|
Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors
October 2001
By editors at Edmunds.com
Date Posted 11-01-2001
Subject: First Drive: 2002 VW Jetta GLS 1.8T
From: T.J.
I just read your article on the 2002
VW Jetta GLS 1.8T. I quote from that article the following sentence:
"Regular readers will be familiar with our Jetta gripes, but in case you missed
'em, here they are: The stereo still has a separate power button (as opposed to
this being controlled by simply pressing the volume knob)."
You're kidding me, right? Is this actually a complaint? Why don't you whine about
the fact that you turn on the headlights from a dash-mounted knob, rather than
from the end of the turn signal stalk, like a Honda? Perhaps you dislike the fact
that the dash has four HVAC vents, rather than five. If you're going to complain
about something, at least make it reasonable. In this case, you're just reaching.
Yes, we're reaching for two controls when one would suffice. — Ed.
Subject: 2001 Lincoln LS
From: Sheila
I beg to differ with you on your test
of the Lincoln LS. I recently purchased a 2001 V8 and was blown away by the
pickup, handling, braking and stereo system.
Having test driven the BMW 3 Series, the Acura RL and TL, and the Mercedes E-Class,
it's a pleasure to ride in the only car in this class that has a quiet engine.
It's amazing how one can't hear the stereo in those cars with the engine booming.
Maybe [they were] tested with the engine shut off?
Owning manual transmissions for more than 30 years, the option of the Select-Shift
was a pleasure. I had absolutely no problem choosing the manual/automatic option,
nor did I notice any hesitation when accelerating onto the highway. That car moves!
The other cars accelerated at approximately the same rate...with accompanying
decibels of engine noise.
Maybe when your bias against American cars fades, I recommend that you look at
the LS with a more open mind...and realize it's more bang for the buck than those
foreign jobs.
It should be noted that when the LS debuted for 2000 we added one to our long-term
test fleet. — Ed.
Subject: Lincoln LS Station Wagon
From: Trevor
Seems to me that if Ford wants the Lincoln LS to compete with the European manufacturers,
they ought to consider offering a station wagon model. If they believe that luxury
buyers don't want station wagons, why do Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo,
and Saab all offer them?
I've been driving Ford vehicles for ages and while not ecstatic over quality or
performance, am pleased enough to remain loyal. I admire the look of the LS, but
would like to see it in a more family-flexible offering. Otherwise I'm jumping
ship. Five years in an SUV are taking their toll.
Lincoln will be releasing the Aviator next year, a new luxury...SUV! No station
wagon LS is on the horizon. It would seem Lincoln isn't convinced the SUV gravy
train has reached the end of its track. — Ed.
Subject: 2002 Honda Odyssey
From: Andrew
I'm a big fat Honda fan. I consider myself the worst person to get car advice
from, because I just buy anything Honda tells me to.
But holy smokes! They've got people lined up to buy the Odyssey, then at almost
the end of the product's life cycle they make matters worse.
Every article I've read had the same issues with the Odyssey: decent but not great
brakes, no cup holders in the middle, less than perfect shifter, no leather, slow
automatic sliding doors.
Now they add disc brakes to the rear, more cup holders, [additional] sound dampening,
leather, a DVD system and a revised shifter (with an extra cog in the tranny).
Oh... and 30 more horsepower. Oh... and that's on regular gas. Oh... and side
airbags.
So while I stand in line for my 2002, could you do an update to your already fantastic
minivan comparo? I'd like to know how the changes affect the car overall. Thanks!
It looks like you already know how the 2002 changes to the Odyssey affect the
car overall. Now, it's nearly perfect, and we're going to have start nitpicking
things like stereo buttons. — Ed.
Subject: Sportage is dangerous
From: Michele
I would truly like to know who did your review for the Kia
Sportage, a MONKEY? My Sportage is just two months old and I hate it. It is
dangerous, especially on the highway. The wind velocity takes away the control
from the driver. Did you people actually drive it? I did, but obviously did not
know to get on the highway before buying one. We look to you guys for a true and
accurate review; you blew it on this one. I won't check your reviews the next
time I buy a vehicle or anything else.
