|
Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors
May 2001
By editors at Edmunds.com
Date Posted 05-31-2001
Subject: Offensive
From: Toka Toki
Your article on gas prices that you published recently on your web site was very
careless and not sensitive to multiculturalism.
You mention that the world perceives [Americans] as "whiners" when it comes to
gas prices. It's beyond that actually. It's when you use phrases like "turban
domed dudes with unpronounceable names" that you irritate others.
Most Americans have learned very hard European last names without a problem (try
some Polish last names for example). But no, it's only the turban guys' names
that we have a problem with.
Grow up! Your web site is also a reflection of what you allow to be displayed.
Subject: Offensive II, The Sequel
From: Shrinivas Modayur
I am a regular visitor to your site and enjoy your articles and appreciate the
usefulness of your reviews. But, in your recent article about the New York Auto
Show, in a lame attempt at humor, you made a remark that the web pages about the
show would be 'clean' and the editors will 'speak English' insinuating that New
York is dirty and filled with non-English speakers. It simultaneously assaults
our city and its inhabitants. Your remarks are even mildly racist. I understand
that the author was trying to be funny, but I am certainly not amused, and [neither]
would many New Yorkers. Are you catching a mild case of 'John Rocker'?
I urge you to modify that article.
Subject: Offensive III, The Prequel
From: Sia
I have been reading your articles/reviews on cars for sometime now (couple of
years). I enjoy them very much and I think you have a bunch of very talented writers.
However, I find your "First Drive: 2002 Infiniti Q45" article offensive. The section
that describes the headlight of the Infiniti reads: "Is that bright orb behind
you the Second Coming? No, it's the dazzling headlamp of the Q45. (Photo by Liz
Kim)." Being a Christian, I find that distasteful and offensive. It demeans the
character of Christ and the promise of His 2nd coming.
In the future please choose your remarks carefully.
Subject: Great Website
From: Serchen Pillay
I've been an avid reader of your website's content for the last 3 years. I just
wanted to say thanks for the excellent in-depth reviews and related articles,
especially the series about car salespeople tactics. For a relative newcomer to
this country, I found such insight invaluable.
Subject: Long-term Dodge Grand Caravan
From: James C. Schroer
(Editor's Note: Mr. Schroer is the Executive Vice President of Global Sales
and Marketing for DaimlerChrysler.)
Thank you for choosing our all-new 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan for a long-term
test drive. You're one of more than 350,000 valued customers who will buy
Dodge Caravan and Grand Caravan this year. It's the world's best-selling minivan
and has been since we invented the category 17 years and 9 million minivans ago.
Since introducing our all-new minivans more than a year and a half ago, we've
read hundreds of reviews that were positive, neutral and negative. But your review
caught our attention because of the overall negative, flippant tone taken toward
our company and the misleading, inaccurate information that it contained. We've
been making minivans for a long time and have the largest customer base in the
industry. We thought we deserved a little more credit than what was given in your
first report of your long-term review.
We know that Edmunds.com is one of the most widely-read, respected automotive
websites. We also know that more than 60 percent of minivan buyers will surf the
net to read reviews and compare prices before making the trip to the dealership.
Therefore, we wanted to respond to a few of the items mentioned in your review:
- "Sales are going down the toilet." First, sales are not currently
where we'd like them here at DCX, but they're not "going down the toilet."
Last year, during the January, February and March timeframe, we enjoyed
record months of minivan sales (even after 17 years), which makes this year's
numbers look less than impressive in comparison. I'm sure you know that, in
total, the industry and the minivan segment are down this year. Fact is, regardless
of whether the industry and segment are up or down, we still earn more than
a 35 percent share in the minivan market as we have in recent months.
- "That ($35,000 sticker price) is unacceptable" You fail to mention
the broad range of minivans from which buyers can choose. Between Chrysler
and Dodge, we offer the most models in the segment (17 models) ranging from
as low as $19,000 to as much as $38,165. You go on to note the lack of a Rear
Seat Video system and how this feature is not residualized in our minivans.
