By Robert Farago
February 8, 2007 -
In the Brave New World of electronic automotive journalism, The Truth About Cars (TTAC) squares up against some heavy hitters: KBB, Edmunds, MSN Autos and more. Separately and together, the industry leaders generate more page views than Senator Mark Foley– and us. In truth, there’s an exponential gap between their site traffic and ours. To take on these giants, to pay our writers real money, TTAC must change. Yes, we’ve broken our advertising cherry. But we need to break out of our e-ghetto. So here’s the plan.
As you know, TTAC’s editorials kick ass. Literally. But as much as I enjoy writing, editing and reading our no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners rants, as much I value your witty, passionate and knowledgeable responses, I’ve decided that TTAC’s commercial future lies elsewhere.
Quite simply, we need more of the masses to make money, and the numbers tell the tale: the masses aren’t interested in the arcane debates that float our boat. While I’m not going to deep-six or dumb-down our rants, it’s time for TTAC to re-focus our energies on our most accessible product: car reviews.
Again, rest assured that TTAC will continue to provide a steady stream of honest, literate and provocative editorials. But we’re turning this website into more of a car search widget. In other words, we’re looking to capture more of the people looking for the truth about cars they may want to purchase.
Even as we are now, TTAC gets a LOT of model searches through our Google rankings (enter the model name of a car we’ve reviewed and we’re usually on the first page or so). Once browsers click onto a review, it’s like they landed in a Swedish minimalist buff book. They don’t know what’s where, what’s what, what we’re on about and what to do next. And once they’ve got the gist, they leave.
To cater to and attract newbies, to keep their attention and profit from their interest, we’re building a new home page. It will contain one or two reviews and a simple, clear search function (for car reviews). The reviews will remain pithy, but become more user friendly. Initially, we’ll bring back the stats and stars, and add a “Why You Should Buy This Car” and a “Why You Shouldn’t Buy This Car” feature (which I designed for Jalopnik).
Eventually, we’ll add [truly] original photography and video, some way cool widgets and lots of helpful, unbiased shopping information (price comparisons, dealer recommendations, etc.).
Meanwhile, on the new home page, editorials will be accessible through title-only links to the Editorials home page. This [Swedish minimalist] navigation assumes that you, our faithful panel of engaged experts, will be able to find your new old home without delay. And again, once there, our talented writers will carry on carping in their own inimitable fashion.
So that I can devote more time and energy to developing the review side of the website, I’m appointing Frank Williams TTAC’s Editorials Editor. Working in the Department of Redundancy Department, Frank will write, commission and schedule our rants. He’ll monitor your replies and snuff out flamers. I’ll still write, but Frank will call the shots.
The basic thinking behind this review-o-centric strategy: focus. I’ve chided automakers for years for not rigidly defining their niche, staying within its confines and maintaining the long-term effort success demands. By making The Truth About Cars the world’s best car review site, I’ll be following my own advice.
Meanwhile, before, during and after our re-launch, I’d like your feedback. In this, the pre-launch phase, I need to know if you think there’s room on the web for a truly independent car review site. I’d also like to hear what functions and features you think we should add to the review mix: comparos, price comparisons, dealer locator, buyer’s club, recommended rides, etc. What should we do that “they” do? How can we innovate?
As always, TTAC lives or dies based on its ability to cater to your needs. We’ve tried tap-dancing for a living, and done well enough. But doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. It’s time for TTAC to get out of the entertainment business, into mainstream infotainment. Oh, and we're also building a MAJOR community site for launch next month (TTAC subs will get a Beta version invite.)
In any case, you have my word that TTAC will never lose its spirit or editorial independence. As the writers and I adjust to this transition, we draw strength from your past support, and inspiration from your suggestions. I will never forget that you gave me the chance to follow my heart’s desire, to work with like-minded individuals to build something fundamentally worthwhile. Thank you for your support.
Subscribe to New Content Alerts
Back to Top
End of Comments
February 8th, 2007 at 11:26 am
It’s probably good to follow other sites with star ratings, specifications, and other standard information about cars. The editorials should be off in another area so that they don’t give bad vibes to people that just want to decide on cars.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Robert -
I’ve been hoping that someone would come up with a site with truly independent reviews. The traditional buff books have long since sold out and their reviews consist largely of rewritten PR from the manufacturer’s blurbs on the new cars. KBB, Edmunds and MSN Autos are generally lightweight puff pieces. Dan Neil seems to be one of the hold-out writers who will speak the truth at the expense of ad revenue.
Steve Edgett
Mill Valley, CA
February 8th, 2007 at 11:29 am
I truly like the idea of a more review-based car website. However, I would like to make a suggestion. Would it be possible to do used cars as well? There’s lots of used cars out there that would be great to read a review on (ie: MKIV Supra, 1st gen Viper, etc).
February 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
When I look at the Big Boys, it’s impossible to get to their reviews without navigating through eight levels of links. The sites are all cluttered, and it makes finding the review I’m looking for excessively annoying. Especially if you want to compare reviews side-by-side. Your navigation should go like this:
Reviews -> Make -> Model -> List of reviews starting with current revision going backward.
