A bit of navel gazing is good for the soul. When I sent in the Volkswagen V10 TDI review, I knew that ranking it as a 5-star vehicle would prove to be a bit controversial. But, let me restate why I rated the behemoth like that. First and foremost, the Touareg has the finest interior in terms of materials, controls and fit & finish I've yet encountered. The power is Biblical. The ride is subliminal. The handling is an engineering feat for the ages. And did I mention the power? I'm well aware that the fuel mileage, price and badge are wrong, but so what? If I'd driven this car when diesel was cheap, I only would've loved it that much more. Yet reading through the comments, people were shocked I gave such a gas hog so many stars. Though I remember almost zero complaints when Sajeev gave the Ferrari F430 5-stars, and it's gets much worse mileage. Others couldn't believe I didn't take depreciation into account. Still others were upset that the Touareg could "only" tow 7,700 pounds. Towing? Depreciation? Really? These should be part of our star system? When I was writing up the review I remember thinking to myself, "If this sucker isn't 5-stars, what is?" So I'm asking you — what is?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I was a little taken aback by the 5 star rating on the VW. Without a set of criteria listed to base the rankings on I just figure it tells you as much about the reviewer as the vehicle. If you take into account practicality and running costs I’d imagine it would be lower. I’ve driven cars that others thought were lacking that I would have rated 5 star because I liked driving them. I think like anything subjective you need to take these ratings with a grain of salt (or a few gallons of diesel).
I though the 5 stars for the Altima Coupe was weird, but the 5 stars for this baby was fine. A 5 star car doesn’t need to be absolutely perfect, but close. People who’d give this car a 3-4 star rating just because of depreciation and towing are really nit-picking.
It’s like saying Angelina Jolie’s not a 5-star woman because she’s popped out a baby from her you-know-what and she’s not 18 years old.
I don’t interpret it – I ignore it. I read the review. Compiling something as complicated as the review of an automobile into a “5 star” rating is pointless, in my opinion.
I don’t interpret the star system, I read the articles and make up my own evaluation. Everyone has different priorities.
What is the “perfect” car though? Is it based on the average persons needs and resources? Or in the case or a site like this is it rated for the performance enthusiast? A Touareg would be a 3 star car for me since I don’t tow or go off road but like to drive fast and accurately. For my wife our Mini is a 5 star car, but who here would love to have only 118hp under the hood? I don’t put a great deal of stock in interiors etc. either. If the interior is functional and the car has a high lever of performance and technology I’m giving it a higher rating (in my head)than normal. You can see in magazines like C&D they try to balance the objective results with the subjective and the results can certainly be anti-intuitive at times. Like with movies I pick a car reviewer that I agree with most of the time and hope that will give me something which accurately predicts my prejudices and enjoyments in a vehicle.
Jonny has a WRX like myself (and pays for premium fuel, I’m sure) so I always cut him some slack. He has good taste.
blautens and essen beat me to it. I don’t pay the slightest bit of attention to the stars, I just read the reviews.
beetlebug –
Without a set of criteria listed to base the rankings on I just figure it tells you as much about the reviewer as the vehicle.
I agree completely. Car reviewing is inherently subjective, and I think the stars are a useful part of that process. It would be wrong to cross-compare cars on the star basis, i.e. the Toerag (5 stars) is a better car than the Flex (4 stars) because they are different reviewers. Nevertheless, I think they tell a lot about the reviewer’s overall impression of the vehicle be it overall positive or negative. That kind of numeric assignment can help elucidate a long-winded review.
No offense… I don’t look at your star rating, more what you say about the vehicle instead.
I don’t really pay much attention to the star system. I do think that a vehicle’s price should be taken into account though. Maybe have a bang for the buck type of category? As far as the Ferrari F430 review, it’s a Ferrari for crying out loud. :-)
I guess my pet peeve with car reviews is that the star system needs to be compared to similar cars or the same price range. I read so many reviews of say a Lincoln MKZ that will say it’s inferior to a BMW 3 series–of course it is, it costs $10 grand less! I wouldn’t expect, say, a Focus to get 5 stars on it’s own, but it could be a 5 star vehicle compared to other’s in it’s same price range. Otherwise, you’re just saying more expensive cars are usually nicer, well no kidding.
Nuke ’em, they’re near useless. Giving the Altima coupe 5 stars was indefensible. Now it’s just a general indicator of thumbs up or down — 3+ stars generally means the reviewer liked it, 2 or fewer means he/she didn’t. That’s it.
Cars that historically require frequent and costly repairs, which would include most European and all Detroit-3 cars manufactured in the last 20-years, should not be awarded 5-stars. They are unfun regardless of positive attributes.
Still others were upset that the Touareg could “only” tow 7,700 pounds. Towing? Depreciation? Really? These should be part of our star system?
No, there’s Consumer Reports for that.