But you also forgot to tell your readers that, as a whole, ALG, the most widely
recognized source of residual data, doesn't residualize dealer-installed options,
regardless of manufacturer or model. And most technology features, including
entertainment and navigation systems, are not residualized because technology
often changes throughout the lifecycle of a product.
- "Given all of these variables, you now understand how it is possible
that this van costs us more than $900 per month." We think your non-corporate
readers would be better served if they were given the average consumer transaction
price for a new lease of a Dodge Grand Caravan. In this case, the average
price for a Dodge Grand Caravan lease is $27,550. With an average lease term
of 50 months, this translates into a payment of $466 per month. That's essentially
half of what you reported in your review. And, separately, your residual on
this vehicle would be nearly six points higher had it not been a corporate
lease, again information that is misleading for a non-corporate, non-fleet-buying
consumer in search of a minivan.
- "But that's nearly twice what we paid for our significantly less expensive
Honda Odyssey each month." We went to Honda.com and computed a 24-month
consumer lease (15,000 miles) and Odyssey's price was $29,970, or $718 per
month. This is a low number since it's a consumer lease price, not a corporate
lease price. And it does not include the additional equipment available on
our Dodge Grand Caravan ES or extra miles.
- "But when you take a good look at what you're getting and what you're
not, Wardlaw says the Grand Caravan loses plenty of appeal." We took a
good look and here's what you get on our Grand Caravan ES that you can't get
on Honda Odyssey: leather seats, leather wrapped steering wheel, removable
power center console, heated front seats, side airbags, power liftgate, four
CD in-dash changer, Infinity speakers, overhead console (compass, temperature),
rear view auto dim mirror, heated side mirror, second 12 volt instrument panel
outlet, grocery bag hooks, manual override power doors, padded front arm rest,
windshield wiper de-icer, 3.8-liter engine, four wheel disc/ABS brakes, fog
lamps, three-zone automatic temperature control, Autostick transmission, 17-inch
chrome wheels, trailer tow package, load leveling, transmission oil cooler,
full size spare tire, touring suspension, third row split/removable/tip and
fold/recline seats, and second row bucket seats with integrated cup holders.
For balance here are features that you got on your Odyssey but not on your
Dodge Grand Caravan ES: stowable third row seat, second row convertible seat,
radio anti-theft, retractable center tray console, splash guards, pinstripes,
bug deflector, cargo tray, cargo mat, alarm.
We think our features list is greater — and has more significance to
the minivan shopper.
- You also say that our vehicle "lacks the configurability" of the
Odyssey but you fail to mention that we have more seating configurations (for
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 passengers compared to Odyssey's 2, 3, 4, 7 passenger
configuration). Also, our rear seat moves forward, backward and reclines.
I encourage you and your staff to spend some quality seat time in our rear
seat and Honda's rear seat in order to decide which is more comfortable, configurable,
and quiet for the long haul.
- You call our industry-first power liftgate a "gimmick." Fortunately,
the consumers who are buying our minivan think more highly of the feature,
especially short-statured consumers who can't reach the liftgate when it's
in the open position. And it's a must-have for those minivan buyers who approach
their minivans with their hands full of grocery bags or frankly, for those
consumers who don't want to touch an icy, wet or dirty liftgate. To date,
our take rate for our power liftgate is 60 percent, considerably higher than
we anticipated.
- You say, "lousy residuals, high prices and a lack of innovation will
conspire to kill the market share dominance DCX has enjoyed since it created
the segment in the early '80s." Chrysler residuals are slightly lower
than Honda's but they're still at the top of the segment — hardly "lousy."
In terms of "high prices," again, we offer 17 different models at 17 different
price levels ranging from $19,800 to $38,165. Regarding "lack of innovation,"
we've introduced 50 minivan-firsts over the past 18 years. We've introduced
the following minivan-first features in our all-new models: power up and down
liftgate, power center console, power sliding door obstacle detection system
for opening and closing, pop-up rear cargo organizer, and three zone automatic
temperature control.
In short, we're proud of every single minivan model that we put on the road. And
there's a lot of them — more than 600,000 every year in more than 70 countries.
We've won more than 150 industry awards for this vehicle. We're the only domestic
minivan to make Consumer Reports recommended list. And we finished ahead of Honda
Odyssey in J.D. Power and Associates Compact Van Segment report.
