Loads of flames this weekend. The police stop video had members of the Best and Brightest morphing into the Mean and Nastiest. Please remember that TTAC’s posting policy is clear: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commenters. Feel free to rip apart an opinion, but do not diss the site, the scribes or the folks. We also don’t allow meta-discussions about our editorial stance or style underneath an unrelated post. For example, I exorcised this broadside from thoots’ comment re: my Toyota Venza review:
As some have said, this is no ‘review,’ this is an ‘editorial.’ And it’s the kind of thing that makes me go elsewhere, rather than *cough* actually consider paying for somebody’s personal diatribe against car-like crossover styling or whatever it is that he or she happens to hate. Geez, just say that you prefer school-bus-style visibility, and get on with your life, could you? Crimony.
After a few emails with thoots—the proper place for site criticism—I’ve agreed to open the subject up for debate and turn off the anti-flaming directive. So, what’s wrong with TTAC’s reviews? What should we do to improve them?
82 Comments on “Ask the Best and Brightest: What Constitutes a “Proper” Car Review?...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
I’ve only read a few of the reviews on TTAC (they don’t deal with the UK) but what would be good with be a small compare and contrast against vehicles in the car’s class (i.e Toyota Prius compared against the Ford Fusion hybrid and Chevrolet Malibu).
That would help people get a better picture of the car being reviewed.
I don’t think the reviews need major improvement. I think it is more of a matter of knowing where the author’s point of reference is. For example, does the Venza just suck or does it get its suckitude from the fact that it’s bad for Toyota branding. I also think people get hung up on the number of stars a vehicle receives.
Works for me – the word ‘niche’ springs to mind. There are places to go for stats, places to go for advertisement friendly prose, places to go for fanboyism, and places to go for snark. I’ll take an extra helping of snark, please, and go heavy on the obscure references.
I don’t have any problem with your reviews because, as with any auto rag or newspaper, they are your opinion. We all have opinions on the perfect car, or how a car should look, drive, feel, what conveniences they should or shouldn’t have, etc. People shouldn’t base their selection of a car based on your words, or anyone else’s. There are a lot of cars out there to choose from, some make it, some don’t. Obviously some please more people than others, or at least perform the role that more people want (Camry, F-150, Corolla all come to mind), and some are low volume niche vehicles for the few that want them and are willing or able to compromise in some areas (Corvette, Wrangler). This website is formulated by opinions, both from the writers and the forum members. For someone to roast your opinion and to tell you that you’re a moron to have it is shortsighted on their part. The press has absolutely roasted the vehicle I drive, for example, and I love it anyway. An opinion is just an opinion and I will be entertained by yours, but still formulate my own when I purchase my next vehicle. Please continue being blunt, I much prefer it to the pandering done by other media outlets.
Yeah for the most part, the reviews are ok – but sometimes I get the feeling that TTAC is going out of its way to find something negative to keep their edge. Like dinging the 750i because it’s not a hybrid. Why not just review the car as it is – if you prefer hybrids (or wagons, or RWD, or domestics etc.) that is fine, but it doesn’t mean that everything that isn’t a hybrid should be taken down a star. I don’t get that.
I love the Chrysler reviews though. Please don’t change a thing about them – pure entertainment.
i don’t think there is anything wrong with your reviews. there are no standards for professional car reviewers (i’m aware of) so i just find one whose opinions i respect and take it from there. i don’t always agree. i thought your review of the venza was too harsh and i thought clarkson’s love affair with the alfa mito too generous, but that is ok. readers should be able to comment on your reviews though and i certainly didn’t find thoots’ comment offensive in anyway.
I believe, as long as you evaluate the car in question, it counts as a review. Print magazines include tons of PR fluff in their “reviews,” so why is your review not a review simply because you included opinions?
If he wants an opinionless review, may I suggest Cars.com or NewCarTestDrive.com?
My main beef with TTAC reviews is the recycling of manufacturer supplied perfectly posed, lit, and art directed so far beyond reality as to be useless photographs.
Being a “car guy” I also like the reviews of far-from-new cars. Sometimes it is nice to see how far we’ve progressed, or fallen, as the case may be.
–chuck
As I’ve said before, reviews and editorials are almost the same – Both are expressions of the opinion of the author, which you may or may not agree with.
