Press cars are specially selected, carefully prepared and meticulously maintained. Why wouldn’t they be? You can hardly expect a manufacturer to pluck a car from the assembly line and trust their model’s reputation to the vagaries of quality control– even though the car’s less likely to receive a harsh critique than a seventh grade production of The Wizard of Oz. To their credit, the manufacturers eventually “let go;” surrendering specially selected, carefully prepared new vehicles to the buff books’ long-term fleets. When things go wrong, as they do, the result betrays the tension between payola and editorial credibility.
In the August 20 issue of Autoweek, Mac Morrison provides an update on the mag’s long-term 2007 Jaguar XK-R drop top. “IT’S SO FINE, IT’S SUNSHINE” dismisses any thoughts that the mag’s Jag might have some of those pesky reliability issues that have dogged the brand since, um, ever. The strapline pours on the feel good: “Jaguar’s XK-R is a universal favorite" (also all caps, but it hurts my ears).
“Opinions on our new Jaguar in its first three months with us are nearly unanimous, with each driving experience a carbon copy of those preceding it. And those experiences are good."
Morrison’s paean to pussycat perfection begins with that most revealing of collective possessive pronouns: “our.” From the fourth word, the author signals objectivity’s defenestration; as the Zen saying goes, that which you own owns you. Of course, the $97,875 XK-R in question ($92,500 plus $5,375-worth of Autoweek selected options) doesn’t really belong to Mr. Morrison or Autoweek. But the responsibility to maintain more than a modicum of editorial independence does.
Anyway, describing the staff’s reaction to maximum Jagitude as “nearly unanimous” is like saying that Parindsehole Hiltohanchie is “virtually clean and sober;” we instantly want to know about those exceptions. No wonder Morrison feels compelled to calm us down and call it good.
“The exhaust gurgle sounds genuinely like an agitated cat on full alert. If that strikes you as a cliché, then you’ve never heard an XK-R on wide-open throttle. The taut yet comfortable suspension compresses and rebounds fluidly through corners as the gearbox cracks off perfect downshifts with a flick of the paddle. Passengers absorb it all from the confines of a cockpit born for long, top-down, sunset cruises.”
Although a cliché is a cliché because it’s true, you get the picture: it’s a fantastic automobile. Well, fair enough. But none of this adds much to J.P. Vettraino’s original review. What we want to know– still– is how the blown cat has held up to long term scrutiny.
After three paragraphs of passionate reverence, including the reassurance that “not one driver voiced disappointment with the overall experience,” Morrison finally gets down to business.
The scribe slates the XK-R’s touch screen for its user-antagonism, condemns the trunk-mounted antenna’s aesthetics as “ridiculous on a $98,000 car," slates it for its sloth-like retraction and blames the tardiness for a $500 post-car wash repair bill. And then, the real money shot…
“Our XK-R also exhibited some strange electronic (ahem) glitches. Once it would not detect the key. Another time, the backup sensors went beserk for no apparent reason, while one editor claimed multiple warning lights illuminated and disappeared just as mysteriously. Yet another driver experienced cruise-control failure. None of the problems repeated and the car spent no days out of service.”
It’s a damning indictment of Jaguar’s quality control, wrapped in (ahem) qualifiers and obvious backpedaling (the editor “claimed” idiot light malfunction). Nevertheless, it was said, and Morrison ends the update with a justifiable blend of boosterism and foreboding.
“We certainly do not question the enthusiasm that exists for Jaguar’s latest. Here’s hoping the next nine months provide no significant reason to do so.”
We certainly do question the need for AutoWeek, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. to run manufacturer-sponsored long term fleets, the lack of full disclosure and the unanswered question of whether or not the dealers who service the vehicles know that they’re doing so on behalf of a motoring journalist.
Obviously, readers want to know the real world livability and reliability of new-to-market cars, and how they’re treated down at the dealership when things go awry. But that information is best provided by real world drivers driving honest-to-God production vehicles. In fact, AutoWeek does just that in an excellent regular feature sampling owners’ comments. So what’s the point of the long-term fleet?