Subject: Content
From: Tim
Today, as has been my habit over the last three years, I visited your web site.
After clicking on your 'Reviews' section, I noted the following: First looks [at
the] 2003 Mercedes-Benz SL500, 2003 Cadillac CTS, 2002 Aston Martin, 2002 Mercedes-Benz
G500 and Road Tests [of the] Lexus IS300 and BMW Z3 Roadster.
While each of these vehicles would seem to be a dream come true (at least for
the jaded Edmunds reviewer) to drive, NONE of these are the reason I frequent
your site. I am looking for information/reviews as to what is new/updated on the
market and how they fit with the needs I have (like being able to afford the monthly
payments, the insurance, vehicle reliability, cost to repair, crash-worthiness,
flexibility of use and value).
Sure, if money were no object, my choice would be driven by the fun factor, but
the reality is we own an American-made
four-door sedan and an American-made
minivan. It would be GREAT if you would guide me to which would be the best
investment of my hard-earned dollar. It would appear that the fact that there
are thousands of either of these type of vehicles sold every year compared to
the Aston Martin (I don't think I could find an Aston Martin dealer if they offered
me a car for free) does not influence your choices as to what the vast majority
of your visitors want to review. As for me, I will be deleting the bookmark to
your website.
We write about what's new in the world of cars and trucks, regardless of country
of origin or price. When an auto manufacturer releases information about a new
model, we relate that information to the consumer.
The fact is that mainstream vehicles, particularly those from North America, see
few noteworthy changes over the course of their lives. For example, take the Chevrolet
Malibu. Since 1997, Chevy has made minor trim modifications, and added more horsepower
(when that happened, we got
one to drive to see how it changed the character of the car).
Think about this: Toyota has completely redesigned the Camry twice since the current-generation
Cavalier was launched. European manufacturers are constantly improving or upgrading
powertrains, which warrants another look by this staff. When domestic automakers
redesign or significantly update existing models, or introduce new ones, we report
on them.
Subject: More of what is different or really sells, please!
From: W. Mason
I have been to the sites that show the statistics on which cars sell the best
in the U.S. The statistics look nothing like the cars that you review (aside from
a Camry or two). Every time I visit your site I am guaranteed to see either a
Lexus, Acura, BMW or Mercedes somewhere being reviewed, introduced, spotlighted,
or compared in some fashion.
I am a car guy and understand the obsession with one brand or category of cars.
But the reality of car buying favors the less expensive and more common, utilitarian
vehicles. I would be shocked to see from you a GMC Safari review [about the] minor
tweaks for 2002, but have become used to seeing minor upgrades on BMWs and the
like on Edmunds.
The idolization of a few import brands has become tiresome and boring (although
it may be exciting for those at Edmunds.com). Please give us a few more "off the
wall" reviews of cars that we wouldn't expect you to review, cars that real people
buy, and cars that sell more than those that are constantly thrown in our faces.
Or better yet, if you must review a car that caters to a few, review something
that we don't see on the road much.
[For] example:
- Some variant of the 2002 F-150, the best selling vehicle in America.
- The 2002 Pontiac Montana "Thunder" — forego the next Odyssey review
(or comparison)
- The 2002 Isuzu Rodeo — forego the next Acura MDX review (or comparison)
- The 2002 Suzuki Esteem Sedan — forego the next Camry review (please!)
- A comparison of the "Big Boys" — huge people haulers, the Chevy Express
1500 Passenger Base, the Ford Excursion, and the Toyota Land Cruiser Base.
Compare pricing, fuel economy, and the like. And avoid the stereotypical comments
about "fit and finish" and "Toyota build quality" that have been drummed into
our heads countless times — unless absolutely necessary.
And if you just can't stand to be without a car beyond our means, why not do an
article on a Saleen, some variant of the Hummer
H1, or...the Unimog!
Just some thoughts from a car enthusiast tired of the same old BMW/Acura/Infiniti
brand reviews.