To remove all opinion from the reviews (as thoots and many others have advocated) would turn the reviews into little more than a regurgitation of specifications and figures.
That said, I do think the star ratings are meaningless and worthless.
I read the reviews mainly for their entertainment value. Much like Top Gear reviews: 90% entertainment, 9% review, 1% fact.
When I first came across TTAC, I assumed that “The Truth About Cars” was tongue-in-cheek. I mean come on, car reviews – particularly the gonzo-esque ones at TTAC – are almost entirely subjective.
If you could change one thing (which you can), I would tone down the inside-baseball stuff and the extended smart word-plays. They’re a difficult thing to get right, and often make the text so dense that I can hardly following what is being said.
“Broadly speaking, the short words are the best, and the old words best of all.” Winston Churchill.
cheers
Malcolm
Cars should be reviewed from the point of view of what the car is supposed to be not what the reviewer wants the car to be. It is ridiculous for enthusiasts to complain about the handling and horse power of a commuter/grocery getter.
It reminds me of bad movie reviewers who cannot bring themselves down to the level of the prols and admit that they enjoyed anything that would not be shown on Masterpiece Theater.
Not every freakin’ car is supposed to be a sports car.
I think the problem with some of the reviews are the point of reference of the author. Speaking of the Venza review, the review seemed more of a critique on Toyota’s line-up and on cross-over vehicles, not some much the vehicle itself.
I think thoots was right. This was just as much an editorial as car review, if not more.
Other than being in agreement with thoots, I think the problem with TTAC’s reviews is that you really don’t have an angle.
Car and Driver, Motortrend, and Road & Track (and their websites) are aimed at car enthusiasts who value 0-60 times and lateral g’s. Robb Report is aimed at the nouveau riche who want maximum prestige. Motherproof.com looks at how easy it is for moms to attach a kid seat and how easy it is to clean kiddie’s spilled ice cream. Canadiandriver.com looks at whether the seat heaters work and whether the stock tires suck in winter. Consumer Reports evaluations appliance reliability and comfort over performance.
Mind you, you’re not the only ones with an identity crisis. Edmunds.com, well, who knows what they stand for either. But they have pretty pictures, so I can forgive them.
Here’s my suggestion: this site is about truth, right? How about car reviews that address the perception gap between what the vehicle is, and either what the public or the marketers think it is?
Some cars try too hard being a sport sedan when they’re not; some cars are worse in quality and durability than they’re perceived as in their marketing and price points; some are better than the public will admit; some do exactly what their target market wants them to do, whether car enthusiasts like them or not.
That could be your angle. After all, we’ve all seen what happens to weak brands that try to be all things to all people.
I would like to see the cars reviewed without taking the manufacturer into consideration. Example would be: “the new Chevy Malibu is a great car but it’s made by Chevy who also made the horrible Vega and forgettable cars like the Celebrity/Lumina and previous generation Malibu and who needed our taxpayer dollars to get to where they are today and will probably not be in business next year” Drive the car, note that it’s made by XYZ company and compare it to it’s competitors. The past is the past. Lets get over it. All car companies, even Toyota, made plenty of mistakes before and still are. Thats the point of a current review, to see where they are now and how they compare with other like competitors.
Snark is good. I like snark! What I have a problem with is the incredible bias directed against large SUV’s. Guess what folks: they don’t make cars with headroom any more. Full-size SUV’s and trucks are all us really tall folks have to choose from and they’re too damned short as it is. Please keep that in mind.
How many on this site have lauded the “full-size” Panther platform? Just try and be over 6′2″ and sitting upright in that car. I remember one nitwit suggesting a Prius as a good substitute for a Tahoe! You might not like a Hummer but for a 6′7″ guy it is one more “brand” to choose from in a wasteland full of clown cars designed for midgets.
We need more Lieberman- please find a way to pay the man. I loved his reviews.
As for the other reviews they just don’t come frequently enough to be considered a main component of the site.
Cars should be reviewed from the point of view of what the car is supposed to be not what the reviewer wants the car to be. It is ridiculous for enthusiasts to complain about the handling and horse power of a commuter/grocery getter.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If you’re a father who longs for a good-handling family hauler, wouldn’t you want to know which minivan/wagon/CUV is the boy-racer wannabe in disguise? (Cough, cough, Mazda5 with row-your-own tranny.)
If that’s not what you want, I hear Mother Proof is pretty boring.