No matter how you answer that question, a larger one looms: what effect does such an expensive freebie have on a publication’s editorial integrity? There’s an implied quid pro quo: don’t be too harsh on our products and your multi-thousand dollar ticket on the new car gravy train is assured. It’s an ethically unjustifiable extravagance.
There. I’ve said it. The cat is out of the bag.
I wonder how many XK-R buyers actually read AutoWeek. My guess is that is it a vanishingly small number. If so, the joke is on Jaguar in the end.
Robert,
Just curious, what is TTAC’s policy on test cars? Do you get them regularly or do you borrow from dealerships or other sources?
Thanks!
TTAC accept press cars when available, and will attend manufacturer-sponsored press events (a.k.a. junkets) where deemed editorially relevant.
When we do so, we always acknowledge the manufacturer’s contribution (car, fuel, insurance, hotel, food, etc.) within the resulting content.
We do not have a long term fleet. Nor will we– unless we pay for the vehicle or vehicles ourselves.
Glad to see the return of these “between the lines” commentaries.
They may or may not have much effect on the sponsored advertising — erm, I mean “car reviews” and long term “tests” — but it’s good to know someone is (publically) watching.
Several years ago, I read an interview with a former Car and Driver writer who had recently been fired. He claimed that C&D knew they were getting “tweaked” cars and even gave “hints” to manufacturers on how to tweak them to perform better in their tests. Modified ECUs made up the bulk of the tweaks, I believe.
A short time later, C&D tested the first Chrysler 300s and they claimed Corvette-type of performance numbers. Then were never able to reproduce them again.
One of the strangest long-term tests was the one on the Saturn ION by C&D. They panned it in a road test (“We waited seven years for this?) and Saturn apparently got so pissed they returned to reclaim the car. So C&D just kept it and after a few months decided to put it in their long-term test fleet. As I recall they judged it suitable for meeting basic transportation needs and nothing more. Saturn finally took it away from them.
Farago:
We do not have a long term fleet. Nor will we– unless we pay for the vehicle or vehicles ourselves.
However, if any of our readers would like to loan us their car for a year or so….
I hate to tell you Americans this but the most independent car reviewers in the world are the boys from “Top Gear” because they’re funded by the government which means they aren’t at the mercy of Toyota/GM/Honda/Hyundai’s etc advertising money! But TTAC is in second place!
Plus they’re happy to kill themselves to get better ratings (RE: the Hamster’s crash) ;O)
I hate to tell you Americans this but the most independent car reviewers in the world are the boys from “Top Gear” because they’re funded by the government which means they aren’t at the mercy of Toyota/GM/Honda/Hyundai’s etc advertising money! But TTAC is in second place!
Plus they’re happy to kill themselves to get better ratings (RE: the Hamster’s crash) ;O)
While I love watching Top Gear whenever I can get a hold of an episode (for some reason BBC doesn’t want Americans to see this show), I wouldn’t call their reviews, Jeremy’s in particular, unbiased or even technically accurate many times. It seems every sports car is the best car and every “saloon” is the worst car. Of course, this is also what makes him so great. His reviews are irreverent, illogical, and exuberant. His in-your-face answers to all the nannies out there who want to suck the fun out of life in the name of safety and the environment is a breath of fresh air. I certainly agree that Top Gear doesn’t suck up to any one manufacturer. You won’t see the equivalent to multi page advertisements disguised as car reviews (Motor Trend).
KatiePuckrik – Top Gear’s bias in on based on nationality – in JCs opinion British cars always seem to come out on top. While JC’s contempt for American cars is well documented it also never ceases to amaze me how every Jaguar he reviews seem to beat the German competition despite having inferior scores on cost, power, price, reliability and track performance.
So if you feel comforted by reviews that bolster British national pride then stick with Top Gear but for independence I vote for TTAC.
However, if any of our readers would like to loan us their car for a year or so….
Please God take my Cadillac DeVille. But your going to have to fix the laundry list of mechnical problems before you can use it. Get it out of my sight and I will be one happy man.