Please know that we don't make a habit of writing letters every time we see a
negative review. But we take exception when we feel our products are misrepresented.
And if you read the majority of e-mails sent from your customers in your Town
Hall, you'll know that we don't stand alone on this issue.
I'm writing to ask you to post our response on your website. I'm also writing
to ask for fair, balanced and accurate coverage. For this vehicle, and any other
future vehicle that you test drive from our company, please know that we are available
to you and your staff to do vehicle walk-arounds, interviews or background discussions.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to working with you
in the future.
I'm a minivan owner, and our introduction to our long-term Dodge Grand Caravan
ES reflected not only my personal research and interest in such vehicles, but
my experiences with our long-term
1999 Honda Odyssey EX and my at-home use of my family's 2000 Toyota Sienna
LE (for which I paid just over $22,000). Our monthly long-term updates are designed
to reflect a given editor's opinion of the vehicle we have purchased.
They are not intended to serve as a summarization of the manufacturer's press
releases; they are not intended to serve as a monthly in-depth dissection of the
vehicle.
Mr. Schroer makes several strong points in support of the new Chrysler minivans.
For example, the power liftgate struck my family as a gimmick, one more entertaining
to my preschool-aged daughter than useful to my grocery-toting wife. However,
having grown up in Michigan, I can understand how useful such a device might be
in lousy weather or when the rear of the van is coated in muck. Also, the ES model
we purchased certainly is loaded with features, much more so than a Honda Odyssey
EX. But Mr. Schroer can't see the forest for the trees: The Dodge Grand Caravan
is missing basic functions we've come to appreciate in the class standard-bearer,
the Odyssey, and the extra goodies listed for the Grand Caravan ES cost more than
$8,000. Seems to be an expensive alternative to the comparably spartan but more
useful Odyssey EX, but that's just my opinion.
A better comparison would pit the new Grand Caravan EX against the Odyssey EX.
In fact, had we known about the Dodge EX version when we bought our ES, we likely
would have chosen it for the long-term test instead of the more expensive ES.
In advertising for the Grand Caravan EX, it is duly noted that for $115 less than
the Honda, buyers will receive the power rear hatch, the power removable center
console, four-wheel disc brakes, triple-zone automatic climate control, grocery
bag hooks, a six-speaker stereo and a more powerful V6 engine. Honda continues
to provide the hideaway third-row seat, convertible second-row seat, independent
rear suspension, better fuel economy, lower emissions and proven crash test scores.
In the ads for the EX, Dodge also touts the fact that readers of a major enthusiast
magazine voted the Grand Caravan the top minivan in the class, but for obvious
reasons, fails to mention that the editors of that same publication picked the
Honda Odyssey. Indeed, the Grand Caravan EX (for which the DCX $2,000 customer
cash rebate does not apply...speaking of which, has anyone ever wondered why "the
best minivan ever" needs such a large incentive to keep the factories running?)
is a far more competitive minivan in the meat of the market than our ES. But still,
it doesn't surpass the Honda as the better vehicle or value, in my opinion. Maybe
if the rebate were available on the Grand Caravan EX.
This summer, I'm taking our Dodge on a cross-country family vacation from California
to Maine. As I'm planning the trip, already I wish I could do something with the
third-row seat besides fold it forward or leave it in the garage to maximize cargo
space. But who knows? After several thousand miles and a month of travel, maybe
the Dodge will win me over and make me forget all about the Honda. — Christian
Wardlaw
Subject: Chris Wardlaw's Advice
From: Richard
I have been reading your [Web site] for years and look forward to its arrival
each week. But the article
(an opinion column — Ed.) by the Editor-in-Chief was off the mark
and elitist. I am sure he has a hate for Daimler Corp. because they "bought" Chrysler.
Perhaps the Honda is better (I have only driven one for a two-day period) but
to say the Pontiac Montana is better is far from the truth. Mr. Wardlaw says there
[are] long term reliability questions with the Montana (as if that was minor).
