
It’s better than bad, it’s good.
Thank you! I just commented the same thing before I saw this lol
I know this will get blasted, but I often disagree with Jeep Wrangler reviews when the reviewers seems to never have driven a truck or body on frame SUV and wants the wrangler to ride like some luxury sedan. It is what it is and does what is intended of it. Now if the reviewer had some SUV experience and some off road experiences I tend to not disagree as that is usually a more realistic review.
Yep, and I’d take this so far as to say most BOF truck reviews too.
The weird fetish most journalists have for the Ridgeline is almost entirely due to its ride quality and livability improvements vs other trucks. Not saying those have no value, but they’re pretty far down most truck buyers’ wish lists.
Yes! as if they love the most car like, least truck like, truck.
Yes, reviews should be based on use and market. Let a Cadillac ride like a Caddy… don’t ding it for not being a BMW 3 series.
The worst is awarding comparison wins to CUVs or even trucks based on backroads handling.
Like come on, people don’t even drive Mustangs or Miatas to the limit, I’m supposed to believe anyone cares about stability control thresholds in a CRV?
I have driven a few that feel a bit rolly polly and unsettled, but overall I agree.
So not a CR-V, but yesterday I saw an HR-V with a “SO AND SO MOTORSPORTS” on the windshield in cursive script, along with two tow hooks dangling from the front fascia (neither in the tow receiver).
When everything is a crossover, people will… get weird. It seems.
Maybe the owner is a reviewer for an automotive publication.
I hear HR-V stands for His/Her Racing Vehicle.
Those pampered auto journos should have a compulsory period of driving old shitboxes, including old BOF and SFA vehicles, so they can truly appreciate how good modern iterations with those traits actually are. I don’t complain at all about the suspension or handling of my Gladiator because I know it’s actually very civilized for what it is. Because I have context and experience in my back pocket, not napkin-wrapped shrimp coming back to the 4 star hotel I was put up at.
I’ve also noticed that Auto Journalists are often given the top-spec trim of most cars instead of the base or volume selling trims. Eventually, when they end up back into a base model, they complain.
There’s an audience that needs to be told (or reminded) that the Wrangler isn’t going to ride like a Rav4 for the majority of it’s on-road life. I’ve met people who just want to collect rubber ducks in a Jeep, yet never driven one themselves.
You see a lot of Wranglers and Gladiators traded in, just 1 or 2 years old with less than 10K miles on them. My theory is that those came from the Jeep lifer enthusiasts who liked the idea of being part of that group, but didn’t necessarily appreciate the fuel economy and ride characteristics that come with it.
Honestly? I notice that a lot of people complain that everything doesn’t ride like a comfort-focused luxury vehicle.
… and I mean a LOT of people.
I suppose a lot of people just want to be comfortably numb.
Yes, and not in the cool Pink Floyd way.
I came in here to mention this!!! There was a particularly bad one not too long ago (I think maybe for the JL refresh?); the reviewer was practically whining about the ride and the road noise.
I slightly disagree in that I think people should be reminded that this class of vehicle is compromised for on road commuting. Wranglers and Broncos are very desirable to normies who know little about cars and may be surprised when they buy without test driving and are disappointed that it sucks on the highway conpared to the Jetta they had before.
Yes there is warning and then there is beating a dead horse.
Pretty much every professional review of the 5th gen Viper had a comment about how the seats were ungodly uncomfortable, or awful in some way, and I just…..don’t get it? They’re fine, certainly not luxury car seats, but not pain-inducing in any way.
Am I the weird one, do journalists sit strangely in cars, or what?
Special bonus to “journalist” Johnny Lieberman, whose litany of complaints I’d take more seriously if anyone actually took him seriously.
https://www.motortrend.com/features/2016-chevrolet-corvette-z06-vs-2016-dodge-viper-acr-vs-2016-porsche-911-gt3-rs
Maybe more a comment on the size of the backsides of most journo’s than the seats… I’m not as trim as I was a decade ago.