KatiePuckrik I completely agree, they have the most honest reviews and harsh at times. But they are so biased toward the brands they personally like. The episode where they tried to see how hard it was to destory and old 911 was the best, not an easy car to kill even driven into a brick building.
Have any of you had the chance to do the “Car & Driver Editor for a Day”? It’s a ton of fun but a total scam paid for by Cadillac. The 2 Caddy’s they had were jokes compared to the BMW and Lexus they were pitting them against but somehow ended up being the top picks of the day, hmm how did that happen.
# Robert Farago :
August 30th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
TTAC accept press cars when available, and will attend manufacturer-sponsored press events (a.k.a. junkets) where deemed editorially relevant.
When we do so, we always acknowledge the manufacturer’s contribution (car, fuel, insurance, hotel, food, etc.) within the resulting content.
We do not have a long term fleet. Nor will we– unless we pay for the vehicle or vehicles ourselves.
However, a potentially very interesting future feature of TTAC would be to run such tests of your daily drivers and report your own experiences of ownership. I would be looking forward to that.
KatiePuckrik :
I hate to tell you Americans this but the most independent car reviewers in the world are the boys from “Top Gear”
They’re the most entertaining, but I wouldn’t trust them for an worthwhile car review.
One reason I like Edmunds (Inside Line) is that they buy their long term testers from a local dealership and then resell them after the test. It means less chance of getting a “manufacturer special” and also you get a chance to see what a typical purchase price and resale price for the car is. I also like the long term test blog where you get constant posts on the good and bad things about the cars daily. It gives you a real sense of some of the “little things” not noticed unless you own the car and drive it every day. Not to say they are a shining beacon of journalistic integrity or anything… I know they are probably just as guilty as some of the others in their reviews and tests. But I do love their long term test format.
Lumbergh you can get Top Gear on BBC america on your cable/satellite, they’ve just started showing it. god bless clarkson and the hamster, well worth getting it, aswell as for some decent comedy and tv programs too.
they did a critique of the XK on top gear the other week, many of the same issuse were brought up in that too, in a comical yet serious manner, many of the disappointments about the jaguar brand in comparison to its german competition were brought up also, so carguy i wouldn’t say it was bolstering british pride, just being honest. they reviewed the corvette last week, that came up trumps if you kept it on the track, is that ok to bolster US national pride too? if the US cars are good enough they’ll get rated well on there, but we know too well on here about the problems with US vehicles dont we.
Redbarchetta :
August 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Have any of you had the chance to do the “Car & Driver Editor for a Day”? It’s a ton of fun but a total scam paid for by Cadillac. The 2 Caddy’s they had were jokes compared to the BMW and Lexus they were pitting them against but somehow ended up being the top picks of the day, hmm how did that happen.
Not surprised.
Haven’t done the “C&D Editor for a Day” (would I need to turn in my ethics?), but I did the “Taste of Lexus” in Chicago. They had several of their cars to drive, along with competitors. After comparing notes with others, we realized the Lexus people had put small objects in all of the BMW gloveboxes! The subtle rattle was supposed to show how “well-built” the Lexus vehicles were.
Car (also British) is much more willing to bite its advertiser’s hands and give unbiased reviews. Their long term tests are also brutally honest with monthly updates of what broke and how well the dealer handled it.
While not government funded like Top Gear, the higher cover prices, and lower subscription discounts indicate that Car gets most of it’s revenue from selling the magazine and not the advertising space in the magazine. BTW you do get what you pay for, Car’s paper and binding are much better than the US “buff books” as well as more and better content.
Car and Driver did a long term test of the ’84 Corvette. Being an all new model, the first of the C4 Vettes, of course it had a few bugs, but it actually held up rather well.
But when it came time to return the car to GM, of course the magazine had to clean all their stuff out of it. At the very bottom of the console a C/D staffer found an in-house GM receipt for, as I recall, a new engine AND a new transmission ! Apparently the factory originals were deficient.