For 2002, the GMC Safari gets multi-point fuel injection and synthetic rear
axle gear oil, which does not warrant another look by this staff. The Toyota Camry,
the best-selling car in this country for four years, has been completely redesigned
for 2002. We will road test that instead of a Suzuki Esteem. Finally, our staff
doesn't agree that the Thunder package for the Pontiac Montana is more significant
than Honda adding more power, a new transmission, upgraded brakes and safety equipment,
and leather and DVD-entertainment to our top-rated minivan.
Subject: Collusion
From: Robert
Recently I have read that Toyota and other automobile manufacturers have released
new diesels in Europe. These new diesels meet European emissions standards exceeding
2003 (over and above our standards). They are also quiet and very efficient. I
would like to know why these engines are not available here. I hate to be a conspiracist
but the feedback I get from government and the auto industry seems highly collusive
and illogical.
I would like you to address these issues on your writings.
Here's the deal: Those low-emission diesels require low-sulfur fuel. Current
legislation requires low-sulfur diesel fuel for North America by 2006. Evidently,
the oil companies don't feel much like creating low-sulfur fuel for North America,
and are fighting this mandate. — Ed.
Subject: Beat Your
Ticket
From: Karen
Fascinating, albeit sad, article. According to the author, "The only thing I was
lacking was a compelling argument to prove that I wasn't speeding. I mean,
I was speeding and there were no real technicalities I could exploit
to contradict that. My strategy was to wait until the last possible moment, hoping
the ticketing officer didn't show up, and then, if he did make an appearance,
invoke California Vehicle Code 41501 stating my right to go to traffic school."
It's rather sad that your site, which I normally love and use as a great resource,
is teaching people how to get away with a crime. A minor crime maybe, unless one
of those people who speeds, or runs a red light, or rolls through a stop sign,
instead of getting a ticket, hits a pedestrian, hits another car, or in some other
way causes an accident. We all drive poorly at times, myself included. And in
a perfect world, we would all drive perfectly, for the sake of driving perfectly.
But in a real world, most people drive according to the laws BECAUSE they don't
want to get a ticket. This article could easily encourage a lot of people to be
more careless, because they have found it is much easier than they thought to
"beat a ticket." I wonder what the long-term ramifications of this article will
be, which you will never know about, but for which you are responsible?
Wow. I feel like I'm being blamed in advance for all the future accidents and
crazed driving habits of the American public. The purpose on this article wasn't
to give speed-crazed drivers the tools they need to evade the law. Instead, it
was to give those normally law-abiding drivers, who fall into the hands of over-zealous,
revenue-hunting cops, their day in court. Traffic tickets are sometimes written
for absurdly small infractions. Speed traps catch drivers who unintentionally
exceed the speed limit on sudden downhill stretches. Police officers sometimes
make mistakes. It happens. And if it happens to you, an undeserved ticket can
be costly — both the fine and the resulting hike in your insurance rates.
If you sincerely feel the ticket is unwarranted, you have the right to go to traffic
court. But even if you take the time to go to court, and even if you have a valid
explanation for your actions, the chances of having your case dismissed are low.
Why? That's the real story that needs to be told. — Phil Reed
Subject: Is there something missing?
From: Jordan
I just discovered your site and really find it a valuable resource for information
on new cars and good, impartial reviews of all products available today.
However, there is one key omission [on] your site that I find annoying. This is
the articles' blatant ignorance of all reliability issues in new cars. In typical
American fashion, long-term reliability is overlooked in favor of "initial build
quality" (e.g. the sound made when the door is slammed...), "quality, fit and
finish", and their relative, "noise, vibration and harshness." Whether this is
done intentionally to paint American makes in a better light than their Japanese
counterparts or whether consumers just don't care (probably not the case...),
I don't know.
At no point did I see an item in a report stating a) how many of the cars sold
10 years ago were still being operated today, b) how many owners would buy this
car again, c) long-term maintenance issues typical of a particular make or model.
I believe these are all fairly important issues to new-car-buyers, and the preceding
statistics are relatively good indicators that are easy to obtain and publish.
