|
|
|
|
 |
talon95
 |
|
Also, Accord most fun to drive, Passat least fun to drive.
Take that, Motor Trend!
Fusion #2
Altima #3
More details later, if nobody beats me to it.
|
talon95
|
|
|
To make this register in the latest forum messages so it doesn't get posted elsewhere.
|
P54
|
|
Now lets find out who was bribed or drunk.
Motor Trend or Car and Driver?
|
talon95
|
|
Well, the initial first drives and stuff for the Passat were less than impressive. Lots of comments about big and bland. Then suddenly it ends up COTY and MT's ongoing favorite.
Accord's first drives almost unanimously praised its handling and fun-to-drive quotient. MT was pretty much the only ones who thought otherwise.
So MT was on the opposite end of the spectrum for both the Passat and Accord when compared to most of the rest of the automotive press.
So I'd say MT was the bribee or the drunk. As others have suggested, I think they were trying to maintain the apparent integrity of their choice of Passat as COTY.
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
talon95 wrote:
Also, Accord most fun to drive, Passat least fun to drive.
Take that, Motor Trend!
Fusion #2
Altima #3
More details later, if nobody beats me to it.
|
So what Accord trim level did C&D test?
|
talon95
|
|
|
EX I4
|
mobis21
|
|
talon95 wrote:
Also, Accord most fun to drive, Passat least fun to drive.
Take that, Motor Trend!
Fusion #2
Altima #3
More details later, if nobody beats me to it.
|
Any links to the article? Didn't see it on Car and Driver site!
|
talon95
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
talon95 wrote:
Also, Accord most fun to drive, Passat least fun to drive.
Take that, Motor Trend!
Fusion #2
Altima #3
More details later, if nobody beats me to it.
|
Any links to the article? Didn't see it on Car and Driver site!
|
It appears on their site a few days after the magazine becomes available. Probably to promote newsstand sales. I subscribe to the magazine and got it in the mail today.
One thing that was strange… the content of the Accord's review was already featured in their first drive article. So you can see what they had to say about the Accord, but you'll have to wait until it appears on the site to see the comparison.
|
dampflok
|
|
talon95 wrote:
mobis21 wrote:
Any links to the article? Didn't see it on Car and Driver site! |
One thing that was strange… the content of the Accord's review was already featured in their first drive article. So you can see what they had to say about the Accord, but you'll have to wait until it appears on the site to see the comparison. |
|
talon95
|
|
dampflok wrote:
talon95 wrote:
mobis21 wrote:
Any links to the article? Didn't see it on Car and Driver site! |
One thing that was strange… the content of the Accord's review was already featured in their first drive article. So you can see what they had to say about the Accord, but you'll have to wait until it appears on the site to see the comparison. |
|
The compare write-up was constructed from bits and pieces from the first drive. There were parts in the first drive about the V-6 which weren't relevant to the comparo vehicle that were omitted. But 90% of the content of the Accord's comparo was lifted from the first drive, with no more than some rearrangement and light editing. Strange choice.
|
Mechanic
|
|
talon95 wrote: . . .The compare write-up was constructed from bits and pieces from the first drive. There were parts in the first drive about the V-6 which weren't relevant to the comparo vehicle that were omitted. But 90% of the content of the Accord's comparo was lifted from the first drive, with no more than some rearrangement and light editing. Strange choice.
|
Very strange. I'll have to read the piece. Based on your description, it doesn't sound as if they actually compared cars contemporaniously. More like, "Say, Joe, last month when you drove the Accord, did it handle OK?"
|
98EX4cyl
|
|
Mechanic wrote:
talon95 wrote: . . .The compare write-up was constructed from bits and pieces from the first drive. There were parts in the first drive about the V-6 which weren't relevant to the comparo vehicle that were omitted. But 90% of the content of the Accord's comparo was lifted from the first drive, with no more than some rearrangement and light editing. Strange choice.
|
Very strange. I'll have to read the piece. Based on your description, it doesn't sound as if they actually compared cars contemporaniously. More like, "Say, Joe, last month when you drove the Accord, did it handle OK?"
|
Just wondering, what was the margin of victory in terms of points?
|
BorisHonda
|
|
All this magazine's 'comparo' and 'reviews' are pure BS.