(C/D printed the General’s apology in the magazine)
I also notice the British buff books get a far greater share of their advertising from insurance, GPS, and aftermarket accessory companies. I could be wrong, but it seems more of the American mags’ ad revenue comes the automakers themselves.
I’ve never understood the value of long-term tests as a yardstick for reliability. Even when the writers aren’t pandering to their press-car providers, 20,000-40,000 miles with one unit is hardly enough to make a meaningful prediction.
Car & Driver’s “Editor For A Day” is indeed fun, and every bit as transparent as you’d expect. In 2005 I attended one that compared the BMW 325i, Volvo S60 T5, and Subaru Legacy GT. The whole point, of course, was that they were comparing the Subaru and the BMW. Whether or not attendees liked the Legacy best, I’m sure Subaru got its money’s worth solely from consumers seeing a Subaru and a BMW in the same staging area.
KatiePuckrik: “…they’re funded by the government which means they aren’t at the mercy of Toyota/GM/Honda/Hyundai’s etc advertising money!”
Yes, but they are under the direct influence of politicians and bureaucrats who have accepted campaign donations and/or kickbacks from the auto industry, steel industry, oil companies, auto retailer associations, and labor unions. Or don’t those kinds of things happen in the UK?
Forgive my Yankee cynicism, but in my opinion, influence exacted through governmental channels is worse than that exercised via open market channels because it is clothed with an air of supposed respectability – that government is singularly concerned with the welfare of its citizens.
New Bumper Sticker: “The integrity falling off Autoweek’s editorial policy is of the highest British quality.”
The problem with ANY long term test is that is a sample size of only one. It has the statistical significance of an anecdote. Yet writers imply (and readers infer) conclusions regarding a model’s reliability from these articles. I agree with Michael Karesh’s criticisms of the sampling and statistical analytics utilized by organizations such as Consumer Reports and JD Powers, but they are a helluva lot better than these long-term road tests.
If the reviews focused solely on long-term impressions of practicality, livability, and desirability of a car in the long term, I wouldn’t have a problem with them. But they do so I do.
I could write a whole article about the Editor for a Day crap but I need to keep my job so here is a snipit.
Through all the mailing and emails I though I was going to a REAL comparison of the cars, when I arrived it was a well crafted and HUGE advertisement for Cadillac. They had a huge tent with all the Caddy products including the stupid Corvette based one(I didn’t get a chance to start it up, some one before me spoiled that). It literally looked like a dealer showroom. Funny how they didn’t have any other BMW or Lexus products at this comparison besides the 2 testers.
We got to drive the new at the time STS AWD, SRX AWD, 528iX(i think, the AWD version) and an RX330 AWD. All V6’s except the BMX’s straight 6. The STS was total dog and the SRX had a broken or worthless stability and ABS(I jambed on the breaks and turned the wheel full lock to the right but strangle it kept going right through the cones for another 30 feet, I was only going 40 when I did it).
I had fun but lost total respect for the magazine after that and just let my subscription lapse, guess that’s why they didn’t call me back the next year, or maybe it was all my honest comments about the cars I drove.
The most independent car mag is EVO, which is British. They have repeatedly run cover stories panning British cars like the new Aston Martin DB9, Westfield, and TVR T350C. EVO regularly gives bad reviews to cars that deserve it. Plus, on thier long term test fleet they have a Pagani Zonda and Lambo Murcielago, which editors of the mag actually OWN. If you can find it, read an issue – you’ll love it.
tvr, I personally enjoy reading CAR much more so than Top Gear or Evo. I like the writing and editting style of their magazine. However, EVO is a great rag as well.
The most honest UK car magazine I buy is Practical Performance Car (www.ppcmag.co.uk) although they don’t do new cars. Mind you, a Volvo “Amazon” with 600 hp ?
Long term tests with normal mags are either sponsored or run by people who don’t expect this kind of car (“..the jag XJ was step up from our last long term car a Ford Fiesta…”) so they don’t really review it honestly.
