Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: Great Site!
From: Kurt Brokhoff

Hello, I wanted to write and tell you that your site is incredible! I have searched all over the 'net for a good automobile review site, and yours is by far the best out there. Your vehicle reviews are in-depth and humorous. I have found no problems with your site thus far, and I've been using it for well over two years. Your reviews and comparison tests are really helpful and insightful.

Keep up the good work!


Subject: Appreciation
From: Mgaspay

I just want to thank you guys for providing a very important service to ordinary "Joe" car buyers like me. I have profited much by way of educating myself and getting good deals for two cars I bought recently for my daughters. The information you provide has helped us make a better choice of what car we ought to buy and getting the best price (and fair to the dealer too). And more importantly avoid the stress that accompanies car buying at dealerships when one is not prepared to engage sharp but unscrupulous salespeople. Keep up the good work!


Subject: There's No Replacement for Displacement
From: Ric

(Editor's Note: This letter is in response to our editor's response to a letter about BMWs and good ol' domestic V8s)

I am a 38-year-old male professional. I am a true car enthusiast, [having grown] up surrounded by family members who drove performance cars of the late 60's early 70's. I have fond memories of piling into the back of my Dad's '68 442 W-30 with my two younger brothers and sister. This was our family car. Bench seat, 4-speed, no power robbing accessories of any sort. We waited almost a year for that car to be built, but what a car it was.

So I gotta agree to disagree with you guys. I have owned some 40-plus cars in my life. Mostly performance domestic, vintage and new, but in recent years have strayed towards the rising sun somewhat. I am surrounded by BMW, Audi, Lexus/Toyota and Honda owners. None of whom, I might add, know Jack-Diddly about cars, but have the means to buy some knowledge and perhaps even a personality with their purchase.

One close friend recently purchased a nice used Z3 for his commuter. Nice car. Here's where it gets funny though. This guy, a former died-in-the-wool Shelby Mustang owner, pulls in my drive with his new BMW and immediately says, "Ric! You gotta drive this car! It's the fastest car I've ever driven!" He tosses me the keys, but warns me to be careful, as it may get away from me. I drove the car for nearly an hour, with him explaining to me the whole time the wonderful perks of owning a BMW, and how nothing else compares. The car was a quality piece without a doubt, well-engineered and -executed to say the least. But fast? No. Great handling car, super brakes. But leave the stopwatch home if yer gonna attempt to cover a quarter mile at a time. Bring the calendar -- and a big lunch. You'll need both. Coincidentally, I had a 2000 Camaro SS at the time.

(I don't know which Z3 you're referencing, but I can only guess that it's either the 2.8 or the 3.0, neither of which can compete with a Camaro SS in terms of straight line acceleration. But don't forget, BMW does make the M Roadster, complete with an inline-six engine, and that car puts up a fight when matched to the Camaro. Because we tested the BMW M Roadster and Chevrolet Camaro SS in the summertime heat at elevation, I'll quote Road & Track magazine here, which tested both cars closer to sea level in moderate temperatures. BMW M Roadster -- 0-60 mph in 5.4 sec., quarter-mile in 14 sec. at 99.5 mph, skidpad .89g. Chevrolet Camaro SS -- 0-60 mph in 5.5 sec., quarter-mile in 13.9 sec. at 105.5 mph, skidpad .87g. And for 2001, the M Roadster gets a massive 75 horsepower increase! -- C.W.)

[Is the Camaro] Fast you ask? Extremely. But I have recently sold the car. And in all the reviews I have ever read, I have never heard any editor call the Borg-Warner (Tremec) 6-speed trans "bulky." Odd... (Actually, I called it "balky," as in difficult to shift. -- C.W.)

Canyon blasts are your thing huh? Wow. You see, here in upstate N.Y. we don't have canyon roads [that] they set aside to do stupid things on. But every now and again you can sneak a stoplight-to-stoplight blast in. (I've spent plenty of time in Upstate New York, and no, there are no canyon roads, but plenty of back country roads with some awesome corners just waiting to be carved. -- C.W.) And fret not, a highly optioned SLP SS will pull nearly .90G on the skid pad and equally impressive lap times at tracks across the country -- live rear axle or not.

So I find myself in the market for yet another car to drive back and forth to work in. It's gotta be fun, well equipped, fast, and not carry an inflated price-tag. Easy decision. Bettin' my money on a 2002 Camaro SS. Shoulda never sold my 2000. Gimme the Bulky [sic] 6-speed and skimp not on the recycled Playskool toys plastic! That always makes the Beemer [sic] guys cringe when I blast by 'em.