To most of your readers reliability [is] close to the top! Then to say I can get
a low-ball price and use it to buy a comprehensive warranty is crazy. Only someone
whose company was paying the cost of transportation and didn't have to worry about
monthly bills, like Mr. Wardlaw, would write in such an elitist way. I am buying
a new minivan but it will not be through Mr. Wardlaw's advice.
Toyotas are bulletproof, right? So explain to me why my wife's 2000 Sienna
has an electrical problem with the right front power window that the dealer cannot
duplicate. Explain to me how a reader of this Web site who cared for his '98 Sienna
by the book has had to have the transmission replaced at 41,000 miles. And if
the new Dodge Grand Caravan is so wonderful, tell me why the front brake rotors
on our van warped at 3,000 miles and we now have an airbag warning light illuminating
on an intermittent basis. Honda isn't getting out of jail free, either. The reliability
of its 1999 Odyssey was less than stellar (though, it should be noted, better
than most first-year radical redesigns).
Given this, a deeply discounted, fully equipped Pontiac Montana with an extended
warranty can't be all bad.
And don't forget, this was an opinion column describing what I thought
was best for me. You don't want a Pontiac Montana? Don't buy one. — Christian
Wardlaw
Subject: Fair and Honest Evaluations
From: yellowcreek
Don't get like Motor Trend. I have heard and now believe it to be true
that Motor Trend sells their car and truck of the year awards.
Why would anyone give a low volume vehicle such as a heavy-duty pickup a truck
of the year award?
I have lost respect for Motor Trend and will not renew my subscription.
I also used to visit the Blue Book site quite a lot. Your site is much better.
Subject: Review of 2001 Dodge Grand Caravan
From: Glenn Lukacs
All I can say is WOW!!! What an incredible article filled with misinformation,
bad facts and a slanted view from someone who has not done their homework. I could
go on for pages concerning the misrepresented 'facts' portrayed in the article,
but I will not. A retraction, and more positive article to follow up, would be
more appropriate.
Subject: Review of 2001 Saturn SC2
From: AnticichA
Out of curiosity I recently read your organization's review
of the above referenced car. Seems that you should at least make a veiled attempt
to pretend to be unbiased and objective when publishing these reviews so that
your credibility would not be so tarnished. Obviously your organization must truly
dislike Saturn as a company or perhaps as part of General Motors Corp. Don't bother
to respond as this review speaks volumes. So long and good riddance!
We completely understand that there are some readers out there who would prefer
not to read an unfavorable review of an outdated and overpriced economy coupe.
Certainly, the average consumer doesn't care to know that the SC2's structure
was designed and engineered more than a decade ago, that the interior is full
of cheap plastic, that the seats are uncomfortable, that overall performance is
sub-par, and that GM starved it's new Saturn brand of fresh product for nearly
10 years while Honda and Toyota continued their march toward market-share dominance.
But we don't know who they are, aside from this reader. — Christian Wardlaw
Subject: Review of 2001 Subaru Legacy GT
From: Stephen Barrett
In regards to the review of the 2001
Subaru GT Limited, I think the reviewer missed a couple of marks.
First off, the GT Limited is available with a 5-speed manual in the US of A; it
is only in Canada where it comes standard with the automatic and no other transmission
choice is offered. Perhaps the fact that the reviewer used to [live] in Canada
had a hand in creating the assumption that the GT Limited came standard with automatic.
Secondly, I completely disagree with the reviewer's assessment of the interior.
He mentions that it seems cheap and that Subaru needs to try harder to overcome
this. My question is: what is he comparing it to? Has he been in a Toyota Camry
recently? Yes, the Camry is well put together but does indeed look cheap. The
Subaru GT Limited does not look cheap and is well put together. I think the reviewer
needs to spend less time in $50K cars and come back to reality!
By the way, the BMWs of a couple years back were reviewed as having "business-like
interiors." Sorry, for the bucks spent on this fine driving [machine], the interior
screamed CHEAP! Of course, it's a BMW and cheap is just not a word used by reviewers.
My advice is to review the Subaru GT Limited within the arena of its competition.
Here's a hint: There is a reason why Subaru has a loyal following (especially
of late...read WRX) and it's not just because it's a good value.