The defensive “brit” bit:
carguy:
Top Gear’s bias in on based on nationality – in JCs opinion British cars always seem to come out on top.
This is the same Top Gear that chose the 300C over a Jaguar XJ Sport or the same one which suggested a Cadillac (god knows which one) was best because it could corner ? Who would have thunk it?
William C Montgomery:
Yes, but they are under the direct influence of politicians and bureaucrats…Forgive my Yankee cynicism, but in my opinion, influence exacted through governmental channels is worse than that exercised via open market channels…
So, can I introduce you to the “Hutton Enquiry” (aka “uk.gov vs BBC”) then ? You miss the relationship between the BBC and uk.gov totally if you believe this. I could direct you to the “General Strike” and why the BBC disagreed with uk.gov minister Winston Churchill ?
To be honest I hate taxes but if some of mine make the BBC then those bits are worth almost every penny.
I would like to put in a plug for the magazine Winding Road. Other than recently subscribing I don’t have any affiliation with them, but what I have seen so far is a refreshing updated take on the classic buff book magazine. They offer free electronic subscriptions at the website windingroad.com where you can view the entire magazine online in a layout just like a paper magazine. The price is right and the reviews seem well done. David E. Davis of long time Car and Driver and then Automobile magazines seems to be the driving force behind this effort.
Just another reason for me to be cynical of anything written by the ‘mainstream’ automotive press. Was it Car and Driver or one of the other rags that crowned a BMW (3 series???) winner in a comparo after having a major mechanical failure with the car? The problem I have with any opinion from those rags is that it does little for me as an owner. Sure the new ________ is a great driver’s car, but what do I do when the engine falls out at 14k miles? Personally, I need to get to work so this is important.
Long-term tests should, at best, be used to describe what the car is like to live with on a daily basis – not reliability at W C Montgomery pointed out.
For example, how easy is it to maintain? Is changing the head lamp a pain? Is the spare tire adequate? Is it good to haul kids? How’s the seat feel after 1 hour in traffic?
The thing is, no one keeps these cars long-term. They get passed around between “editors” and if there are problems they call the manufacturer’s rep and he takes care of it. Not much of a long-term test if you ask me.
Editorial independence is generally impossible to find. No newspaper, magazine, TV station etc., is beholden to no one. All must serve their master, or face their day of reckoning.
“Was it Car and Driver or one of the other rags that crowned a BMW (3 series???) winner in a comparo after having a major mechanical failure with the car?”
Yes, I believe it was C&D. The electronics went haywire (imagine that…) and caused the car to spin out. Personally, I don’t think I could favor a car that tries to kill me.
I can’t keep myself from the glossy mags because I just love to look at and read about cars, new and old. However, the boosterism is dreadful and I seldom walk away from a magazine feeling more well-informed as to the real-life performance or experience of a car. Long-term tests are usually better, I like the long-term blog they have at Inside Line, you get a little more candid info, but any review that is surrounded by ads for the same car or brand just cannot be remotely trustworthy.
However, I can’t be too judgmental because I think I too would sacrifice my dignity, integrity, and firstborn to have a job where I drove hot cars all day and got to write about it.
The C&D ride and drives clearly say “advertisement” on the top of each page. I don’t see a problem with that.
What I do have a problem with is all these junkets that automotive journalists go on. Consumer Reports buys a car from a dealership, and tests it. Their testing method comes closer the the experience we have as consumers. We need to have things factored in, like buying experience and resale values, as part of the overall buying process.
I have two gripes about most reviews, with bias being one.
The other gripe (which BTW does not apply to TTAC) is to test all cars like they are race cars. Top speed, slalom times, track times, etc. This may be appropriate for some cars or some versions of cars that are made for the track, but is nonsense for the vast majority of cars reviewed.
