Motoring Journalists and "Driver Involvement"

[Squink]

A few weeks ago, I was looking for a car which was to be used purely for family stuff. I saw (and subsequently bought) a Citroen C4 Picasso, but when I was doing my online research on the model, I came across this particular snippet in the Telegraph review: "This should probably be a four-star car but these days being adequate in terms of driving pleasure is no longer enough." The end result was three stars.

Now I bought the car anyway, so the journalist's words didn't put me off, but I did find it somewhat pointless that he thought it appropriate to bring up the subject of driving fun in a car that is in no way designed to be fun and is surely never bought for the purposes of fun. In my mind, the journalist failed at his job.

This of course is just one example of many. It seems that every review of every car has a "fun to drive" section that receives an excessive weighting - with conclusions invariably repeating the adjudged levels of driver involvement, excitement etc. I have no problem with the concept of enjoying a car. If I'm ever in the market for a hot hatch or a sporty car, I'll avidly check out the fun ratings of the models I'm interested in. Otherwise, I don't really care - give me a few lines about it, but don't balance the whole review of an Aygo or a Mondeo or an Astra around how much fun it gives to a journalist who certainly has a different interest in cars than most people who shell out their own cash for one.

These days, any car on decent tyres can corner much faster than it needs to and they've all got suspension that is at least adequate. The opportunities for most people to throw their cars around the twisties are limited. So, Motoring section, do I have a point? Should reviews spend so much effort focusing on an aspect of a car that 90% of buyers really don't care much about?

 

[tom_nieto]

Columns would be significantly shorter if these things weren't incorporated. I completely agree with you about family wagons not really being fun to drive, but there are some subjective (and objective) differences in the way that these cars drive, some of which the consumer may prefer and result in them buying one car over another. Is describing my Kia Sportage as "not encouraging or rewarding of spirited driving" helpful on its own? Perhaps if I then added "relaxed and easy drive" it gives a better impression. "Vague steering feedback when pressing on over country roads", but "light steering easy to manoeuvre around town". You could go on!

 

[PMKeates]

It's perfectly possible for a 'family' car to drive well and be enjoyable. That isn't so much to do with cornering speeds and performance, but instead the way it handles, behaves, responds to input, the steering feedback, control of brakes etc.

 

[adolf hamster]

this is why i only look at reviews for the purposes of getting an idea of running costs and potential breakdowns.

when it comes to driver engagement, or comfort, there's no substitute for just driving the thing and seeing if you like it or not.

 

[VincentHanna]

Assuming equal practicality/price, I'd take a fun car over a boring car anyday.

 

[Squink]

Assuming equal practicality/price, I'd take a fun car over a boring car anyday.

Of course you would, but the difference between a couple of mid range family cars is going to be minimal. Motoring journalists need you to buy their publications, so they have to artificially inflate the value of that which most appeals to them and in the process do a disservice to the majority of car buyers.

 

[Jim99]

I agree that you just need to drive them. I read a whole bunch of reviews when we were looking at a company car, and when we test drove the A Class and 120d from the set list both of them felt like they were going to shatter my spine. We ended up with an Astra instead, which I never would have expected.

Perhaps they may have been more fun to drive, as a reviewer might have stated, but I personally would never have enjoyed the BMW / Merc because they were too uncomfortable.

I read more for views on performance, quality of interior etc as those types of things are less subjective.

 

[Nasher]

Even performance is subjective to an extent. E.g. A lot of people prefer a high revving NA engine to a turbo because you get a "nicer" power delivery.

 

[Scania]

Even performance is subjective to an extent. E.g. A lot of people prefer a high revving NA engine to a turbo because you get a "nicer" power delivery.

This is very true although I must say when I tried my brother in laws M4 I was very surprised- and impressed- by its power delivery, almost linear and nearly - but not quite - as progressive as a normally aspirated engine, which for a turbocharged lump is some feat of engineering and a world away from the RS Turbo’s I owned years back and the RS Cosworth I used to regularly drive back in the day.

 

[adolf hamster]

This is very true although I must say when I tried my brother in laws M4 I was very surprised- and impressed- by its power delivery, almost linear and nearly - but not quite - as progressive as a normally aspirated engine, which for a turbocharged lump is some feat of engineering and a world away from the RS Turbo’s I owned years back and the RS Cosworth I used to regularly drive back in the day.

i suspect bmw probably put quite a lot of effort into trying to replicate an n/a engine, given they have a history of preferring not to put turbos on things.