MattVA, thoots-
I disagree. Is the reviewer really supposed to put on blinders and ignore the rest of the marketplace, and judge a car purely on its own merits? That would be worse than useless. It would be boring.
It’s not the job of the reviewer to judge the median consumer reaction, and then parrot it back for the reader. I want to know what they actually think, and in that respect, TTAC reviews are very good.
Actually, I like TTAC’s reviews just as they are.
They’re unvarnished, and they’re unwashed. That’s just fine. I subscribe to Consumer Reports for the statistics, and I get Automobile and Car and Driver for the ‘fair’ comparisons. I get AutoWeek because- why do I get AutoWeek?
Back to TTAC and car reviews – I like the fact that they’re viewed purely from the perspective of the guy who is doing the review. When I buy a car, I don’t really give a damn what the assistant school principal in Iowa wants. Keep telling me what you think.
I also like the reviews of older cars. They’re good for perspective and good entertainment.
Remember – it you try too hard to be what everyone wants, you’ll end up being nothing.
Lines like:
“Second, valves open in the mufflers changing the sound from Howard Dean’s scream to Gunnery Sgt. Hartman showing Joker his war face. Lastly, the shocks get firmer and the ride goes from mercilessly painful to f-you. I absolutely love it. Forget violence, you are now driving war.”
Speaks more to me about a car than any amount of 0-60 times, etc.
and I have to agree with chuck on the photos
I am fine with the review format for TTAC. In fact I really look forward to the car reviews, both late model and fallen heroes. I am entertained and somewhat informed, agreement or not is irrelevant, we can all formulate our own valid opinions if we are curious enough to pursue the matter. For particularly contentious machines the 2nd take review may serve as due diligence for a given vehicles meddle.
I enjoy your reviews as entertainment, although if I were buying a car I would certainly take as many other factors as possible into account. That said, I bought my Cayman based largely on the glowing, nay, reverential review on this site. However, I do note the following about your reviews:
- Sometimes a little too much jargon
- Some reviews appear to betray a pre-existing bias for or against the vehicle
- Some reviews don’t seem to always weigh the merits of a car against others of its class. The Porsche is an infinitely better car than my xA, but the each fill their niche quite well.
I did think the Venza review was pretty harsh, but the overall point was good; i.e., what’s the point of the Venza at all?
I will credit one of your reviews with the best line ever “… a better power to weight ratio than Napoleon.” Unfortunately I forgot the author. Gems like that will keep me coming back.
Note that these are just my gut impressions, I have no data. Remember, though, perception is reality.
I like the reviews. However, if perceived brand bias is a problem, at the top of the rating summary, have the first category be “Author’s Bias against the Brand” or somesuch. The author can self-grade.
Disagree with above. Less Leiberman if possible.
Don’t change a thing. This site can’t be all things to all people. Its strength is its unique point-of-view.
The critical reviews here compliment but do not replace research available elsewhere (CR and true-delta for reliability info, manufacturers’ website and main stream press for product features, Top Gear for time-wasting entertainment, etc.)
I doubt that many do, but you’d be a fool to limit your research of a vehicle to one website!
Change NOTHING. The anti-flaming rule is why i read these comments. Other sites are so full of meaningless vitreol (sp?), i do not pay any attention to them. I like these comments cause thy are thoughtful.
As for the reviews, i like them enough to keep reading. Many times reviews in other publications are so gratuitous, they are obviously paid for. Here, they seem more real.
so CHANGE NOTHING. Don’t let a small group of bullies cause you to change an editorial policy that makes this site unique. If people want to spout nonsense and personal attacks, there are lots of unmonitored places they can go to. Craigs list “rants and raves” pops to mind. Geeze, have you ever read that?
If all but one comment has no flaming in it, delete all the others, i will be happy with one comment. You will then attract the “best and brightest”, not the “worst and he stupidest”.
Let it be the way it is. I’m countin on you.
This is the first general interest automotive site that’s actually really grabbed my interest and kept me reading multiple times a day. No other site’s succeeded in keeping at least this seemingly-always-in-a-niche-market-buyer/seller coming back. For what my presence is worth, that’s something. Otherwise, it’s strictly very specialist sites for me.
