NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/rec/autos/26698

Text File | 1992-11-13 | 5.7 KB | 124 lines

Newsgroups: rec.autos
Path: sparky!uunet!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!jnielsen
From: [e-mail] (John F Nielsen)
Subject: Re: Are there any Luxary AWD?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: photon.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:06:49 GMT
Lines: 111

>ok.. when they tested the automatic Audi 100 recently, they really
>made a big fat stink about the jagged transmission gate, almost
>to the point of saying the whole car sucked because of it.

I'll look at what they say on that and get back to you.

>>For example they loved the new Bonneville and the new BWM 325i. They

>>even put the BWM 5 series on the same rank as Lexus.
>
>guess what john?  i put the 5 series *above* the lexus.  read my posts
>on "inffinity (sic) vs bmw".  it is possible that there are cars that
>are better (using a different set of criteria) than the lexus.  acura
>has spent quite an amount of advertising dollars telling us.

If I remember correctly, they thought the Legend was a good car but
has some criticisms about it. Maybe, I'll quote some of what they
have to say and you can see if they are out in left field.
From what you have said, you seem to be very experienced in
judging cars. So, let's see if what they mention about a car
is wrong.

Also they did not like the Acura anything close to as what they liked
about the BWM or Lexus. And they also said they liked the BWM and
Lexus for very different reasons. I think I'll quote from that to, so
you can have an idea what I am talking about. And you can see if their
opinion of the BWM is biased or just blatantly wrong.

>how do you explain the fact that they rate the Acura Integra so highly
>when in reality it is one of the most mediocre cars in the market?
>sure, it doesn't break down, but in all areas of dynamics, it is the
>pits.

I'll look at what they say . . .

>why did the original legend get so much praise when the CEO of Honda
>himself rates it as "no more than 6 on a scale of 10"?

As I said, I do not think they praised it *that* much.

>hey, i'm not getting any money defending bmw from its critics.  does
>that make me completely objective?  the problem with CU is that they
>*pretend* to be objective (or maybe they really believe that they are
>objective, whatever) when in fact they've got all their little
>anal-retentive nitpicks which typically cloud the whole review.
>
>when they test a good Subaru, they will say things like "surprising
>for a Subaru".  doesn't that sound like prejudice?

So, you are saying Subaru have always made cars of excellent quality?
It may be possbile that until the Legacy their cars were cheap and
tinny like an Excel. In other words, when compared to their history,
it is surprising to see a car like this. Is that prejudice?  If
Hyundai made a very good car, would you think they would be prejudiced
in saying "surprising for a Hyundai"?

With regards to they family sedan, I think you are intrepreting it wrong.

Maybe their scale is dependant on that(i.e. they give a sports car a
black mark for rear passanger room when it doesn't have any, which is
true any way you turn it). But, when they rate the sports cars at
the same time they take into account and mention that things like rear
passenger room and a cushy ride are not a necessity.  If what you
say is true, then they could never reccommend a car like a Miata
or 300ZX when in fact they do.

Another example, they mention the downsides of those big 4x4s(like
their problems with a higher center of mass) that are becoming
popular. But at the same time they say that in the mountains nothing
will beat them.

In other words, they do give favorable reviews of sports cars or other
non sedan cars but they also mention the downsides of having one --
they say the whole story.

>CU/CR could legitimately claim to not be influenced by advertising
>dollars, but that doesn't mean that they understand cars at all.  my
>evaluation of CR is that they don't.  CR bragging about not taking
>advertising dollars is like Ross Perot saying that he will be a great
>president just because he doesn't accept PAC money.  (oops opening a
>can of worms here!!! arrrgghh)

True, but it does gives them the possibility of being relatively
unbiased in their understanding of cars.  And, if they only recently got
into rating cars, maybe you would have a point. As I have said, they
have been rating cars since around the 20's, how many other car mags
can say that? That is enough for me to at least give them a chance.

The bias I seem to see on the net looks to stem from nationalism
and perhaps die-hard sportscarism(?). Which I think is evident
from the case where someone asserted something blatantly wrong
about them in an attempt to show they are biased.

Take what they say as a whole not out of context. Hey, and I am not
all for them. I just think they are getting an unfair wrap on the net.
If what I find does show they are biased, then fine I'll accept it.
Just because a lot of people disagree with something that does not
really tell one much beyond the fact that people disagree. Majority
does not equal truth, if that was the case we'd still be in the middle
ages.

More later today after I look stuff up . . .

john


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nielsen   MAGNUS Consultant            ______   ______   __  __
"I can't compete with you physically,      /\  __ \ /\  ___\ /\ \/\ \
and you're no match for my brains."          \ \ \/\ \\ \___  \\ \ \_\ \