Ask the Best and Brightest: What Constitutes a "Proper" Car Review?

Bump the word limit up, sometimes I feel like the author wanted to say more, but chopped some random stuff off because of the limit. Those things eventually come out in the comment section, but they're usually good enough points to leave in the review. I like the humor, it's better then not having it and makes me feel like it's your opinion, which is the point of the review in the first place. That being said, maybe expand the rating system to "out of 10" instead of 5 stars.

What I want from a car review is - how well does this car do its job? No more, no less. How well did the car company make their SUV, their midsize sedan, their truck, their whatever. And power numbers are used too much to define cars that shouldn't have power numbers be their defining characteristic. And, honestly, I don't care if you don't like the front fascia or if you think the redesign makes the car look like crap - I'll decide if I like the way a car looks and you (or someone) writing that you don't like the way it looks does nothing for me or for the review. And it seems that acceleration is either "adequate" or "great" with the connotation being that can't accelerate to 60 in less than 8 or 9 seconds is automatically underpowered and therefore is not as good as other cars in the segment that have overly ridiculous power numbers. These comments are not necessarily pointed at TTAC but just at car reviews in general. One comment I WOULD point at TTAC is the lack of pictures. I know that TTAC doesn't have the money of most bigger reviewers but pictures are really important.

Others have sufficiently captured the problem of too much cheeky, snarky, witty, what have ya words, particularly within the confines of the 800 word limit. Sometimes they make funny. Sometimes they grate. Tough act to keep in the air as a constant signature of style without coming across like - well, you know what. And that applies at least as much to us in the comment section. People have mentioned the Venza review as a recent example of one that just was out-of-touch or over-the-top. I agree. I liked reading it, but I doubt that I would come away thinking it is a one-star vehicle - and I really don't like Toyota. It read as an editorial about why Toyota shouldn't be producing this vehicle more than it did an actual car review. One star? I mean, come on, that shoots your whole star rating system to hell. You lose a lot of credibility, ironically enough, by that kind of inconsistency. I looked at the individual stars and could not see where a single star appeared multiple times that would have slapped an overall one star on it. Maybe a mention of it, but let's talk more about the car. Speaking of more... here's what I'd like to see in the reviews. * More text. The 800-word limit is exactly that - a limit to what your site could offer. It limits the reader in their understanding of the detail about the car because the writer never had the chance to expound on the details. Some like it, but I say that the 800-word limit reads like more of an executive summary than a detailed review. * Video. Where is it? Why isn't it there? Cost? Surely there could be some way to host it either on TTAC or externally. I'm sure some of the readers might even be able to help out there. It's like the site is on v1.0 of everything. No video, strict word limits on reviews, no good quality photos, no real in-depth coverage of actual vehicles and the time you spend in them. I have to go to one site for specs, another for photos, another for vehicle features/model comparisons, another for reliability, another for the owner forums, etc. No, we don't want you to be Edmunds, but they do have all of that plus their blogs where they do indeed highlight real vehicle issues. The CTS comes to mind as a recent one I looked at. That was truth. We need that level of detail here. * Reviews and posts fall off the front page with no relationship to popularity. We can't search on anything of note, particularly the past posts of reviewers and the B&B. * I want real detail from the reviews that can only be had with the media mentioned above, along with having actual owners that have spent more time in them to weigh in. You guys are at an obvious disadvantage in that regard because you aren't furnished most cars like most of the rags. We understand that, but you should be creative. How about getting us involved as a reviewer community? You could even have a weekly or monthly car model that you highlight and have anyone interested go to the dealer and drive the same vehicle over the weekend and then comment on it, along with current owners of that vehicle that have spent months in it as their own. The real value from TTAC is obvious - you're not paid to write glossies, nor are you beholden to a specific PC corporate nanny. You also have a great readership/commenter group. A lot of talent needs a more capable, expanded website to showcase that truth about cars in depth so that the public can turn here when they want to know about how that CTS is doing in the real world, one away from the ringers provided to the press.

Please please PLEASE keep offending people and annoying readers!! Keep on making us form a feeling after reading a review. If we agree, let us smile smugly and nod. If we don't, let us get angry and self-righteous. Just don't make it BORING! It's a review, not a report. I want one person's personal experience with a car, their perspective, their feelings, their emotionally driven words. It's my favorite part of this site. Sure, maybe if I'm shopping for a car, a review here may not give me the most useful information. So what?! There are plenty of sites out there for that, like edmunds.com among others. I'm going to read a bunch of them anyway. But my experience the past few weeks car shopping has shown me that most reviews out there are terribly BORING after the third or fourth article. Just word filler in between the same old statistics, coupled with the same old statements like "Model xx has a sportier suspension than model yy, so it was designed to handle well on the curves. Well, as you might expect, it does not disappoint!" No shit!? The sport model handles well? Didn't the brand's marketing department ALREADY tell me that? Tell me what you FEEL about it. Tell me what I myself might feel about it. Ultimately, car's are different for different people, and everyone's experience with any given car is a very personal thing. How do you make a good review fair and balanced? You don't. You share a taste of the experience that the car gave you. Maybe it would draw the same reactions from me. Maybe it wouldn't. But the fact that it did draw those reactions out of one person validates that review for me. Listen, I'm sorry one writer was biased one direction, and you can't handle it because you're biased the other direction, and yet it is his/her opinions that get to be plastered all over the front page. Big deal. Maybe the "improvement" needed is more use of the "Take Two" reviews, from someone with a different perspective. That way, we can read Take One, get offended, then read Take Two, and nod in agreement, thinking "yeah, this guy knows what he's talking about, that other guy's an idiot!" Self worth has been spared!! Sheesh.. (Might hinder discussion in the comments sections though, leaving only shouts of "hear, hear!" on both sides. Anyway, sorry for ranting, it's late, and the reviews are definitely my favorite of this site's offerings, I'd hate to see them neutered because some outspoken people got all bitchy)