Car barely hit the dealerships and these magazines 'with authority' proclaim winner and looser? What? They bought the vehicle and spend 24/7 driving all over the country. Plan BS! Plus they print paper a month or two in advance.
This is all about 'being first' and report muddy opinion. You are becoming 'ME FIRST' society.
I will trust reviews after 6 months of ownership and daily drive.
And you folks subscribing to paper magazines are THE biggest suckers! Those auto magazines are 95% ADS! No substance. You should be getting them for free. I used to read electronic version but got sick of commercials, commercials, commercials. To hell with the magazines.
I trust real people driving real cars on this forum, not some demos "only for you my friend, and here is the voucher for a month of lunch at the local watering hole and we will toss few broads for a good measure. So REMEMBER who paid you the most (and remember those broads) when you write about OUR fantastic car". BS, BS, BS.
|
talon95
|
|
BorisHonda wrote:
And you folks subscribing to paper magazines are THE biggest suckers!
|
Hey, thanks! I love you too, man!
I read the mags because I enjoy them. If you don't, you can decide not to read them, which you've already done. I won't call you names because we have different opinions. They're just one source of information out of many. And they are quite influential because they're so visible.
For the record, I get them for free through my employer. And they don't print most parts of such periodicals a month or two in advance (only things that are set early like ads)... I know that because I'm in the business and if it took that long to print them, there would be no business to be in. And I do take the results with a grain of salt, especially early ones. The only reason that I made a big deal about this is that some people were spreading doom and gloom about the new Accord because Motor Trend said that it's not fun to drive. They're idiots and I can vouch for the veracity of what was said by C&D based on my own experience. Yeah, it's not six months, but for some people, six months is an eternity.
|
talon95
|
|
|
For the record, "idiots" in my previous post refers to the Motor Trend testers, not the members sharing the information. :)
|
superchg2
|
|
BorisHonda wrote:
You are becoming 'ME FIRST' society.
And you folks subscribing to paper magazines are THE biggest suckers!
|
Boris, a while back you shared with us your lowly opinion of Police and Firefighters, the very same people that might save your sorry ass one day!
Now you are letting us know that we are suckers for subscribing to a magazine?
I'm not sure what you have been through in your life but I, for one, get tired of reading your cynical commentary.
|
dampflok
|
|
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
TonyEX
|
|
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
Thank you for posting!
I still don't see any real world benefit of engine downsizing here.....
|
Waatdaehell
|
|
Dang Boris, must you be so cynical? You're like those folks that protest everything, claim everything is a conspiracy, suggest that everything is out there to get you. Chill out!
Back on topic, just like reading bad reviews about products being sold on websites like Amazon, you really have to read the details to understand if any statement has substance or is BS. There are so many reviews from people that bought the wrong model, then rate it poorly because it's missing the option they were looking for. So that poorly-rated product might not be as poor as one thinks.
When I read comparison tests, I focus on the details that apply to me. Just because they say something comes in first doesn't mean that I'll automatically say that I agree that the comparo winner is best. It really depends on the reasons why it came in first. If they deem the winner as smooth and quiet but not quite sporty enough in the handling department, that may not be for me. Now if they deem the winner as having the sportiest ride, maybe too rough for some, then that applies more to me.
With regards to the Passat being "fun to drive", Motor Trend must be smoking crack! I tend to disagree with Motor Trend most of the time, but I don't simply disregard them. In this case however, I find it ludicrous and I agree with the folks that say that Motor Trend is justifying their decision to name the Passat Car of the Year.
I've driven a Passat 2.5 and owned a Jetta with the same motor. It's one of the worst motors I've ever experienced! It's loud, coarse, and lags like it's a turbo. Relatively, it has plenty of torque, yet feels under powered on the highways. The 2.5 5-cylinder is the main reason why I refused to even look at the Passat when my Jetta was sold. And handling-wise, the Passat is decent, but in no means is it "fun-to-drive". It feels heavy and big. It lifts and dives under hard acceleration and braking. It feels American!
So I'm not sure what Motor Trend was thinking.
|
P54
|
|
BorisHonda is right in many things, however don't take it personally. Like so many things in life money rules. Those various magazines have testers with different tastes and likes that might not be what the buying public go after. Many a car have been car of the year that have turned out to be "junk".