The reviews have a lot to do with that. I really dig them. I wouldn’t change a thing really. The very fact that so much of the criticism so far seems all over the map–i.e., no one single complaint really dominating–tells me you’re doing a good job. Keep up the jargon, keep up the contextual thinking, keep up the subjectivity and opinion, keep up pretty much what you’re doing. Just try to do more. That would be cool.
I do agree with Chuckgoolsbee: more of your own photos please. Are the logistics/legalities of that really that hard? Hell, if you need a photographer for your LA-based reviews at least, if my schedule allows, I volunteer! (I have a good camera and know how to use it). Surely others in other cities can do the same. Harness the B&B!
The stars ratings are fun! Keep them! If anyone is actually getting hung up on that, I suggest they rethink their critical thinking skills. In fact, you should apply them more often, even to the most exotic, weird cars you review.
They are opinions; everybody has one.
I agree with many of your opinions; on the Venza, I did not.
Keep up the great work!
Sometimes Sedans are reviewed like sports cars. Most people looking for a 4dr sedan are not corner carvers, and those that are spend a lot more money on a 3 series or 5 series BMW. Holding a 20-25K car to sports car standards of acceleration, handling and braking is a bit much it seems. The Hyundai Sonata review is an example of this. I’ve met quite a few owners that are pleased as punch with the car’s performance and don’t see it lacking enough to warrant criticism.
Old car reviews are fun, how about a poll or two to pick the car, generally, that will be reviewed next? OR have readers submit their own classic rides for a review?
Replace the artificial with genuine content in the reviews.
If I want to read nice, polite, always-positive-reviews-that-love-BMW-and-anything-with-a-big-engine-in-it reviews, I head over to Inside Line or the others. That’s not what TTAC is. Reviews are subjective, yes, but that’s EXACTLY what I love here. I might even disagree with some of them, because they are opinions, but you know what? I think it’s great to have somebody’s (who happens to have driven lots of cars and know about them) opinion.
Keep the reviews the way they are.
But I still struggle to access the star-ratings.
And if anything, that’s the one part I kinda dislike, as it’s often difficult to reconcile the text and opinions therein with the notation. That said, I understand that they do broaden the appeal of the review.
Comments like “when it comes to winter driving, the Venza is the worst all-wheel-drive vehicle I have ever tested” are definitely inappropriately harsh and have no place in a professional review. I definitely think the Wall Street Journal should retract their review of the Venza as soon as possible.
No disrespect to any of the reviews posted on this site, but to me reviews are a dime-a-dozen. I can find them anywhere. The presence, absence, or quality of reviews on this site doesn’t influence whether I visit this site.
I come to this site for the editorials and the comments. Even when I disagree with them I find them to be insightful and well above the quality found elsewhere on the web.
And even though it is sometimes controversial I like the attempt at a no-flame policy. Most discussion oriented websites quickly devolve into childish name calling, but this site seems to stay above that.
I don’t bother reading reviews of American brand vehicles or economy cars because I know it’ll be nothing but hard plastic and poor fit etc.
I like that I can tell what the reviewer doesn’t like. There’s no “Lake Wobegon Effect” here.
Cars that are below average in some respect and these are clearly, sometimes brutally, called out.
If there is a flaw in the reviews, it’s the seeming need to find –something– to beat up on, sometimes in greater proportion than the original failing.
I can live with that, to avoid the inoffensive pablum that other sites shovel.
On some reviews here, there seems to be too much effort into making the review clever. It ends up reading like a Family Guy episode; little content and lots of gags. Which would be fine if the writer didn’t hide his thoughts on the car too deeply into the cliche’s. It ends up with a “how did this get 2 stars” or “how is it a 5 star vehicle” all over the comments.
A summary paragraph does wonders! It’s not all reviews or reviewers here but seems to be happening more-so lately.
The Kia Soul review was awesome. It was relevant, fair, and had a comparison that made sense (Honda Fit) to me. In fact, I test drove one and wound up buying it. The reviews here are usually attacks on the vehicle, rather than what I picture as a fair assessment. As a result I typically don’t read reviews here anymore as they seem to be over compensating (”Look at me badger this vehicle! No car maker can buy my opinion!”). There are a few gems though, like the Genesis Coupe was pretty good, the Kia Soul, and the comparison between the Subaru Impreza and Toyota Matrix. So, more of that would be nice.
There will be lousy cars that come across your door, but reviews shouldn’t seem so excited about attacking them.
