The truth about automotive reviews,...

**ghosthunter** · September 9th, 2006 08:36 AM

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/...0905moto3.html

[SIZE="4"]Telltale signs you’re reading a crappy car review[/SIZE]
[SIZE="2"]By Vernon B. Sarne[/SIZE]

SOME of my colleagues will probably hate me for this, but this piece is what happens when a motoring journalist gets exposed to too much Anthony Bourdain, the celebrity chef who earned notoriety by spilling the beans on the restaurant business. One chapter in his book Kitchen Confidential—“From our kitchen to your table”—explains why, for instance, you shouldn’t order fish on a Monday or why you should avoid hollandaise at all times. You can bet he lost a lot of friends in his industry after those revelations.

Now how do you know if I or my colleagues are feeding you crap in our test-drive articles? I’d like to offer some trade secrets, and not because I like making enemies but because I want the usually credulous public to be able to differentiate between a trustworthy car review and a lame one. You’ve heard it said more than once: Don’t believe everything you read. Here then are the five most common warning signs your favorite motoring writer is taking you for a ride.

1. Too many mentions of the carmaker’s executives. If the car review is peppered with chummy tributes to the auto company’s president or vice-president—especially the marketing vice-president—you can be sure the writer had lost his objectivity even before he could concoct a title. Don’t expect him to divulge that the vehicle’s ride is stone-hard after relating how he and the executive had ganged up on a bottle of scotch during a recent event. If it sounds like the writer and the company official are bosom buddies, that’s because they most probably are. Don’t count on this journalist to tell you what’s really wrong with the car. It’s not gonna happen. It’s like asking him to squeal on the groom when he’s actually the best man.

2. When the review is placed side by side with an advertisement from the same carmaker. Motoring editors, especially of newspapers, constantly deal with a lot of pressure from management to increase advertising revenue in their section. The motoring section, after all, was originally conceived as a money-making supplement. If you spot a car review strategically laid out next to a car company’s full-page ad, there’s a very good chance the review has been sanitized. Sure, there’s still the occasional grumbling—the token cons after the pros—but you’ll rarely get absolute openness from such a review, especially one that comes out in a monthly advertising supplement. The same is true with car magazines. It’s not a coincidence that a test review forms a spread with an ad from the same car brand. It’s almost always done to please the almighty advertiser.

3. A brochurelike litany of the car’s specs and features. If you’re not even halfway through a car review and it already feels like you’re reading the vehicle’s product literature, it’s because the author actually lifted whole phrases from a brochure. This is common practice among those who either have no real intimate knowledge of the car or are writing under the deadliest of deadlines. A good indication the writer copied significant bits from the brochure is an exact reprint of company-exclusive terminology, including capitalization of certain or all letters. If a writer keeps referring to a BMW X5 as a “Sports Activity Vehicle,” or says a Nissan Sentra has an “Electronic Concentrated Engine Control System,” you know he is merely propagating the brand’s corporate-speak. You might as well just get your car review from the company’s engineers themselves. I’d prefer gonzo journalism to armchair criticism any day of the week.

4. Inaccurate data or exaggerated information. Motoring journalists may differ in their assessment of the same car, but there are certain constants here. Like basic specs and figures. There’s no excuse for a wrong quotation of an engine’s horsepower or even the vehicle’s price, because these things are verifiable. If a writer can’t even give you the correct list of safety features—a colleague once declared that the Isuzu Crosswind has airbags—how can you trust him to give you a proper evaluation of the vehicle’s performance? Also, look out for some too-good-to-be-true storytelling. Some scribes in the business actually have a bright future in fiction writing. A newbie once boasted he had driven the car at 200kph on Pasay Road in Makati. How he did it became the subject of intensive research over at the Department of Public Works and Highways.

5. An abnormally swooning praise for or extremely damning indictment of the vehicle. “I do allow personal issues to cloud my judgment,” says the British motoring journalist Jeremy Clarkson. Filipino automotive writers are no different, trust me. In our beat, most journalists are associated too closely with certain carmakers while also being known to harbor grudges against other companies. If someone writes about Mitsubishi all the time, for instance, and these write-ups are exclusively positive, that’s because the guy is beholden to Mitsubishi. Or if the writer sounds like he had an orgasm just driving a pickup, he could truly be “good” friends with the assembler. By the same token, if a writer patently froths in the mouth trying to discredit not only the vehicle but more so the brand, chances are he merely has an ax to grind. It’s easy to monitor these things, especially if you subscribe to a newspaper or a car magazine regularly. Over time, it’s easy to tell who leans toward which car company and who’s in a cold war with it.

The bottom line is that you, the car buyer, should be able to know when a vehicle review is reliable or not. And that’s because motoring journalists won’t give you a refund once you get stuck with a lousy ride.

[SIZE="2"]The author is also the editor in chief of TopGear Philippines. You may e-mail
your comments or suggestions at vernon.sarne*summitmedia.com [/SIZE]

**Jun aka Pekto** · September 9th, 2006 08:46 AM

What a coincidence. I was just thinking the same thing about Autozine......

**mikey177** · September 9th, 2006 08:52 AM

Thanks for posting that good article.

That's why when sopping for a new ride, I also read up on what fellow Tsikoteers have to say about it, as well as other reputable sources or friends who have owned the same vehicle. Everything helps in making an informed decision --after all, a car is a big investment that should be chosen wisely.

**alwayz_yummy** · September 9th, 2006 09:22 AM

especially topgear, ung sa UK, matinding review, muhkang di sila sponsored ng car industry, and thats what i like about it.. honestly, dito sa atin kasi, i can feel na no "true review"...well cant blame them... wala pa ko napanonood na local tv auto show na magreview-ala UK topgear.

**OTEP** · September 9th, 2006 09:25 AM

RBG is always thanking Arnel Doria of Honda Cars. Siguro dapat pakasalan na lang niya yun.

On his last article, he even commented on how good the catered food was! Again thanking the bigwigs of a car company whose logo is popular on Jeepneys. He then proceeded to lift everything off the brochure to fill in the rest of the article.

**mazdamazda** · September 9th, 2006 09:28 AM

Hmm... that's a good article.

**Eismann** · September 9th, 2006 09:53 AM

I hate reviews....I rely on my own instinct and practicality when choosing a car. After all, each one has it flaws and strengths. Choosing a car is a somehow likened to choosing a girl to be with. When it's already bought, you overlook the flaws, enjoy it's strengths and love it as it is.

**Jun aka Pekto** · September 9th, 2006 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by alwayz_yummy

especially topgear, ung sa UK, matinding review, muhkang di sila sponsored ng car industry, and thats what i like about it.. honestly, dito sa atin kasi, i can feel na no "true review"...well cant blame them... wala pa ko napanonood na local tv auto show na magreview-ala UK topgear.

Even Top Gear has chinks in its armor. I looked up their review of my 2006 Hyundai Sonata V6 at their website a moment ago. The pics of the current model was there. But, the reviews were for the 2002 model. I'm not one to question their housekeeping. But, their review of the 2002 model was pretty bad.

Now, they have the picture of the 2006 model and yet, still have the 2002 review. What kind of opinion does that impart on unsuspecting viewers?

I still prefer C/D, Motor Trend, and Automobile because they tend to be the most consistent and up to date. C/D was often accused of being hard on Big-3 cars. But, I've seen them give thumbs up on domestic cars more than once.