Magazines are there to cater to the car buying public, however make a living on ads and of course they are influenced buy whoever pays the most ads. Also they have car presentations by manufacturers, trips to see new models etc. and a manufacturer that do this well influences the magazine in how to promote their cars. There might even be "bribery" in disguise.
Even CR turned out to have a former Nissan guy employed and who went back to Nissan from CR. Could he be biased?
You never know who "bought" certain magazines, editors, staff etc. and who is pushing certain brands. Best way would be to test the car yourself. Even acceleration tests is done in a way that most people would never do to their own cars and the best acceleration test that most people would benefit from would be passing test, like 45-60 mph. Few people would care for a 0-60 test with screaming engine and tires.
So BorisHonda is just saying magazines are there to make a living for themselves and can be very biased. The very thing that 2 different magazines come to the opposite result is quite telling. And people buying the magazines keep their business going, however far they might be from the truth.
Instead of the insanely focus on 0-60, 1/4 mile etc. they should focus more on things the buyer value. Like maintenance cost, how often you need maintenance, how labor incentive to do the service, comparing the brands etc. Then they should have standardized tests in avoidance maneuver, like when people are going down the road and suddenly have to make a sharp turn to avoid a child, deer, car etc. Some people panic in such a situation and jam the brakes so a test with avoidance maneuver with and without brakes applied should be part of the test to see how different cars behave at the limit. Also they should test the cars with different tire options so buyers could more easily see which tires perform better and have less tire noise.
Then they should take cars to dealerships for service, have work done etc. with known "planted" problems and see if dealers are doing their job. Dealers should not know it is a magazine test car and upon the return of the car the magazine can check if the problems have been rectified and all the work on the maintenance schedule has been done. Dealers sometimes charge for work not done as they assume everything is OK. This kind of testing would improve the work at dealerships and repair-shops.
|
superchg2
|
|
P54 wrote:
Magazines are there to cater to the car buying public, however make a living on ads and of course they are influenced buy whoever pays the most ads.
|
Over the years, I've always enjoyed the writing in Road and Track. The main bias I'm aware that they have is towards high end cars. They love to test Ferraris, Jaguars, Corvettes, Beemers, and all other manner of big bucks rides.
It would be nice to be able to move up to the high price spread, but I guess I will just stick with my little Si and take it on a quick trip up to 8300 r.p.m. when I want to feel racy!
|
jheighto
|
|
|
Just read the issue from my mail subscription. First thing that jumped out at me was the CD average mpg measured on the cars. All seemed to be around 18mpg which is way below rated figures for any of them. CD must have been flogging the piss out of these things!
|
sugaki
|
|
BorisHonda wrote:
And you folks subscribing to paper magazines are THE biggest suckers! Those auto magazines are 95% ADS! No substance. You should be getting them for free. I used to read electronic version but got sick of commercials, commercials, commercials. To hell with the magazines.
|
Editors don't get paid off for glowing reviews. And you don't need to spend 24/7 in a car to get a feel for how it drives. One day is plenty. Plus, if you're talking about long term, that's what a long term test fleet is for.
As far as cars getting lower mpg figures, that's because they get tested harder than how a normal person would drive.
Honestly the results aren't that surprising--C&D has loved the Accord, and even MT gave a pretty glowing assessment of the Accord (to me it read like the Accord was better).
|
Hondarulez
|
|
sugaki wrote:
BorisHonda wrote:
And you folks subscribing to paper magazines are THE biggest suckers! Those auto magazines are 95% ADS! No substance. You should be getting them for free. I used to read electronic version but got sick of commercials, commercials, commercials. To hell with the magazines.
|
Editors don't get paid off for glowing reviews. And you don't need to spend 24/7 in a car to get a feel for how it drives. One day is plenty. Plus, if you're talking about long term, that's what a long term test fleet is for.
As far as cars getting lower mpg figures, that's because they get tested harder than how a normal person would drive.