If the site was called “Rants about Cars,” I’d say the reviews were fine. Many authors (not all) seem to have an axe to grind before they even start writing, and it usually doesn’t have much to do with the merits of the car. Occasionally it defeats the merits entirely, Clarkson-style.
Things I care about:
Detailed comparisons of seat comfort, control placement, and sightlines. Can you park it? Does it feel claustrophobic? Are the bolsters designed for narrow Japanese bottoms, as in the RX-8? If it’s coupe, can you get to the backseat with a modicum of dignity? Do tall people brush the headliner? Are the gauges legible?
Graphs of torque and power curves, overlaid with comparable vehicles if possible. Control lag, either in the throttle or transmission.
NVH, in terms of engine smoothness, vibration in the controls, wind noise at highway speeds, tire thrum, and so on.
Ride quality, ideally on an absolute scale across all cars, and not just “acceptable for a car this fast,” or whatever nonsense most rags print. Some reviewers called the sport-package G35 ‘kidney-crushing’; if a luxury sedan is that bad, where does that put a Ferrari? Would you be willing to drive your grandmother somewhere in it?
Limit behavior. Is it controllable? Does it snap-oversteer? What nasty handling traits emerge of the stability control is turned off?
Centering tendency. Does the car want to go straight? Cars better in turns tend to be worse on the highway. What’s the compromise in this vehicle? Does it wander all over the place? Is the steering so sensitive that highway driving requires constant corrections? (see: Porsche Cayenne)
Actual miles per gallon in the course of testings, and a description of just how lead-footed or traffic-prone the driver was.
Basically, everything I’d find out (or want to found out) on a test-drive. I know what the car looks like and the history of companies that made it. What I want to know are the practical things that might convince or dissuade me from buying one.
I was hugely impressed with the Camaro SS review on Jalopnik and Jack Baruth’s Mustang series on his site. That’s the quality of writing I love to see on TTAC, when it does appear. Both would be unpublishable here because they’re double or more than the 900-word limit.
There’s nothing wrong. Could we please move on, now?
Don’t change anything Bob. “Change” for the sake of “change” is a risky endeavor…. Think Nov 4, 2008.
Remember, you can please some/most of the people, some/most of the time. But you can never please all of the people all of the time.
TTAC’s writers and commenters are the best group of informed, witty, pithy, word-smiths/writers I’ve come across on any web site whether I agree with them or not. I come to be entertained as well as informed and it’s hard to get both on most sites.
TTAC is one of a very few sites that I visit everyday.
Three comments:
1. I read all the reviews about cars I would seriously consider buying.
2. When I’m actually researching a car purchase, I go back and reread the reviews for the cars I want to buy, or ought to give an honest look.
3. I read the vast majority of the reviews on vehicles I couldn’t care less about.
I think #3 is the most telling.
Perfect? No. Entertaining? Yes. Informative? Yes. Worth my time? Yes.
I think the most likely cause of the lack of detail is the word limit (800 words if memory serves). Would longer article limits help reviewers give us a clearer picture? I suspect yes, but I think we need to hear from the reviewers to know for certain. Only they know what they are taking out or keeping out of their reviews to keep within the word limit.
REAL PICTURES ALWAYS
Everyone has a camera. I’d rather see cellphone shots at 320×240 than more manufacturer press photos with the reviews. The Infiniti/Audi review was great because of real pictures.
The 750i was not because it talked about fuel economy. Like, seriously. I can’t wait for a followup on that one.
Other than that it’s all great!
Oh and also I’ve noticed that periodically there will be a review with no star ratings page attached, both the XC70 and most recent Compass review did that I think. It’s like not having a date line.
If you really break it down, a review could cover three main items:
1. Utilitarian function of the vehicle – does it do what it is supposed to do? In most cases that is schlepping 2 to 7 people and their gear around in comfort. This is very much Consumer Reports territory and is not in the least bit interesting to most casual readers as most vehicles do what they are supposed to do. TTAC does well to stay away.
2. Subjective – or how the vehicle makes you feel? This covers everything from the look, sound, touch and driving experience of the vehicle in question. This is bound to stir an argument as one persons sporty suspension is an others choppy ride. One loves the aggressive exhaust note while the other complains of too much cabin noise. This is for most cars the heart of the review as is mainly about aligning personal preferences with the product experience. TTAC has gone further than anyone in this endeavor by providing “second opinion” reviews to provide different views of the same product. Well done – keep it up and don’t be shy about third opinions if necessary.