Subject: Review of 2001 Hyundai Elantra
From: Greg Zellner
The [review of the 2001 Hyundai Elantra] provides little in the way of detailed
support [for criticism leveled at the Elantra's new-car smell]. I suppose, harsh
comments aside, I would just like confirmation on whether or not a "funky odor"
is a general problem for the Elantra or if the "funky smell" in question just
came from the one being test-driven. I do not expect your opinion to conform to
mine, however, in the interest of good journalism, I would like to see a better
explanation of the "funky smell" comment. Is it truly a detriment to the whole
experience the editor had with the vehicle? Did it come from the seat material?
The exhaust pipe? I must remind you that you enjoy your journalistic independence
due to your past success and a reputation for providing the consumer with the
most complete and accurate information possible. Commentary that is seemingly
"out-of-the-blue" and includes no explanation or enlightening detail undermines
your credibility and is, indeed, unprofessional.
As we've commented in past tests of Hyundai products, as well as Daewoos and
Kias, the odor of the new plastic, rubber and cloth inside a Korean-made car is
generally overpowering and unpleasant. Most people relish "new car smell." They
won't in a Daewoo, Hyundai or Kia. We felt it bore mention, and in the limited
space available in the particular review you reference, we did not go into great
detail about the source of the odor. We recently purchased a 2001 Hyundai Elantra
for a long-term road test, and though the smell of the cabin is strong, especially
when the car has been sitting in the sun, we are initially impressed with the
new Elantra's blend of quality, feature content, performance and value. —
Christian Wardlaw
Subject: 2001 Hyundai Elantra Long-term Test
From: John Pryba
Bravo to adding a Korean
car to your long-term test fleet!
I test drove the new Elantra a few times and almost bought one, but right now
I'm still driving my current car (a '96 Bland Am). The car gave me a better first
impression than the new Civic did. It's very quiet, has better fit and finish
than most American cars (and even some Japanese cars), and the overall performance
of the car is, well, "wholesome."
[One] thing that kept me from buying a 2001 Elantra was how my left kneecap kept
on hitting a hard spot by the armrest on the door as I drove the car. Lowering
the driver seat all the way helped out a little, but my knee would still brush
up against the hard spot. I hope that Hyundai fixes this soon, as otherwise the
rest of the car was very impressive.
Hyundai [also] needs to make ABS available on more of its lower-end cars. I was
able to find one Elantra [on] a dealer lot with ABS (it's part of Package 5, which
also includes traction control and four-wheel-disc brakes) and talk the dealer
down from $15,000 to around $13,000. That's a good price, but imagine what sort
of price I could get if I wheeled and dealed on a car with [fewer] options.
Thanks for such a wonderful website!
P.S. - Ok ok, I also didn't get the Elantra because I wanted to wait and see how
well the new model would hold up... the warranty is nice, but the best warranty
is one you won't have to worry about using every other week.
Subject: Quality of Writing
From: Charlie Chough
Who are you guys employing over there? The writing used to be so good with insightful
and original commentary. Now, your articles and reviews read like they were written
by a computer programmed to string random automotive clichés together.
The recent review of the BMW
330xi is the latest offender. "The best just got better"? How unimaginative
is that? Isn't that some kind of automotive slogan to begin with? "Often, the
best costs a premium"? Come on! The fact that BMW nickel and dimes the consumer
on their $45K car is outrageous! Why does Mr. Dunlop feel the need to help BMW
justify their price gouging?
Bottom line people: hire some writers who can write original copy. Hire some editors
that will tell their writers that their copy is thin and unimaginative. I used
to love this site for it's insightful reviews and interesting articles. Please
bring back the high quality of writing that got me hooked on Edmunds!
Dude, you're totally ruining the buzz we got from cashing that check from BMW.
— Christian Wardlaw
Subject: Thank You — Consumer Style
From: Bob Graham
I want to thank you for the information Edmunds [provides]. I have been buying
new cars for the past 15 years. The hassles that used to be given by dealers for
their invoice have been eliminated because of Edmunds and I want to personally
thank you for making the negotiation process simpler.