I’ll add my voice to the position that the star rating is worthless ’cause each reviewer has such a different take (or criteria). Maybe a system could have 10 items to evaluate with 10 points for each. Decide on the 10 items applicable to all vehicles, such as ride and handling, fit and finish, efficiency, value, or whatever. It might be more meaningful. Regarding the Touareg, anyone who’d have the bucks to buy this would most likely head for the Porsche Cayene (sp?) instead. VW just needs to come to terms with the fact no one will pay that much for a Volkswagen. I’ll 99% will be leased.
Count me as another who doesn’t follow the star rating. The words written are enough.
Gardiner- For anybody old enough to remember cars from the 70s and 80s all cars made today are “fun”
The worst of today is 10 times better than the best of 20-30 years ago.
The star rating is as opaque as any one else’s…
Explain how they work somewhere and note your biases and they will be worth more.
What puzzles me, are the reviews for old (used? not available as new?) cars, i.e., the 1986 Alfa Romeo.
If you want to reminisce, that’s good. I like the idea too. But to review a car as if anyone could buy it (like a new car) is a little odd, IMO. At least it would have more value to me if I COULD find the car somewhere…
I’ve always liked the star ratings. It gives me an instant idea of what the review’s tone will be. They should be stars based on the reviewer’s criteria and his/hers alone. No it might not be a 5-star vehicle to me or anyone else, but that’s okay. I want to read the reviewer’s opinion, and if they like the car that much, cool. You always do a good job of explaining why you like or don’t like something. Everybody has different criteria in what they want or expect from a vehicle, so of course one person’s stars are not going to be the same as another’s. And that’s okay. Keep the stars. I missed them when they were gone.
Agreed, i like the star ratings for the tone it sets. I think the 5 stars should be ‘best for its intended purpose’ and if you think towing and cost factors (depreciation/maintenance/fuel/MSRP) should be outside a vehicle’s intended purpose than sobeit.
The beauty of the star rating is that it’s the reviewer’s subjective rating. It’s based on their perception of the vehicle for what it is. Otherwise, there is no level playing field. You could argue cost – best $30K car. But here you could pit a Dodge Ram versus an Audi. Hardly a fair comparo. Depriving a “fuel hog” SUV of 5 stars is as hypocritical as taking 5 stars from an econobox because of uninspired handling and cheap plastics.
TTAC is unique as it encourages those who can thoughtfully deliver a fair and balanced [tongue in cheek, inasmuch as FOX News can claim so] assessment of a vehicle. If you don’t agree with Jonny’s fawning review, then take the couterpoint and submit 800 words of “Take Two”.
Different classes are rated differently. A 5-star car is obviously not the best car available, period. It’s a car that does exactly what it sets out to do, and does it extremely well for its price, without any glaring flaws. Gas mileage is not a consideration for supercars and behemoth SUVs, and should not be figured into the rating.
A broken-down star rating (appearance, fit & finish, driveability, value, etc. – these are just examples) would certainly be more useful. It’s always difficult to crunch so many different criteria into a single rating.
I don’t think a 5-star rating was out of line for this. The nit about long-term reliability is valid (you should get fabulous reliability at this price point) but otherwise, this vehicle sounded like it was a blast to drive and would be a real pleasure to own.
Scrap the stars and go with something unique. When you think about driving this car again, do you smile? How big of a smile? Or do you frown (or cry)?
That’s the beauty of a blog: you’re not limited by quaint representations like little stars that work for newspapers and mags where space is at a premium.
Put a big ass graphic of a frowning or smiling face at the bottom of the review, centered.
Or not.
I don’t have a problem with five stars for the Toe Rag, if Jonny and the gang really dig it that much (and TTAC collectively is willing to stand behind it, give or take a star).
Star ratings within a publication are only useful when they’re consistent from review to review. If the number one factor is sheer driving pleasure, then try to make sure all of the ratings line up that way. Frequently, where non-objective criteria are in play, publications have the ‘reviews editor’ assign the star rating to maintain consistency. (I haven’t noticed any particular inconsistency at TTAC, just sayin’.)
I agree with those who believe that the star rating system should be subjective. Moreover, the rating should be intrinsic to the car being reviewed; no need to compare a vehicle with its cohorts in price, size, or function. It is what it is based on the reviewer’s subjective bias. That’s what makes it interesting. Otherwise, I would read Consumer Reports, thankyouverymuch.
Jonny, BTW, was the T-reg ride subliminal, sublime, or both?
The problem with the star system is that it is completely inconsistent with the other factors used to rate a vehicle. You’re basically grading on a curve, and that curve varies by who’s reviewing the car, and by whether or not they like the car from the get-go. A five-star car should have five stars across the board in every category. A one-star car should have one star across the board in every category. There appears to be no rhyme or reason to why some cars get the rating they do.
