Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: Regarding the 2003 Honda Accord First Drive
From: Allan T.

I currently own a 2001 Honda Accord LX-V6 with 15K on it. I love it. I wanted to tell you I was laughing out of my chair when I read a caption in your "First Drive" of the 2003 Honda Accord model that stated the new Accord looks like a Civic! Oh boy! Do I agree ever! I think Honda's designs go through ups and downs. Hopefully this design will be short-lived like the Accord design for 1993-1997 series. Thanks for reading this and hope to read more from Edmunds.


Subject: Regarding Christian Wardlaw
From: John

Chris Wardlaw's review of the 2003 Accord sounds like it was written by either a crotchety 90-year-old man or a 19-year-old simpleton who has to prove what a man he is by driving a 300-horsepower Camaro. No one ever said the Accord was supposed to be a sports car; they said it was sportier. Did you really expect it to drive like a BMW for the prices they're going to charge for a mainstream car? Geez, take a pill and lose the attitude already. It's only a car.


Subject: Carmudgeon column — Phrenology, Global Warming and Weird "Science"
From: Dr. John B., associate professor of biology

Regarding the Carmudgeon column "Phrenology, Global Warming and Weird 'Science,'", is Mr. Karl Brauer a scientist? Or just an automotive writer? Does he have the expertise to adequately understand the carbon cycle and the implications of the flux of carbon dioxide? I don't know, but I do know that there is conclusive evidence of global warming and the most likely human cause is the burning of fossil fuels. If one studies the issue carefully, one notes that no one in the environmental community is claiming this is the sole cause, but one that is likely increasing the rate of any natural change. It is the rate of change that is the concern, not the magnitude. As for directing viewers to a bogus Web site — I checked, and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a private research institute with six faculty members, primarily chemists — that is intentionally misleading. May I suggest that interested readers look at Web sites for the Environmental Protection Agency or World Watch for a more balanced view?


Subject: Carmudgeon column — Phrenology, Global Warming and Weird "Science"
From: David F.

When it comes to global warming, most scientists — not car magazine editors mind you, but scientists — are in agreement that it does exist. And while theories abound regarding causality, most of the unbiased scientific research points to human activity as the number-one factor. Sure, you can find some studies that imply otherwise, but take a closer look and you'll discover that many of those "studies" are funded by energy-related companies who pay good money for well-supported, but predetermined, conclusions.

Edmunds, I don't mean to diminish the value of either Mr. Brauer's opinion on global warming or that of Edmunds itself, but in the future, would y'all please stick to cars and let the scientific folk — crackpots and all — argue about science in their magazines.

Our editor in chief replies:

Well, shucks, guys. I never said there wasn't global warming. I'm just trying to apply some common sense to the subject in regards to the history of earth's temperature fluctuation and the sun's varying heat radiation. And while attacking the validity and bias of Dr. Robinson was expected, I find it almost comical that Dr. John offered up the EPA and World Watch as alternative organizations with "a more balanced view."

Speaking of the EPA, here's another fact I didn't include in my original column. The EPA recently asked for $14 million in additional taxpayer money to modernize its equipment (Automotive News, April 22, 2002). Why? Because the pollution created by today's cars is so low that the organization is unable to measure it with its existing technology. Not bad for a country that doesn't even endorse the Kyoto Protocol.

However, my original statement still stands undisputed. While global warming is undeniable, I, being "just an automotive writer," don't know for an absolute fact what is causing it, and neither does anybody else.


Subject: Mazda MPV review
From: O. Hartford

I am a bit confused by your recent review of the Mazda MPV. The consumer reviews on your site rate it the highest of all minivans, and your review gives it the lowest score among minivans. What gives? Reviews from 45 people who actually drive and use the van should give some indication of its quality and desirability. Of course, most new owners will probably give their cars high marks, but MPV owners give theirs the highest. Your recent review includes some wacky ratings, like a 4 for seat comfort and road noise compared to 9s for the Town and Country. I find the MPV to be very comfortable and quiet. You mean the T&C is more than twice as good? C'mon.

As we have stated in the past, we strive to offer the most complete and useful information possible. That's why we introduced the consumer review feature. We don't expect every consumer review to match our own opinions. But we do expect that, as a reader, you'll take and use the information you deem most relevant to you. That said, we stand by our review of the MPV. — Ed.


Subject: Edmunds.com's treatment of Chrysler minivans
From: Anonymous

Many people say that you give a wrong impression of the Chrysler/Dodge minivans, but they don't want to address the specific points, and that is what I'm going to do.

First of all, this will also regard how you favor the Honda Odyssey, so much so that everyone thinks Honda pays you to advertise its product.