I used to get so fed up at times that I would leave [the] dealership, and as I
[was] driving away the salesman would come running after me with the invoice screaming
at the top of his lungs for me to stop. I failed to recognize [this] futile and
desperate attempt and kept driving. If only he would have gotten the invoice for
me before my eighth request I would not have left the lot and he would have had
a sale.
Thanks again for simplifying a fellow negotiators life.
Subject: Thank You — Salesman Style
From: Ken Mathews
I've been selling cars for two years now at a Chevy dealership. Recently we got
a computer in our show room so we can take folks to your site and show that their
trade-in's and our prices are in reason.
I've been spending some time on your site and I enjoy it very much. Your site
has helped me be a better salesman.
Subject: There's No Replacement for Displacement
From: MarkWanc
Now I have to admit, like you guys, I like the BMWs. At least I have to admit
I like the way they look and feel. But when you test the 3 Series, you have got
to start admitting that to offer an 'Ultimate Driving Machine' in only a straight
6-banger is a complete joke. You need to 'Ding' these guys for this in a big way.
Before you ask me 'have you ever driven a 3 Series?' the answer is yes! I have
driven the 328Ci and can honestly say I was disappointed by its acceleration.
It was a stone when launching the car. I repeatedly tried to get the car to move,
but I thought I would have to get out and push. I have never gotten excited (like
you guys do) over a 6-cylinder engine. The problem with BMW is that you need to
shell out over 50 large to get the 5 Series with an 8-cylinder — and the
problem here is you get it in a sedan not in a coupe! What a total joke!!! Again,
DING BMW in your reviews for this!
I was disappointed by the BMW, because I have driven Mustang GT's and Camaro SS'
that would eat them for lunch and spit out bones. I know the BMW might supposedly
handle better, but they would be so far left behind in the straights that I could
take my time in the corners! HA HA! You guys must all be new generation kids that
love 4-cylinders and 'go for the 6' for power. Let me tell ya that 4 cylinders
are for gas saving econoboxes, 6 cylinders should not exist because they can't
do mileage or performance right (sort of an engine that has no place in the real
world of mileage or performance cars) and [8-cylinders] are for performance!
Also, remember these two things: There is no replacement for displacement and
there is no substitute for cubic inches! NOW DING BMW because the only Ultimate
Driving Machine they make is the Z8. It has a V8 and 2 doors — this is ultimate
in the world of true performance cars!
Please oh please stop calling these cars FAST. They are great in the corners and
fun to drive, but they are certainly NOT FAST. Six-cylinders are not performance
motor[s] compared to an 8. Now the Z8 is FAST! And so is the M5, except you get
the extra 2 doors which is downright stupid on a performance car. I would love
to see you put in print something along the following: "BMW, why can't you offer
us the M5 V8 motor in your 2 door coupes (3 Series)? Until then, you are not the
'Ultimate Driving Machine' you claim to be" Then again, you guys probably think
4 and 6 bangers are true performance — which they are...in the gas mileage
category!
I can [also] say that if I put as much money into an 8 that you put into a 4 or
6 to make them go fast, my car would truly FLY!!! I say you drag race the following
cars: BMW 325 against a Camaro SS, Mustang Cobra and just for giggles let's put
in a Crown Vic with the upgraded [horsepower]. I bet these cars all spank the
BMW in the quarter.
True, if you want to go fast in a straight line and spend as little money as
possible doing so, a Chevrolet Camaro Z28 cannot be beaten in terms of bang-for-the-buck
off a showroom floor. But when you want to blast through a canyon, that car's
live rear axle, substantial girth, limited visibility and balky transmission put
it at a disadvantage. Add the fact that it can't carry anyone but children in
the rear seat, suffers extraordinary insurance penalties, exhibits substandard
reliability and appears to have been assembled using the same plastic as Playskool
toys, and the appeal further diminishes.
Icing on the argument for the inherent goodness of a BMW 3 Series is that it comes
in many flavors designed to appeal to a broad cross-section of car-buying consumers,
including all-wheel-drive versions. The nail in your argument's coffin is that
the new BMW M3 matches or beats the Chevy's performance. Granted, it's twice the
price, but it does twice as many things well.