The overall rating should be based on how it did in each individual category, or each category should be weighted and the total tally based on that should determine the overall rating. The way the star system is used removes the legitimacy of these reviews and makes it no better than the opinions of any Joe on the street.
The star rating would have more congruity if there was only one reviewer. As it is, there are numerous reviewers with differing interpretations of the star system.
I mainly see it as pretty random gesture. It’s the review that matters. If you’re the type of person who relates to cars via star counting then may I suggest the Consumer Reports website to justify your impending Toyota purchase.
“Star ratings within a publication are only useful when they’re consistent from review to review”
thank you voice of reason, faster_than_rabbit
Basically we’re being asked to completely ignore the final rating by some reviewers, because it is a subjective rating that may or may not have anything to do with the previous 600 words. Then why have it at all? Or clarify it with the caveat that this is not the final rating for the car based on its actual (mostly objective) merits. Yes, thats it. A big asterisk or disclaimer stating that the stars are only the subjective rating. Therefore every Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, every car you’ve ever lusted after, or (as Berkowitz so elegantly and kinda freakishly suggests) that you need tissues for, would get an automatic five stars. Yet the car that perfectly executes everything it is suposed to (ahem, Prius…) gets only 3, cuz you just dont really like it.
O, but it gets worse, because then we get articles that wax poetic about the love affair with a certain Alfa that apparently is only worth 2 stars? So why is that? Because objectively it is slow, breaks down and is a virtual deathtrap (all compared to today’s cars). So here the 2 stars have nothing to do with the subjective lust for the car, or even its own merits compared to its peers, but compared to a standard which it could not possibly meet. By that token, a classic ’65 Mustang with vinyl(!!!), poor suspension, lousy mpg, OMG, the list is too long, should get 1 star at best. I dont even think the thing came with a decent SatNav system or and IPod jack. It must really suck.
So I’m of the belief that you should either do away with the stars or make them consistent.
Exactly what is a subliminal ride? Are the potholes and speedbumps telling you to assassinate men in high office?
The problem with the star system is that TTAC uses them in a manner that is the anti-thesis of their purpose.
Whenever you bring in any numerical rating system, that system is supposed to be a consistent objective measurement of criteria.
When you say a baseball player is a .300 hitter, you mean he’s gotten 3 hits every 10 at bats. It’s a very objective measurement of something quite specific. It’s not the same as saying that person is a good hitter, a great hitter, an all-star slugger, etc etc… which are imprecise subjective measurements.
For the star system to be useful, IT HAS TO refer to a specific objective measurement… but it’s clear TTAC doesn’t use the system that way. I mean, there are SUV’s that receive five stars in performance, and yet that was the rating for the F430. Do you guys seriously mean that any car receiving five stars in performance performs just as well as an F430? Are the ratings comparable only within a vehicles class? It’s all just so haphazard and thrown together. That’s a shame because a system of objective measurements like the star system could be really useful but it needs to be specific, clear and consistent.
The Cayman would get 5 stars. Superb steering, handling, very reasonable (but not ridiculously excessive) acceleration, decent fuel economy…
No excessively overweight car should get five stars.
But I suspect if you take 50 different TTACers, you’ll get at least 40 different ideas on what deserves five stars. (The rest of you guys who don’t agree with me don’t know what you’re talking about.)
I’d say a King Ranch F-450 is the only car that deserves a 5 star rating these days.
provide ratings for:
-safety
-economy
-design
-performance
add up the stars, divide by 4.
Here’s how I interpret the star ratings:
1-star: The vehicle can be summed up in one word: Craptacular! Its market can be described by the quote, commonly (but apparently falsely) attributed to P.T. Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
2-star: The vehicle either failed to meet or lived down to the reviewer’s expectations.
3-star: The vehicle lived up to the reviewer’s expectations.
4-star: The vehicle significantly exceeded the reviewer’s expectations.
5-star: While there may be some nits to pick, the reviewer is deeply impressed by how well the vehicle does what it was intended to do.
You have a star rating system?!?
By reading through the comments it seams not many readers know that they can click on the Stars of a Review to get a more detailed view of the Rating.
It seams this feature isn’t placed more obvious be course TTAC isn’t quiet confident in its star system.
This may come as a shocker, but, people who need a “star system” to rate a vehidle are probably not the demographic following this website.
I didn’t even notice….as I never read the final star rating. I wouldn’t miss the specific star ratings, often hysterical and that really tell something about a specific aspect of the vehicle in an objective manner, but the final rating is too subjective to be interesting.
5 stars for a ferrari? But it’ll break down!! Except that it shouldn’t be a daily driver
5 stars for the Altima coupe? A torque-steering front-driver that I find ugly.
And so on.
I’m much more interested in the body of the text of the very interesting reviews you guys write.
I don’t.
What is point of a diesel vehicle if its not economical? Ferrari doesn’t claim their cars to be fuel efficient, VW does with its diesels.