In your reviews of this product, you go on and on about how this van lacks a folding third-row seat, but you never say this about the Ford Windstar or Toyota Sienna, neither of which have this feature. True, it is useful, but it's not the most important feature that a minivan should have. Secondly, you always talk about the bad reliability of Caravans (this is not even true), but you never mention the Windstar, which is widely known for bad reliability. If you take the Windstar's consumer rating (7.1/10), it is the lowest and much lower than the Grand Caravan's (8.3/10). Also, you shouldn't say the Honda Odyssey is reliable, because its past record is no better than the Dodge's (probably not worse either). Also, the Honda Odyssey is on the Lemon List at lemonlaw.com (aren't you surprised). Obviously, the Windstar is, too, and it is the fourth one from the top. No Chrysler minivans are on the list; if you don't believe me, go to lemonlaw.com.

Thirdly, you say that the Grand Caravan is "potentially pricey," while the Odyssey is "a bargain at sticker price." The Grand Caravan's eL model has an MSRP $1,500 lower than the Odyssey's. In the Dodge, you get three-zone ventilation control, a trip computer, Captain's Chairs, an excellent stereo, tons of cupholders, an excellent driving experience and superb comfort. The Odyssey only gives you the folding seat, a lousy stereo, a boring interior and a less interesting driving experience, not considering that you have pay about $1,500 more (excluding Honda dealer markup).

These are only a few of the wrong facts in your article, as I just wanted to address some of them. Please post my letter on your site, so that minivan buyers can have some correct info, and if you think my letter contains wrong info, feel free to address it in the reply you will post on your site.

We stand by our evaluations of Chrysler's minivans. Regarding reliability, we can report with firsthand experience that the Honda Odyssey is more reliable. We've had both as long-term vehicles and evaluated both for periods of two years. For the first seven months of 2002, this is what has gone wrong with our 2001 DGC: 1) The driver and front-passenger windows stopped working; 2) there was a recall to reprogram the power controller for the rear climate control; 3) the front suspension became loose and the front struts had to be replaced; and 4) the air conditioning stopped working.

In contrast, here is what we wrote about our 1999 Odyssey's reliability:

"Our long-term Odyssey certainly lived up to our expectations for Honda reliability. Aside from scheduled maintenance (every 7,500 miles for normal duty), it required very little. We had three recalls performed, but all were minor and addressed in short order. Additionally, on one occasion while the van was residing in Detroit, the rear hatch wouldn't open. This was repaired by a dealership the same afternoon and covered by the 3-year/36,000-mile basic warranty. The front brake pads were replaced at 23,000 miles. And the rear window developed a rattle near the end of our lease. That's it [over the two years]."

We don't disagree that the Chrysler vans have a nice interior and excellent driving characteristics. We state so in our 2001 Minivan Comparison Test.

As for hammering on the Grand Caravan for not having a fold-flat, third-row seat, this isn't just about Chrysler not offering it. It relates to Chrysler not including it as part of the 2001 redesign. Honda had it in 1999. Mazda had it in 2000. But Chrysler left it out of the 2001 redesign. Wanna take odds on whether the next Sienna and Windstar will have it?

Pointing a finger at the Ford Windstar (a four-year-old design, by the way) is fine, but it doesn't change our opinion of the 2001-and-later Chrysler minivans. — Ed.


Subject: 2002 Midsize Wagon Comparison Test
From: Marc B.

I am beginning the process of looking for a new family vehicle. Unable to bring myself to buy a SUV monstrosity, I was very happy to see your 2002 Midsize Wagons Comparison Test. After reading it, however, it seems as if the playing field was not level for all three participants.

While I realize you are "stuck" with what each manufacturer can provide you in the time allotted, I believe this is only part of the problem. You continually compare the Passat with other versions of itself while not affording the same opportunity to the other two competitors.

I know you stated Edmunds.com would be reviewing the Outback in a separate upcoming test. If you are making internal comparisons that are beneficial to the Passat, however, it is only fair you make internal comparisons for the other cars.

Also, contradictory statements appear in-between the reviews of each vehicle. When the Passat was found to be the slowest of the group, the findings were dismissed as such. When the Legacy's powerplant was described, however, it had a decidedly negative tone.

I realize you are only providing your opinion and that, by nature, it can be very subjective when comparing similar vehicles. Further, I am definitely not saying your article is wrong or inaccurate, or that I even disagree with the conclusions you reached. I am simply saying that, when you compare a $24,000 car to a $33,000 one, I don't think the cheaper car will ever win.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Let me end by saying I thoroughly enjoy Edmunds.com, can't wait for new articles to come out on your Web site and find it (bar none) the best site for car reviews and information.