 

[PMKeates]

Of course you would, but the difference between a couple of mid range family cars is going to be minimal. Motoring journalists need you to buy their publications, so they have to artificially inflate the value of that which most appeals to them and in the process do a disservice to the majority of car buyers.

Have you considered that other people appreciate what you don't, and actually the issue is with you and not the well established motor journals?

 

[Squink]

Have you considered that other people appreciate what you don't, and actually the issue is with you and not the well established motor journals?

Everyone is different. What I am saying is that most people don't need to know that a Toyota Yaris is more or less fun than a VW Polo, nor do reviews need to belabour the point. If you're buying a fiesta st, then yes it's relevant to the final review score.

 

[Joe T]

I agree. Journalists tend to be 'car guys' so it's important to them, however for the majority of car buyers this is far from important. Nowhere is this more evident than with SUVs: repeatedly criticised in the press for their (relatively) poor handling etc, but does it stop sales booming? Does it heck.

 

[WJA96]

Motoring journalists are extensions of the press departments of car manufacturers. If you read the reviews they generally tell you what the marketing wonks at the car manufacturers want them to say. If you don’t tow the line you don’t get invited on the next press launch. And people like to be flown first class to Lanzarote/Monaco/Mallorca/Switzerland to be treated like kings and queens as the drive the 1.0 Blah-mobile of the week.

There are pretty much no really bad cars anymore. The problem now is that they are all shaped by a small group of stylists, equipped from the same parts bins (Recaro make all the seats and Continental make an awful lot more than tyres if you look closely) and even the major mechanical bits are often shared across multiple car “brands”.

When you end up with an Audi A1, Seat Ibiza, Skoda Fabia and VW Polo there are very few things you can actually do to differentiate them. Which is a nightmare when the marketing departments want to charge hundreds or thousands of pounds more for the same car with four rings on it. And changing the steering weight and suspension are effectively free and make an obvious difference to anyone who test drives all those cars.

I agree totally that the only person whose opinion matters is the person who buys it.

 

[Lashout_UK]

Motoring journalists are extensions of the press departments of car manufacturers.

Only the bad ones!

 

[Nasher]

I agree. Journalists tend to be 'car guys' so it's important to them, however for the majority of car buyers this is far from important. Nowhere is this more evident than with SUVs: repeatedly criticised in the press for their (relatively) poor handling etc, but does it stop sales booming? Does it heck.

A lot of people buy them because they are under the illusion that they are safer.

 

[Joe T]

One aspect that affects this is:

Men and women want different things when choosing a car. They prioritise value for money, efficiency, space, assistance, safety and maneuverability. Men, on the other hand, favour power, performance, engine size, speed and aesthetics.

when you consider that

Women make 85% of all purchasing decisions, and when it comes to car buying, that figure is even higher. In fact, research suggests women are the primary purchasers of cars, influencing 95% of all auto purchases and accounting for 65% of all new car purchases.

Source

Car reviews are predominantly aimed at a male audience, likely due to that's where the 'enthusiasts' tend to sit. However, these are not always the groups that actually buy cars.

 

[Vern1961]

Driving "fun" is a very subjective topic. In truth the "fun" went out of driving quite a few years ago as our narrow roads become more congested, you battle your way through roundabouts and convoluted road junctions with the markings completely worn off. I love my new Sportage, the engine sound, the seats and the view above the height of a normal car. But all that is for naught if I can't appreciate the scenery driving through the hills because some moron in a Beamer or Audi is offset tailgating me even though I'm doing the speed limit. Or, conversely, catch up to the tailback of 15 cars behind Ada doing 40 MPH in the NSL area but there is either too much oncoming traffic or insufficient visibility to overtake. And "Ada" probably doesn't have the wit to either speed up or pull into a layby for half a minute to remedy the situation.

Perhaps I'm just impatient or a miserable old grouch but "fun" in any vehicle (or for that matter just practical transportation) is the open road ahead which sadly all too rare these days.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I think it's fine to take it into consideration and give judgement on it but it should be weighted differently for certain cars. I would like my 1.6 focus to handle well but I would put build quality and features above how it goes round a corner

 

[Scania]

I think it's fine to take it into consideration and give judgement on it but it should be weighted differently for certain cars. I would like my 1.6 focus to handle well but I would put build quality and features above how it goes round a corner

What year Focus is it? My partner has recently changed her 12plate 1.6 diesel one, the engine was a bit underpowered but the chassis was fantastic, I thought it a very sweet handling car, you could easily keep it at a good pace along twisty roads - once it got to said pace that is!