I also believe that an evaluation of these issues would change your recommendations
for new cars.
For example, I noticed both the Volkswagen Jetta and Passat models in the "best
cars" list. After reading the articles and finding no information on their reliability,
both looked like attractive purchases. However, from extensive experience and
research, I know that both the Jetta and Passat are notorious for their sub-standard
reliability and high maintenance costs, and I know several owners who hate their
Volkswagens and would never buy another one "if chased with a branding iron."
Factor in the (relatively) short warranties and the fact that a less reliable
car costs $3000-5000 more than some of their more reliable competitors and the
models don't look so attractive.
Such is my complaint with the journalism seen on your site. I hope that my feedback
is helpful to you and that my outcries are not in vain.
Jordan, what you're overlooking is that not everybody buys a new car based
strictly on reliability or cost of ownership. Check the scores on the J.D. Power
& Associates APEAL survey, and you'll see that consumers love their cars for reasons
other than unflagging dependability. And when you examine it closely, reliability
has as much to do with proper care and maintenance as it does product quality.
We know plenty of people who own American-brand vehicles that have run for years
without trouble, while some folks with import-brand vehicles suffer minor problems
or a major repair. We've even seen this in our own long-term vehicle testing.
When we evaluate a new vehicle, the playing field is level, and we base opinion
on our experience with that particular test car. At times we may mention reliability
histories, but it would be unfair to characterize a new Pontiac model as unfit
just because several Pontiacs before it proved so. Take the 2003
Vibe, for example. It's a Pontiac, right? But underneath, it's all Toyota.
Similarly, just because a recent 2002 Camry test car exhibited average fit and
finish, we wouldn't characterize all 2002 Camrys in this way, because history
has borne out evidence that our particular car was anomalous. Volkswagens used
to be troublesome vehicles, but that stereotype pertained to models built before
the mid-1990s. Today's VWs are generally reliable and trouble-free, as proved
by our experience with a long-term test of a 1999
Passat. In fact, VW is so confident in product quality that for 2002 it doubled
the basic warranty coverage.
For information about recalls and technical service bulletins, which can often
predict what kind of reliability and repair problems an owner might experience,
check out our new maintenance section. — Ed.
Subject: A good deal on a car
From: B. Korach
While I understand your desire to create a well-informed consumer, I am curious
at what expense? Everything you advise the consumer about is accurate. However,
you leave out one important part of the equation. Service. A car salesman only
makes money on a percentage (usually 25 percent) of the profit earned above factory
invoice. If no profit, the salesman earns a "mini," usually $100 or less for 3-4
hours work. An average salesman sells 12-14 cars a month. Some income if every
deal was a mini.
Should we stop tipping waiters, bellhops, etc.? Are you advising people to buy
cars without discussing and a test drive?
Unknown to the consumer is the commission paid on insurance. People pay thousands
to a realtor for a house. Why have you and others now decided that people who
demonstrate, court, facilitate, and sell cars should not make a fair living?
If your advice is valid the same should be said for all purchases of electronics,
home building supplies, personal care, etc.
You are not being evenhanded in your advice. You are seeking to deprive the consumer
of the ease of buying a car. What is wrong with a business making 10 percent before
taxes? You should be ashamed.
If auto retailers eliminated "the game" and adopted Saturn-style no-haggle
selling across the board, then you wouldn't have to work for four hours to clear
$100 just to keep your "up" from cruising across town to some other dealership.
You'd be on salary, you'd be focused on customer service and not lining your own
pockets, your employer could get by with fewer salespeople, the manufacturer could
consolidate dealerships and sales territories, almost everything could be done
online, and everyone would be happy, including the service and parts departments.
Win-win-win, as we're so fond of saying here at Edmunds.com. We know that Saturn
dealers are still able to successfully peddle those out-of-date 12-year-old S-Series
models at sticker price. Obviously consumers want this kind of retail environment.
— Ed.
Subject: 2002 GMC Envoy
From: Markd
Hi guys, enjoy your web site!