Finally, you state that a performance car can't have four doors, then you mention
a Crown Vic with an upgraded 4.6-liter motor. Kinda pokes a giant hole in your
thesis, doesn't it? Oh, and don't forget the following "fuel economy specials"
equipped with V6 engines: 1987 Buick GNX, 1989 Pontiac Trans Am Indy pace car,
1991 GMC Syclone, 1992 GMC Typhoon.
Now, if you don't mind, we have a check from BMW that we need to cash. —
Christian Wardlaw
Subject: Top Five Gas Savers — Ugh
From: Robert Cornelssen
I certainly hope you are smugly satisfied with your juvenile and typical Generation
X trickery. Bashing the Pontiac
Sunfire GT was just plain ignorant bad taste. Having been in the Automobile
Business since (get ready for this) 1951, I can now understand why the business
is suffering with tasteless, uninformed, unqualified, ego-ridden kindergarten
fool-types like your writers. Myself and my grown sons have forgotten more about
the true automobile than you'll ever learn.
Subject: Top Five Gas Savers — Ha, ha!
From: Colin Kameoka
Haha! Probably the funniest thing I read yet. I guess you can park [the Sunfire]
next to the Aztek!
Personally, the Toyota Echo might have been a better choice; it doesn't exactly
win beauty contests either. However, it wouldn't have been politically correct.
Subject: More on Top Five
From: John Conover
I hate to start off on a sour note, but who on earth picked the cars for this
group? It really couldn't have been your editors. The most obvious picks would
have been the highest mileage cars. The only one that seems to fit that bill is
the 2001 Toyota Prius. The glaring omission to this list is any of the VW TDI's.
How could someone, anyone, not have picked something like the Volkswagen Golf
GL TDI. A car that is fun to drive, gets 42 mpg/49 mpg and is priced at $16,700.
All I can say is that if your editors really did pick those cars, you need to
hire a new editor who likes diesels (or maybe send a couple of your current ones
over to Germany to drive the V6 TDIs).
John, don't forget that our monthly Top Five is an editor's choice. Some of
us wanted larger vehicles, some of us wanted sportier vehicles, some of us preferred
to take a more humorous approach. My selection was the Honda Civic. I considered
the gas-electric hybrids and the VW diesels, but decided the Civic was the better
overall compromise in terms of low purchase price combined with high mileage and
low emissions levels.
For the record, we conducted a long-term test of a New
Beetle TDI between 1998 and 2000 and were impressed with the TDI engine's
combination of power and economy. — Christian Wardlaw
Subject: Ford Focus is not American!
From: Vlad Kozlovsky
I would like to comment on something I noticed while reading a recent article,
titled "Road Test Follow Up: 2001
Mazda Protege," on Edmunds.com:
"Even with an automatic tranny, acceleration was peppy, though we
found that the engine note got a bit discordant at times. One editor commented
"For once, I prefer the sound of an American four-cylinder engine to a Japanese
one. Specifically, our long-term Focus ZX3 produces a pleasing growl when pushed,
which adds to the driving experience, whereas the Protege sounds buzzy when
the whip is cracked."
I have been under the impression that Ford's 2.0 Zetec engine was developed in
Europe. As a matter of fact, the whole car (Focus) is not American at all —
it's German. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only engine available in a ZX3 is
the German-developed Zetec.
The American market ZX3 is built in Mexico. So, whatever you do, just do not call
it American.
The Focus is indeed an American of European descent. In fact, it received the
1999 European Car of the Year award. But it is American in the sense that it is
the product of an American car company, even if it was developed and sold in Europe
by said company. Honda's Accord is considered to be a Japanese car, yet Honda
has been building a large percentage of them (for the American market) in Ohio
since 1982. And both Toyota and Nissan have design centers and production facilities
in the U.S. I admit, however, that it may have been better to say I preferred
the sound of an American car maker's (albeit European-bred) four-cylinder
engine. — John DiPietro
Subject: Getting Your Yaw-Yaws Out
From: David Acton
I just read your article "Stability
Control: Get Your Yaw-Yaws Out!" by Scott Memmer. There are two items in the
article that I feel need correction. The first is the reference to what "yaw"
is. The author rightfully describes it using the quote "the movement of an object
turning on its vertical axis" but then in the next paragraph refers to "how far
off-axis a car is 'tilting' in a turn." This is a poor analogy, since most people,
if you asked them what is referred to by a car "tilting" in a turn, they'd indicate
a body-roll type of movement. The word "tilting" generally refers to rotation
about a longitudinal axis, not about the vertical axis. Thus I'm afraid readers
will get the wrong impression about what yaw really is. They'll think that if
their car has a lot of body roll, i.e. "tilting" a lot in turns, it must be yawing
a lot.
