Sorry to raise this once again (well I'm not really that sorry) but I read this on a motoring web site and thought it was priceless.
I don't want to get into a debate over the poor reliability of certain brands and so have removed reference to the type of car although enthusiasts such as us will have a good idea - I think.
"The XXXX has generally been well-built, though owners have reported problems with this 2003- series: issues include wiper failures, clutch faults, ignition coil failure (in 2.0-litre engine), radiator leaks and head gasket failure and easily-damaged metallic paint.
Not as good as it could - or should - have been. It's still got the feelgood factor, with solidly-clunking doors and neat interior finish, however."
How on earth can you describe a car as having a feel good factor and expect to even put quality in the same sentence as car that is that unreliable.
Oh the sheer con of damped grab rails and a nice dash - how it fools some people.
|
I assume from the wording it was written by a journalist.
If so, there is your explanation.
Amongst other descriptions of journalists, the following are apposite: lazy, ignorant and stupid.
Third most despised profession after politicians and estate agents is a general view
|
That is a good point madf.
I suppose it just suprises me how many people still put their trust in these people when they buy a car.
|
I work on the basis that if buying a new (to me) car:
read as many tests as possible
read what owners think
drive at least two first including speed humps
look at the warranty statistics.
Any journalists who go on about "handling" and never mention "comfort" are considered useless.
For example, the Mini Cooper S ride was slated by HJ if fitted with bigger wheels.
A girl I met at yoga classes bought one with bigger wheels. She found it very uncomfortable on our local roads.
That says to me "good journalism warts and all"
Just look at all the people buying VW and expecting customer service to mean "service for customers". If they bothered to do any research.
Journalists get away with it cos the general public accepts shoddy writing.
Edited by madf on 19/03/2008 at 18:34
|
|
|
Thanks a lot madf for that deeply pondered judgement. I won't take it personally, but I don't think I am the only former hack who looks in and rabbits here.
Of course our Supreme Leader is a practising motoring hack, just the type you were referring to, no?
Or are there 'certain honourable exceptions'?
:o]
|
>Lud
yes of course there are honourable exceptions...
And I know when journalists test new cars they cannot tell what is going to go wrong.
Nevertheless, when I read reviews of Mark2 versions of a car and the reviewer says words to the effect "fixes the faults inherent in the Mark 1. lack of space, bumpy ride, etc" but when he/she tested the Mark1 these faults were hardly mentioned.
Perhaps I'm just a grumpy old man.
Our Beloved Leader has very good road tests and I seriously rate his reviews highly.
My comments on journalists are coloured by growing up reading George Bishop in Car... the Guild of Muttering Rotters..
IIRC Car lost all Goodyear and Firestone advertising after their review of the Mark 3 Zephyr panned it for handling - or lack of it. Words like "Goodyear Gripless" still linger. I can't remember what he called Firestones...
Edited by madf on 20/03/2008 at 15:32
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pendlebury, the public readily confuses instant show room appeal or "quality" with excellence in design and engineering.The former is appreciated immediately, the latter may take months or years to become apparent. Long term road tests in motoring journals are not representative of real world ownership as they are usually for one year/15,000 miles and frequently faults are regarded as a minor inconvenience.
The public could be better informed through motoring journals but one can perhaps understand the difficulties a journal might have if it was ruthlessly honest about the failings of some products. Sites such as this are fonts of useful if not always unbiased information.
alfalfa
|
I think this is why Subaru have such loyalty as they know that if you dont get the basic design and engineering right, it lets the customer down, they are less likely to come back for a second helping and its then bad business.
Subaru interiors are smart but they certainly arent a shrine to soft-touch materials, all the better for it.
One thing ive noticed is that BMW and Audi use very sub-standard finishes inside that last only a couple of years - the coating they put on door handles and on the BMW steering wheels just peels off - not good on £40k cars but a prime example of some twit signing off on something without considering its long term durability.
|
I'm a journalist, some of my best friends are journalists and I don't know one who is ignorant or stupid.
I also spent a long time wrestling with words in a bid to help other people make the right decisions when it came to buying cars - with, I hope, just a little success.
I too am mainly disappointed with the quality of products that make up most of the car market nowadays and I believe it is true that bean counters in firms like Honda - aargh, it slipped out - are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
But please, don't shoot the messengers.
|
Journalists
- I would imagine a journalist working for a car mag is always under pressure to highlight the positive and down play the negatives. Main reason is where does most of the advertising revenue come from? A journalist who slated a car may have to explain himself in front of the editor.
- Website journalists/reviewers probably more free to tell it how it is, but probably do not earn much either if this is their main profession.
- Owner reviews attract more complainers than maybe justified, but at least highlights things to look out for.
I read all the reviews possible bearing in mind who wrote them, and normally you can spot all the common issues / positive points.
|
|
|
|
"The XXXX has generally been well-built, though owners have reported problems with this 2003- series"
Yes, I have noticed this sort of review, but owner reviews on various sites are even funnier.
You know, the write-ups where the owner gives a list of things that have gone wrong with the vehicle and then enthusiastically concludes "great car" as if several major problems in a year were nothing.
I can understand that reliability problems could be more than offset by the driving experience in, say, some piece of hot-blooded exotica. With owner reviews that usually isn't the case: these are saloon cars or SUVs - day to day transport! If people don't think that level of unreliability is a problem it says a lot about their expectations.
Suss
|
|
Come on OP, please tell us what the car is...
|
www.channel4.com/4car/rt/audi/a3/19939/2
Man without a plan made me do it - honest ! - I was not going to mention the A3.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 20/03/2008 at 19:29
|
Well it was clearly a Volkswagen of some description.
The motoring press seem to bathe in the aura that is everything Volkswagen-derived. A solid-sounding door seems more important than actually quality. I had a Sharan 10 years ago - I haven't owned any sort of VW group car since!
|
|
|
|