Just some thoughts — in your GMC
Envoy Test Drive article you compare it's handling to that of the Toyota
Highlander and Acura
MDX. Is this your idea of a "fair" comparison? Unlike the Envoy, these two
vehicles are car-based and don't compete in the same segment.
Of course, you would expect a car-based vehicle to handle better than a truck.
If safety is a problem that is one thing, but it is unlikely that buyers of big
truck-based SUVs are interested in top cornering performance. I very much doubt
the two aforementioned vehicles have a 6,500-lb. tow rating. Generally speaking,
truck-based suspensions can take a lot more abuse than the more sophisticated
but lighter-duty car platforms.
It makes a lot more sense to compare the Envoy to other truck based vehicles (e.g.,
4-Runner, Explorer). It is my experience that most buyers of these types of vehicles
understand the difference between car- and truck-based and usually don't cross-shop
between them.
While your logic is valid, most people who buy SUVs these days rarely go four
wheeling or tow anything. If someone does need a vehicle for these types
of activities, they certainly aren't shopping the MDX and the Highlander. And
our concern about the Envoy's handling has nothing to do with cornering performance
since nobody buys one for that kind of driving. Our concern pertains to confidence,
and how the vehicle reacted during hard driving. This is a concern because, from
our experience driving the Envoy, it seems ill-equipped to manage its weight when
asked to change direction rapidly, such as in an emergency avoidance maneuver.
— Ed.
Subject: Gasoline types
From: MCole
There has been a lot of talk, on your web site, the FTC, the AAA, etc., on different
types of gas. Most sites seem to suggest that regular fuel as opposed to high
grade (i.e., 91 or 92 Octane rating) is good enough for most cars. Except then
there is the part that says, "if you drive a Cavalier or Neon, it's probably not
worth it. Alternatively, if you're tooling around in a 911 Turbo or Viper GTS,
using the highest quality fuel available is another small investment that will
give big returns."
The amount of information, most of it of questionable validity, in the public
domain on this subject is astounding. I have heard people suggest that only premium
gas is any good and I should use 92 or 93 Octane and not a miserly 91. On the
other hand both the FTC and the AAA tell me I should use 87 unless I have a high
performance car like a 911 Turbo or Viper GTS.
Well I don't drive any of those cars. I have a 2001 Audi A4 with a 1.8-liter Turbo
engine. Is that a high performance car? Sure it's bigger than a 911 but it's still
a pretty high-end piece of steel. I guess it boils down to a scale from 87 to
91. [What] do you guys think I should put in the gas tank?
Your owner's manual should list the recommended octane for your vehicle. Premium
fuel is only necessary when the engine has been tuned by the manufacturer to operate
at maximum efficiency on higher-octane gas. In these cases, the manufacturer will
be sure to inform the owner that premium is required, typically by listing it
in the owner's manual, on the fuel gauge, or on the inside of the fuel filler
door. — Ed.
Subject: Suggestion
From: Daniel
I know that a station wagon comparison is in the making. I have a few suggestions
based on what I am thinking of purchasing. From the small wagons, I'd like to
see a Jetta GLS vs. Focus vs. Subaru Impreza, all equipped around $18,000 and
with a 5-speed. Also, I have had my Subaru Legacy wagon for 5.5 years now and
racked about 102,000 miles on it. I am thinking of replacing it with something
larger, specifically either the Legacy L wagon, Passat GLS wagon or Saturn LS1
wagon, all with 5-speed, equipped around the $22,000. I know the Passat is about
$2-3K more than the other competitors, but it seems like it may be worth it. Advise?
Our choice in the midsize wagon class is either the Passat or the Subaru. —
Ed.
Subject: Many thanks
From: Robert Shaw
I have just completed my second car purchase in 3 years, and I have the great
satisfaction of knowing that I paid a very reasonable price, and received a very
reasonable trade-in....all thanks to you. Your information and reviews provided
me all I needed to know in order to pick the right vehicle and pay the right price.
Many thanks, much appreciation, congratulations on a great web site, and keep
up the great work!
|