The author's reference to the aircraft instrument, which shows a picture of an
airplane "tipping right and left", further confuses the situation. I know what
instrument he's referring to (with a top view of the airplane), but most people
probably think of the artificial horizon, showing a rear view of the airplane,
again "tipping" or "tilting" right or left. This indicates "roll" not "yaw." A
better analogy should be used to define yaw to the reader. The term "spinning"
would work better, since if you tell someone a car is "spinning" they'll rightfully
picture a rotation about the vertical axis. Or use a magnetic compass as a physical
analogy. When you hold the compass level, the needle "yaws" about its bearing
to show you which direction is North.
The other correction is to the acronym for BMW's Dynamic Stability Control system.
In the North American vehicles, it is DSC, not DSM. I presume the same is true
of Jaguar.
Other than these two nits, it's a great article!
Subject: Getting Your Yaws-Yaws Out
From: Aron Nopanen
Perhaps I should just let it go, but my anal-retentive nature just won't let me!
Scott Memmer wrote in his recent article, "Stability Control: Get Your Yaw-Yaws
Out!":
"Yaw can be described as 'the movement of an object turning on its vertical axis.'
Picture an aircraft instrument panel with that 'airplane' symbol tipping right
and left and this will perhaps give you a better image of the concept of yaw."
First sentence = correct.
Second sentence = wrong!
The airplane tipping left and right illustrates *roll*, or rotation about the
front-to-back axis, analogous to body roll in a car. (Improper) yaw is detected
in an airplane using the slip indicator, which is a ball that can swing left and
right if things go awry.
Phew, I feel much better now! To balance out my disparaging comments, thanks for
all the good work you guys do. Your website has wasted untold hours of my workdays!
Mea culpa! Mea culpa! I confess — I made a mistake! Since I don't fly,
it appears my airplane analogy was unfit for publication. Thanks to two of our
diligent readers for keeping me honest. Maybe I'll take some flying lessons. —
Scott Memmer
Subject: After Warranty Assistance
From: Gregg Tompkins
(Editor's Note: Mr. Tompkins is a warranty consultant for Dealer Insight.)
I read the article written by Neil Chirico titled "The Secret Warranty: (AKA)
After Warranty Assistance (AWA)." Overall, the
article covered the subject well. However, three points need to be made about
why a dealer may not offer a customer goodwill assistance (AWA).
First, all manufacturers track the amount of money a dealer spends on warranty
and goodwill repairs. If a dealer has a higher than average warranty expense then
there is a higher likelihood the manufacturer will audit their paperwork and most
likely charge the dealer back thousands of dollars for minor paperwork errors.
Offering customers goodwill assistance will cause a dealer's warranty expense
to go up.
Second, some manufacturers are now requiring dealers to participate financially
when offering a customer goodwill assistance. The manufacturer gets most of the
benefit of the goodwill assistance [and] the manufacturer also makes more on the
sale of a vehicle than a dealer. Yet [the dealer] is asked to participate in goodwill
repairs even for customers who have never purchased the vehicle or had any maintenance
work performed at the dealership. Why should a dealer participate in offering
goodwill assistance in instances where the manufacturer benefits and the dealer
doesn't?
Finally, when a dealer performs a repair under a goodwill assistance program,
they're required to price the work based on warranty prices [that] are controlled
by the manufacturer. It's not unusual for a warranty repair to be half the price
of a customer paid repair simply because the manufacturer gives themselves large
discounts off of retail price.
The way the goodwill assistance programs work, it's almost always a losing proposition
for the dealer.
|