Hear hear, I’m always somewhat mortified reading the awful awful “real world mileage” reported in these long-term reviews, though it is usually accompanied by some “golly gosh we sure drove it fast” type of disclaimer. I like a test that reflects real-world driving by real-world people, not just pedal-stomping madness and nonstop hoonage. Reviewing a minivan? Fill it up with noisy kids & go on a 2-hour trip. Reviewing a Mercedes CLK 63 AMG Black series? Get the automatic and put a coked-up 20 year old movie starlet in the driver’s seat…
My favorite TTACs columns!
Remember when C&D did a hatchet job on the Saturn Ion in their first review? Then GM sent them a tester for the long term fleet and all was forgiven?
I have a 2007 XK8 coupe in my long term test fleet. I have to admit that it is a pretty good car and better than my first impressions, which were captured in a piece on this site last year. It isn’t as fast as a BMW 650 or Mercedes SL550 but the ride quality is superior to the other two. Jaguar is selling so few of these cars that people react to it like it was an exotic (half the time they confuse it for an Aston). I haven’t had any electronic glitches and nothing has fallen off…
C’est plus le change, c’est plus…oh whatever. It is miserably comforting to know that, despite changes in ownership and production technology, Jaguar still can install at several electo-mechanical Poltergeists with each car manufactured.
My father in law had a cherished ’69 E-type 6-cylinder, which he adored and indulged as though it were a papmered Chihuahua that persisted (despite obedience training) in biting guests and pooping on the sofa. I was permitted to drive it once, and once only.
The instuments went berserk when I turned the key, needles flipping from zero to pegged and back. All the idiot lights went on and flickered, and I almost wet myself with dread: he wasn’t my father-in-law yet, and I didn’t think my prosects would improve much if I trashed his car.
We dropped the nose, popped the bonnet and found no arcing, smoke, or loose wires. The next time I tried to start the engine, a sickening grinding erupted from the transmission tunnel, like a huge spoon dropped into an industrial In-Sink-Erator. I gave up; the car obviously didn’t want me to drive it.
When Alan turned the key, the Jag rumbled into life and purred us all the way home. No grinding, no idiot lights, no instument freakouts. I wondered if I’d somehow screwed up, but Alan didn’t seem all that concerned; he said Jags were just wierd that way.
Sounds like they still are.
KatiePuckrik :
I hate to tell you Americans this but the most independent car reviewers in the world are the boys from “Top Gear”
Katie, Katie, Katie… I have been intrigued enough by your posts to develop a bit of a crush on you, sight unseen. But forgive me, I don’t trust Clarkson as far as I could push him uphill in a London double decker bus. There is so much besides mammon that can prejudice H. sapiens, and then there are those who operate outside of logic even in the absence of prejudicial factors. I think Clarkson falls largely in the latter category. I don’t bother to read him anymore. But I still like you.
The Best Reviewer is…
Perhaps a bit off topic (but not by much) but since everyone is commenting on corporate rigging, eh influence, of test cars it’s important to know that just because the advertiser hands over the car, the reviewer doesn’t have to hand over his integrity. If you want terriffic, well written and insightful reviews, check out Dan Neil at the Los Angeles Times. His weekly reviews, “Rumble Seat” appear in the Wednesday Times and are available online.
His recent review of the Chrysler Sebring convertible was scathing and Chrysler does advertise with the LA Times. In fact a year or so ago Neil lambasted GM on a review and the General in a totally ineffective huff withdrew all their advertising from the LA Times. That’s a lotta cash kids. I figured Dan’s editorial life was limited, but for some reason (no, I don’t think it’s journalistic integrity) the Times didn’t 86’em.
So, the real question isn’t whether a reviewer can write an honest review but whether the publication employing them let’s them.
As I remember it, several months later GM brought their advertising back to the LAT.
Agree completely w/ plugot’s comments about Dan Neil. He does a great job. But I suspect the Pulitzer he had recently won had a lot to do with his not being fired. The LAT would have looked really stupid among journalists firing the first person ever to win a Pulitzer for criticism over something like this.
Yes, GM did bring it’s ad$$ back to LAT. Now it’s Chysler he p.o’ed, but they’re stil advertising. And yes, if not for the Pulitizer, he’d probably be writing for TTAC. ;)