Road Test Editor Erin Riches, the author of the test, replies:

As always, Marc, thanks for taking the time to write to us. Obviously, we would have liked to evaluate more comparably priced models in this comparison test. However, as I tried to explain, a stripped $23,000 Passat GLS Wagon still would have won this test — besides including all of the key standard features that our GLX 4Motion tester had (full menu of airbags, telescoping steering wheel, CD player, etc.), it would have been faster, allowing it to rack up more points in the performance category.

Why didn't I provide more in-depth comparisons between the Legacy and the Outback? Well, Subaru markets them as separate models, and the Outback really has more armor and ground clearance than the average wagon buyer needs. Plus, I was anticipating the full coverage of the Outback in our 2002 Crossover Comparison Test.

Would a fully equipped Outback H6 Wagon have been able to beat a 4Motion Passat? Doubtful. The Outback still has the same small rear seat as the Legacy; the H6 doesn't feel as powerful as it should; the interior furnishings still aren't as upscale as the Passat's and the Outback still lacks key features. Regarding your suggestions of favoritism, I challenge you to test drive a Sable and a Passat back to back. I think you'll find the Passat's front seats provide much better contouring and support for the average buyer.

And what of the Passat's 9.5-second 0-to-60 time? Well, numbers aren't everything. On an everyday basis, our editors have found that V6-equipped (and 1.8T-equipped) Passats simply have more torque down low for easy around-town travel. The boxer four in the Legacy doesn't have a lot of low-end torque and needs to be revved to make its best power. Most buyers will prefer the four-speed automatic which, based on our experience, isn't well suited for that endeavor (though the Sportshift feature in '03 models helps somewhat).

Everything aside, the Passat beat the Legacy by only three points, which doesn't really suggest the $24K Subaru was in over its head.


Subject: July 2002 Letters to the Editors
From: Anonymous

Just a few observations on the letters to the editors you recently posted:

Why does M. Brickell whine about the extravagant vehicles Edmunds chose to recently test? It appears he or she has an ostrich complex — i.e., if I can't read about it, it won't make my ego shrink because I'll never be able to afford one. I think its great that Edmunds has chosen to provide another source of independent review on various vehicles, especially the high-end market. Even more enlightening is the trouble that you have experienced with a $250,000 supercar.

You would expect that after laying out that much free capital, you would receive better treatment and immediate availability of parts. I know Ferrari has hand-built components, but this is 2002 not 1802.

Edmunds provides a great service — and you can't beat the price of admission — try to calm down and appreciate it.


Subject: Just Another Opinion
From: Jim M.

I just read the latest letters to the editors. Boy, we are a tough crowd out here! I hope you had some whiskey to dilute your morning coffee.

Well, here's my two cents worth. I've enjoyed reading and studying your Web site through the years, and I still do. You keep getting better. You have saved me a lot of car buying bucks through the years and I want to say thank you very much for that. I have always been equipped with a good close baseline figure before I left home to buy a new or used vehicle. When a dealer would ask where I got my information, I would tell them Edmunds. They always would reply with "Oh, we always use (blank)." I have walked away from more than a few deals based on your site's information and ended up buying a similar vehicle elsewhere that was more in line with what I considered to be a fair price based on your information.

Yeah, you guys get subjective in your reviews sometimes, but that's why there's more than the one color of black to choose from nowadays and that's why car Web sites are so interesting.

You keep up the good work and we'll keep bitching.


Subject: Edmunds.com Editors
From: Jay

I've been reading automotive reviews consistently for 30-plus years (I'm in my 40s now) and I totally disagree with "Paul" and the notion that your writers wouldn't know a pushrod if it went through the block and hit them on the head. I like the fact that your editors are English majors with industry training secondary, and their automotive enthusiasm is evident. When I feel inclined, I can compare your perspective with the reviews in Consumer Reports, Road & Track, AutoWeek on my own. On the contrary, I find your articles informative, and written from the perspective of the average consumer-enthusiast, and I read them every week.

Your reviews and research information may be spiced with ads for the same or competing products, however I still feel you are only biased by the products you are able to obtain to test. As I assume most consumers are looking for, I especially enjoy the negative feedback I find in some of your reviews. If the cupholders and seatbelt retainers are flimsy, that may indicate little thought went into the durability of the product as a whole.

Also, I find the reviews on future vehicles of particular importance, which I always crave more information on. Additionally, the comparison tests may very well be lacking an important vehicle or two, but I trust that you do the best with the vehicles you can obtain in time.

Thank you for providing what I hope will continue to be unbiased information usable by the average enthusiast and consumer, and please thank the advertisers who help Edmunds get this information to us at no cost. Please "keep it real!"