Subject: Long-Term Y2K Celica
From: Mike Pawinski (aka CelicaDetective on Celica.net)

(Editor's Note: This letter is in response to our May long-term update for the 2000 Celica GT-S in which we requested reader response if they thought Mr. Romans was "wack" for thinking the Celica's styling could be mistaken for a Ferrari.)

Brent is wack [for] thinking [the 2000 Celica] could be mistaken for a budget Ferrari. Maybe a quick glance at the Toyota MR-2 (2001) and the Porsche Boxster [will remind him of a Ferrari]. [A] better comparison would be "The Geo Storm is the poor man's Toyota Celica." For some reason, I am reminded [of] the Geo Storm when [viewing] the new Celica -- although [the latter includes] tons of visual improvements.

[By the way,] the 6-speed gearbox has been updated as of May/June 2001. Please refer to this post, including photo sketches of the parts updated further down the thread:

http://www.newcelica.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/010210.html


Subject: Long-Term Y2K Xterra
From: D.K.

Hey folks, lend me your ears (albeit your eyes) for just a moment. Your typical reviews offer a reasonable measure of insight, opinion, and most of all -- substance. However, this review was a complete and utter waste. You should really call this review "We have no data of any consequence, so here's our impression of the McKenzie Brothers," but alas, [that's] too long for a title. Oh, yes, thanks for the photo of the injection molded tool tray, it really kicks up the "value meter."

Last thing, did Liz Kim write this article? It rings of her style, minus the vocabulary, but with the same self-flattering elements, which I deem in the "she talks a lot, but doesn't say much" category. As for the experience being "too rich to omit," I prefer "too rich to report." But if we had cut it down to the lean, nitty-gritty, there wouldn't even be an update to mention.

Other than that, keep up the humor, wit and sarcasm that add color to your articles (most of them, that is). Hugs and kisses.

Be mistaken for the inimitable Mr. Dunlop? Flattery will get you everywhere, my good man. -- Liz Kim


Subject: Where is my Webster's?
From: Jerry Yuan

As an avid reader and a fan, I enjoy [Liz Kim's] reviews a great deal. Notwithstanding the fact that English is [my] second language, I had never thought [using a] Webster's dictionary is a must when reading a car review. Please don't get me wrong, but what can be better than learning so much about an automobile and the word "sagacious" in one setting? Do keep up the good work.


Subject: Incorrect Acceleration Times
From: Stephen Westhafer

I'd like to point out that the Z06 isn't [the] fastest 60-0 braking car you've tested.

The following quote [highlights this inaccuracy]:
"Staying true to Volvo's safety-conscious heritage, the C70 was equipped with vise-like brakes that hauled it down from 60 mph in an incredible 111 feet. To put that into perspective, the best stopping car we've ever tested, the limited-edition Z06 Corvette, turned in a 109-ft. distance in the same test. "

[You're] ignoring the fact that you've tested some really amazing vehicles in the past, including the '91-'95 MR2 Turbo. According to a performance survey you did long, long ago, you had a tested 60-0 distance of 107 ft., bettering the Vette's 109-ft. "record."

It's been a matter of steam over at the MR2 performance boards for quite some time.

Information is logged at http://www.mr2.com/TEXT/HighPerf.html but unfortunately the original copy you had on your site is now gone.

If by chance I'm wrong, I'm truly sorry, but I just want to clear some things up.

Thanks for writing, Stephen. We've been conducting our own instrumented testing since 1998. Prior to that, we bought performance data from a third-party source, or used manufacturer-supplied data. We've never instrument-tested a '91-'95 Toyota MR2 Turbo. The quote you refer to is accurate, in that the Corvette Z06 is the best braking car our staff has ever tested. However, it is possible that another entity has gotten a shorter distance out of a '91-'95 MR2 Turbo. -- Christian Wardlaw


Subject: Luxury Coupe Comparison
From: Aceygeo

I am a longtime visitor to your site. Your reviews of Saabs have been reasonable in the past. Some in love others a bit nasty. But your luxury coupe test without the Saab truly disappointed me. The callous and carefree way in which the SAAB was disregarded annoyed me as a Saab owner.

If the missing vehicle [had been] a Lexus or a BMW you sure as I am sitting here [would have] gone out and gotten one to test. A retraction or some further effort is in order if I am to continue as a visitor to this site.