Honestly the results aren't that surprising--C&D has loved the Accord, and even MT gave a pretty glowing assessment of the Accord (to me it read like the Accord was better).
|
This time, they tested them really hard (which is not uncommon). Usually, in these comparison tests these cars would on average meet the city rating, but this time, it's way below even the city ratings!
|
sugaki
|
|
Hondarulez wrote:
This time, they tested them really hard (which is not uncommon). Usually, in these comparison tests these cars would on average meet the city rating, but this time, it's way below even the city ratings!
|
It's not as bad as other car tests. For example I was driving the Ford Shelby GT500, which after generous blips of the throttle gave me 8 mpg (it's supposed to be 15 mpg city).
I'm already seeing a couple of Accords on the road, so my guess is it's moving off the lots pretty well? I think it's a step in the right direction (without having driven it though)--making the external smaller while the interior the same is classic Honda. Not fond of that high front end, but otherwise it looks like a well-made car.
Still, that Mazda6 looks amazing--really wish it was in the comparo.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
sugaki wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
This time, they tested them really hard (which is not uncommon). Usually, in these comparison tests these cars would on average meet the city rating, but this time, it's way below even the city ratings!
|
It's not as bad as other car tests. For example I was driving the Ford Shelby GT500, which after generous blips of the throttle gave me 8 mpg (it's supposed to be 15 mpg city).
I'm already seeing a couple of Accords on the road, so my guess is it's moving off the lots pretty well? I think it's a step in the right direction (without having driven it though)--making the external smaller while the interior the same is classic Honda. Not fond of that high front end, but otherwise it looks like a well-made car.
Still, that Mazda6 looks amazing--really wish it was in the comparo.
|
Yea, I'm waiting for a big comparison test in the mid-size family sedan segment!
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
TonyE wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
To me the real story is....the Passat rated so much less than the others managed to get the same MPG... The other 3 cars have all this new hyped efficent tech and yet the passat finished the same as them. I haven't driven one of the 1.6 Ecoboost, but don't remember C & D saying anything overly negitive about it....it's been a few days since I read it in the paper mag.
And while there was a big fuss about the Accord getting 'similar MPG' than the Altima, it managed to get 1mpg better.
|
CarGuyLee
|
|
|
Funny to me how quickly the MPG results are dismissed this time because they are not favorable....said they were flogged ... but for some reason others are real world.... funny
|
Hondarulez
|
|
CarGuyLee wrote:
TonyE wrote:
dampflok wrote:
Over at the Drive Accord forums, someone posted this summary of the comparison test: http://www.driveaccord.net/forums/showpost.php?p=985993&postcount=55. According to the summary, here are the contestants' fun-to-drive scores (maximum of 25) and total scores (maximum of 240). I've put the figures in this format: ([fun-to-drive]/[total]).
Accord EX (23/212)
Fusion SE EcoBoost (21/202)
Altima 2.5 SV (18/191)
Passat 2.5 SE (15/178)
I was surprised to see how badly all the cars did in fuel efficiency, even taking into account the likely leadfootedness of the C/D reviewers. According to the posted summary, the observed mpg of the Altima was 19, while for all the others it was 18.
|
I think the Fusion is in trouble... they went with the small turbo engine to get economy... EPA "economy" numbers that is.
But in the real world they get the same mileage as the other cars with bigger engines, they are slower and the engine feels "overmatched". Signs of a too small engine that needs to be flogged just to keep up with traffic.. and with no real economy advantage... not good at all for a family sedan.
|
To me the real story is....the Passat rated so much less than the others managed to get the same MPG... The other 3 cars have all this new hyped efficent tech and yet the passat finished the same as them. I haven't driven one of the 1.6 Ecoboost, but don't remember C & D saying anything overly negitive about it....it's been a few days since I read it in the paper mag.
And while there was a big fuss about the Accord getting 'similar MPG' than the Altima, it managed to get 1mpg better.
|
As I've said often, ultimately, it's mainly down to how much weight the engine has to move when you are driving hard.
All of these engine downsizing, direct injection, start-stop, and other technologies are mainly useful when you are driving normally. I mean, the engine won't stop itself when you are gunning it the whole time. Direct injection enables ultra lean burn mode in low load. When you are going full throttle, that's high load, not low load. Engine downsizing with turbocharger might work in theory and in EPA test cycles, but once you drive aggressively, the turbocharger will start working by drawing more air and thus burning more fuel like a larger engine.
These are some of the reasons all of these cars have almost the same observed mpg.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
