For all the magazines in the world we all know the answer: try before you buy because you are an individual. An issue that is overlooked by one person becomes of paramount importance to another.
This is why I take little stock in motor journalism these days. I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about it, actually. I still feel a bit of jetlag so I won't go in to full-on rant mode, but essentially:
- Everything is reviewed as a 'sports car' with esoteric references to 'driver interaction' and 'purity'. What determines this arcane concepts nobody knows, but if you're a motor journalist it is the most important thing in the world to act as if you are an arbiter of distilled motoring essence - or something. Even if you're reviewing a panel van. See also: talking about weight because you've read it in the spec sheet rather than actually having driven the car and assessed it on its own merits.
- None of them care about the journey anymore, which is as equally important as the car. Cars are contextual objects. I would no more use a Reliant Robin to go to the 'Ring (although I'm sure someone's done it...) than I would use a Ferrari FXX to nip to the local Happy Shopper emporium. This is tied in with point 1, i.e. reviews of Grand Tourers criticise them for not having 'the last word in driver feedback', yet the fact that Porsche fit tyres unusable in the wet OEM never gets mentioned in a country that rains more days of the year than not.
- Usability, reliability, all the stuff that egotistical journos on 'performance' mags take the piss out of other almanacs for covering are some of the most important factors in determining where to spend your hard earned. Go to a car boot or ebay and buy a 1960s/70s copy of Motor and see how in-depth the car reviews are. They are as close to objective as I have ever seen and that includes the original test of the Countach, 911 Turbo, etc. They were also far more interesting from a technical point of view and that's coming from someone with a very limited knowledge; however, they were written in such an illuminating way that a novice such as myself could be immersed in pertinent details.
- Despite the fact that reviews are never objective they completely ignore subjectivity. My parents have a new-shape Civic. I don't like it because all the controls are incredibly light and as such I find the styling incongruous. My folks, however, include my mum in her 60s who's had a stroke and a heart attack (thankfully she's better now) and my dad who carts carpet samples around for a living. They have an included service plan and Honda reliability - and it does great mpg. Wonder why they like it?
- I saw Autocar's '90 second review' of the Maserati Gran Cabrio or whatever it's called and they were still talking about scuttle shake/chassis flex. Give me a break. It's amazing that these journos don't crash the cars, they must have their eyes perma-glued to the fabled shaking rear-view mirror. I find it unbelievable that in the country that has the greatest legacy of open-topped sports cars that they still focus on finding the merest hint of the roof having been lopped off the car. Well, duh, we all know what that does for structural integrity. Buyers aren't stupid, please stop patronising them. A mild shake through the steering wheel is of little concern when you can hear 4.7 litres of Italian V8 and the wind through your toupee. Let us hope they never drive a Triumph TR6, or an MGB, or...
Lots more besides. Motor journalism needs a massive shake-up.
Last edited by Cicerone; 27/07/10 07:18 PM.