Weeks in advance, we scheduled a Saab 9-3 Viggen for the test. Saab claims it "forgot" about our request for a car, a fact which we discovered at the last minute. Our options included renting one at a cost of more than $1,000 or rescheduling the test. Because the 9-3 isn't a mainstream car, because it is getting redesigned quite soon, and because it was Saab's own fault that a 9-3 couldn't participate, we decided to excise it from the test. -- Christian Wardlaw


Subject: Luxury Coupe Comparison
From: David Indech

For the life of me, I can't figure out how your BMW 330Ci test mule within the Luxury Coupe Comparison bested the 0-60 and quarter-mile times of the similarly muscled and recently road-tested AWD Subaru Impreza WRX, especially given the 300-lb. weight penalty of the former. The significantly stronger and somewhat lighter Mercedes CLK430 was also unable to overcome the [BMW] in either test, even while boasting a power advantage of roughly 50 [horsepower] and 80 ft/lbs. of torque.

Running the BMW's specifications through a fairly accurate acceleration simulator, Cartest yields 0-60 figures in the high 6 range, more befitting of a car that must pull nearly 15 lbs. for every horsepower.

What gives?

We tested the Subaru on a completely different day under different weather conditions than the Luxury Coupes. The Subaru was equipped with the optional dealer-installed 17-inch wheels versus the stock 16s. I believe the 16s would be quicker during the performance testing for 0 to 60 and quarter-mile. They would, most likely, cause the car to be a touch slower in the slalom. -- Road Test Coordinator Neil Chirico

The BMW has slightly shorter gearing than the Merc. Its final drive ratio is 2.93 versus 2.87 for the CLK, and its gearbox ratios are also slighter shorter as well (1st-4.21, 2nd-2.49, 3rd-1.66 vs. 1st-3.59, 2nd-2.19, 3rd-1.41).

The BMW is inherently more efficient with its manual gearbox and near perfect (50.2/49.8) weight distribution compared to the Mercedes with its automatic transmission and front-heavy V8.

Despite your "fairly accurate" computer program, every major magazine that performance-tests cars has managed to get low 6s and better from their 330s (Car and Driver 12/00, 330i, 0-60 in 6.1 sec., quarter-mile in 14.8; Motor Trend 2/01, 330Xi, 0-60 in 5.8 sec., quarter-mile in 14.4; Road & Track 1/1, 330Ci, 0-60 in 6.2 sec., quarter-mile in 14.8). Their numbers for the CLK are also slightly slower (Motor Trend 5/99, CLK430, 0-60 in 6.5 sec., quarter-mile in 14/8; Road & Track 4/99, CLK 430, 0-60 in 6.1 sec., quarter-mile 14.5).

Then of course, you have to factor in our love of BMWs, which no doubt leads us to miss a tenth here or there to make sure that they win every test, and you've got a rough idea of why the BMW won. -- Ed Hellwig


Subject: Why BMW?
From: Praveen

Hi, I'm a regular Edmunds.com reader and I have read [most] of your reviews and road tests. But I've noticed that you always favor the BMW when compared to other cars like Lexus, [which] I can understand. But Mercedes-Benz? I like BMWs when it comes to performance but otherwise [they] ain't all that. I think you need to restate your reviews to [note that when it comes to] the best performance car, then yeah, a BMW. Otherwise no. I mean come on now, Mercedes-Benz is the best all-around car.

Blinded by the light glinting off the three-pointed star hood ornament, Praveen? We like BMWs because they are usually the best all-around cars in their respective segments. For example, the Lexus IS 300 (which you wrongfully dismiss right off the bat) is a slightly better performer than the BMW 330i, but can't come close to matching the Bimmer for cabin material quality and accommodations. The Mercedes-Benz C320 is also a decent performer, but falls down when it comes to ultimate communication with the driver, cabin material quality, accommodations and ergonomics. Plus, where's the manual with the V6? In our collective staff opinion, the Mercedes-Benz is not the best all-around car, no matter what the chaps at the local country club think. -- Christian Wardlaw


Subject: Thank You
From: Pam Grzadzielewski

Please accept a heartfelt thanks to the entire staff [at] Edmunds. Prior to purchasing vehicles in the past and currently, I have relied on Edmunds' publications. The availability of this information, backed by Edmunds' reputation via the Internet, without charge is remarkably helpful. Within the next week or so I expect to purchase a new vehicle. Although I have not purchased any Edmunds publications in hard print, I have referred to your website at least 20 times. As is obvious, you provide an invaluable service. However, I'm unsure of how to compensate Edmunds for the wonderful service. To be honest, I almost feel guilty about the number of times I refer to your site. This note is intended to provide you and your staff with the only compensation readily transmittable: THANK YOU!


Subject: Cadillac Catera Reviews
From: John Anderson

In researching your archives for a 1998 Cadillac Catera I may possibly purchase, I read two reviews: "Road Test: 1997 Cadillac Catera: Grandmother Wouldn't be Pleased" (author uncredited), and "Road Test: 2000 Cadillac Catera: It may not Zig, but this Caddy Doesn't Zuck" by Karl Brauer. Talk about dichotomies! Talk about regression!