3. Financial aspect – this covers everything from purchase price, running costs and resale value. Edmunds is a very competitive player in this segment and apart from maybe pointing out some extreme cases of financial pitfalls, I don’t see how TTAC could add much value in this area.
In short, its about the subjective stuff which TTAC does very well. Keep ‘em coming – in particular the second opinion reviews.
I have no issues with TTAC reviews. It’s not gospel…it’s a review.
Carry on, soldier.
When parts of your reviews are very contrary to what other reviews says – which happens often – you guys need to dedicate more space to explaining why. Your phrases are exceedingly verbose; it’s nice writing but that’s the wrong approach when your word limit is so low. I think that’s the problem, that your review style doesn’t fit the 800-word format. You spend a lot of time panning the cars’ styling but most of us don’t care about that – we need you to tell us what we DON’T know about a car. If you had all the space in the world then it wouldn’t be a problem, but every sentence about how a car looks is one less sentence with real information.
If you keep the 800-word limit (which I like), please focus more on optimizing the information-per-word ratio over writing with flair.
The recent addition of multiple TTAC reviewers driving the same vehicle gives us readers different viewpoints of the vehicle, and helps crystallize what the reviewer really expects from a vehicle.
I can’t say that I find something wrong with the reviews it’s just that their focus is not on the things I wish to hear about cars. Zero to sixty time is only relevant as a comparison to other cars. I don’t drag race, anymore, and that parameter is often over accentuated. I care about how a car is made. How the engine and transmissions transmit power. How the suspension smoothes the ride and supports the car while providing control for handling. Is it Macpherson struts, torsion bars, trailing arms? Do the brakes stop quickly and evenly without fade? I do not care about seat stitching and complementary coloring. I care about the interior’s layout and if the controls are intuitively placed and if they perform their function with little fuss spent on them. I like to drive a car not be a semi-active passenger in the driver’s seat. The radio’s performance is superfluous to a driver. Reviewing a car with any creed of performance and writing that the automatic transmission or the dope slap paddles performed well wastes of my reading time. And I couldn’t care less about the ridiculous truck reviews. I grew up with pickup trucks. My father drove one his entire life. Basic 6 cylinder, work-a-day, no bumpers, vinyl bench seat, sans radio, trucks driven until they died and replaced with the same thing, different year. Your truck reviews seem to focus on the interiors and the bling accessories. The reviews seem to be focused toward the suburban mall crowd who care about the interiors and when the press the gas pedal it goes fast. How it actually works, they have no idea.
Too much hyperbole sometimes; they come off like a personal attack. If something is lousy, just say so and why and then move on.
If it wasn’t for the hipshot commentary then your car reviews would be indistinguishable from those available anywhere else on the internet. Don’t change it. They’re only any good if there’s an agreement/disagreement that I can engage in that requires I think for a moment.
Your Venza review/editorial served its purpose as it gave commenters the motivation to hash out stationwagon vs. SUV, Toyota vs. fun, visibility vs. style, same-company sale cannibalism etc… Limit the review opinions and you take all of the (way more interesting) broader issues out of discussion and you’ll end up with Toyota fanboys agreeing with each other in the comments.
One of the reasons I visit this site almost every day is for the “truth” aspect of the majority of the posts. It’s nice to hear what somebody actually thinks of the car. So in my opinion no drastic changes are needed.
However, having said that there’s two smaller changes I’d like to see. First and foremost, you (and every other author on this site) should limit the number of Jeremy Clarkson-esque witticisms in your reviews to a maximum of three. I know that it’s the irreverance that sets this site apart from the rest, but still, you don’t have to throw a smartass comment into EVERY paragraph (eg. the dog vomiting thing in the Venza review. I know it’s not a good car, but was that really necessary?)
Second, what like.a.kite said. Post pictures of the actual test cars. For example, a big part of the recent stripper American sedan comparison test was about the interiors of the cars and yet the posted pictures were straight off the manufacturers’ web sites and were of the loaded and leathered models.
Oh yeah, and you need video. You could drive for 10 minutes talking about anything you’d like and informed viewers will still get a good sense as to your driving style and the car’s capabilities. Video cameras with external and internal mounts are actually consumer cheap now, buy a few.