For instance, in 1997, the engine had "...a powerful V-6 engine" with "sounds [that] are almost musical," and a "sport-mode automatic transmission that actually shifts sportily." In 2000, however, the same engine was not "aging well," regressed to being "wheezy and unrefined" and the former sportily-shifting tranny became "an incompetent four-speed automatic transmission."

Having majored in Journalism, I realize and firmly believe in artistic freedom and strongly uphold Edmund's editors' rights to their opinions, however, there is such a thing as consistency, especially from an entity wielding as much influence as Edmunds. If nothing else, there should be, at least, deference to past expressions attributed to Edmunds.

The contradictory nature of the articles is to the point that they are insulting and disrespectful to both your readers and your editors.

Gee, thanks for all the help!

For a guy who majored in Journalism, we sure had to clean up your spelling and comma usage, my friend. Here's the thing. Any review, whether it covers a movie, a restaurant or a resort hotel, is ultimately a reflection of the author's opinion and personal experience. Two different test drivers had two different opinions of the car. But don't forget, between 1997 and 2000, not only did Catera's competitors improve, causing the Caddy to fall several notches in our collective staff esteem, but also myriad quality and reliability problems with 1997 and 1998 models came to light, tainting our overall impressions of the car. -- Christian Wardlaw


Subject: Update the Echo Review
From: Major Thom

Just wondering when you are going to update the review of the Echo. It still contains a sentence stating that no government crash tests have been performed on the Echo. This is out of date.

As you should know, not only have crash tests been performed but also the Echo did quite well for a car of its size. In fact, it did as well as the much heavier Ford Focus four-door. And actually, it did better than the Focus ZX3 for protecting rear occupants in side impact crashes.

I guess the writer of the review will have to find something else to attack the Echo about. In my opinion, Toyota did a good job dealing with Newton's Law.

Sure, Echo performs well in a crash with another vehicle that weighs roughly the same as it does, but what about accidents with the majority of the vehicle population; cars and trucks that weigh more, sometimes significantly more, than the Echo does? -- Christian Wardlaw


Subject: PT Cruiser's "Lack of Power"
From: Markd

I enjoy your reviews and website, but come on guys! The PT [Cruiser] does not deserve your poor review (test drive column) based on a lack of power. Let's [get] real. The PT competes with the Ford Focus and Toyota Echo, not the Mustang GT or [V6-powered] Accords costing twice as much. Most perplexing is [that] the Cruiser's performance specifications are quite respectable when compared to other 4-cylinder sedans and mini SUVs.

Sure, a good review needs to mention that this thing is not going to win any races, but to spend three paragraphs on the subject and otherwise trash a great car? The best thing about the PT is they made a practical, inexpensive small sedan very cool. What's wrong with that? If it had a 250-hp engine it would undoubtedly cost $25K+. Anyone can get a PT for MSRP by waiting a few months. Looks aside, it would be tough to beat at that price. Throw in the looks and you have an incredible bargain.

P.S. -- Thank GOODNESS all cars don't look like a Toyota Echo!!! Yuk


Subject: Thanks for the Focus
From: Kevin Tloczynski

I am a very happy 2001 Ford Focus ZX3 owner. Edmunds.com was where I first learned of the existence of this new vehicle from Ford. Edmunds.com was where I learned about all the vehicles that would potentially meet my needs, including the Ford (though at the time my bias was toward a Honda). I then test drove my top picks, made a decision on my favorite two (which included the Ford), then used Edmunds.com's TMV [True Market Value] to negotiate a price for each.

After 23,000 miles I must say I am happy with my decision and my Ford (due, in no small part, to the fact that I feel I made an informed decision and made the best deal I could at the time of purchase). [But] this is the point where I accuse Edmunds.com of being on the Ford payroll, since their obvious bias infected my head with Ford Fever, which [in turn] forced me to uncontrollably throw my hard earned money towards Dearborn.

Thank you for your objective [observations], as well as [your] subjective opinions. They helped me make an educated decision about the vehicle that was best suited to my needs and wants.


Subject: Cosmetics
From: Andy Hightower

In response to your solicitation for readers' opinions in the January update of the long-term PT Cruiser, I would like to say that generally you should put less emphasis on your subjective stylistic opinions. We can decide for ourselves what is/isn't attractive.

However, it is funny to read some of the negative comments; maybe I just like put-down humor too much. Maybe have a small section at the end of the review devoted to styling opinions, as they can be insightful and enjoyable to read. But again, don't dwell on them too much; I know ugly when I see it. Ahem, AZTEK!