Also available:
Reviews -> Make -> List of current models and their reviews
Reviews -> Search
Reviews -> Most recent reviews in reverse chronological
As far as how you rate each vehicle, I would recommend a 1-5 star system based on overall impression in each the following areas:
* Quality
* Value
* Performance
* Comfort
* Utility
* Economy/Efficiency
* Reliability (may only apply to older models)
* Safety (maybe just referencing government ratings)
Different buyers are interested in different criteria. This allows a buyer to evaluate a vehicle based on what he or she values.
Finally, don’t just review the new revisions (although that should be your initial focus), but also current models that are several years old. I’d be interested in what you have to say about my Malibu Maxx :).
February 8th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Mr. Farago,
Seems like a good idea.
I’m probably in the minority, but, I’d like to see more of the reviews devoted to the actual cars themselves. I find too much of the limited space is spent trying to come up with witty sayings and catchy descriptions.
Too often, a paragraph is too full of distracting things like “That said, the 328xi’s front is busier than Dick Cheney’s cardiologist.”
Anyway, good for you for continually trying to improve your product. I hope you and you people earn a lot of cash.
Regards,
Hal.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
One additional idea: Build a true vehicle database that lets people search by factors that are important to them, not by categories that manufacturers dictate.
For example, several years ago I decided I wanted to buy a five-door car with a stick shift that got over 30 mpg on the highway for under $20K. To figure that out on Edmunds, I spent hours clicking through all the choices under “station wagons, compact wagons” “hatchbacks,” and “SUVs, compact SUVs,” then sorting by price, then clicking through several screens, closing out the dealer contact box, and choosing the “specifications” tab just to find out basic info like mileage and cargo capacity on individual models. Insane.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:49 am
* Quality
* Value
* Performance
* Comfort
* Utility
* Economy/Efficiency
* Reliability (may only apply to older models)
* Safety (maybe just referencing government ratings)
I agree with this list as well, except for reliability. I think reliability has gotten so close any more, it is hard to tell (right, Mr. Karesh?). I agree that safety should reference government ratings, but TTAC should give an opinion based upon the total saftey package. How well the brakes and stability control work, airbags and their placement, etc…
I would also request that you state whether you are rating based on the car against the whole market or as rated against its peers.
I look forward to the change.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Way to go, Robert! Wouldn’t we all like to tinker in our garage all day long, just interrupted by a brisk ride in something hot, superceded by an hour or two on the net, researching the production numbers of the 1949 La Salle.
But - comes a time to pay the bills, and for most of us it means generating some income first. So - just make sure you don’t fall into line behind Consumer Reports - and we will all continue enjoying TTAC and spend *far* too much time catching up with the latest rants and raves - and now also (more) reviews!
February 8th, 2007 at 11:50 am
One additional idea: Build a true vehicle database that lets people search by factors that are important to them, not by categories that manufacturers dictate.
Great idea. I second that!
February 8th, 2007 at 11:54 am
I really enjoy your site - it gets my attention for 5-10 minutes every day.
That said - I agree the site needs a better layout - more links on the opening page. And I’d love more car reviews. Just don’t get it like Edmunds - I don’t go there anymore in general due to the ads everywhere and ads built into the car reviews. (If I wanted to see what Mercedes thinks of a car they made, I’ll go to Mercedes.com.)
Good luck with the site changes and I hope it brings you the cash you deserve.
btw - I like your witty/busy writing style - it can be a little annoying at times, but it is far from dry.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:57 am
One thing I might suggest is the “point-counterpoint” reviews that (I believe) have been done a couple times on this site.
Also, I second the idea of used-car reviews. Sometimes a car from the past that is remembered fondly doesn’t stack up when you try it again 10 years hence, and sometimes an old car surprises you when you test drive it at a used car lot. Then again, I might be in the minority of consumers who would cross shop a 10 year old mercedes with a new Honda Accord.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Robert,
As a new reader of your stuff I am encapsulated by the reviews but frustrated by the site. I’m glad you’re changing it, but as some others said, don’t make it nasty complex like some other car sites I won’t mention. Simple searches that are accurate are the best thing any site can have.
I like this site and look forward to the new design. I’m sure there will be plenty of feedback to let you know if you go too far off course ;)
February 8th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
People shopping for cars are always interested in how a model compares with other similar cars and how a trim level compares with others within the same model. Reviews on this site are great, but they’re usually tightly focused. Comparison tests probably aren’t necessary, though more discussion of comparable models within the reviews would greatly help.
A rating system might be nice, but ultimately shoppers simply want to know a car’s strengths and weaknesses, and a general idea its character (the Jalopnik features are great with this).
February 8th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
well i hope it works out, I will wait till i see the result before i start complaining… I hope that this site remains unaffected. This site is very unique, the r&t, c&d sites suck so bad i cannot possibly go there any more - even the Automobile Mag site is nasty - oh well.
Hope springs eternal!
God luck to us all!
February 8th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
TexasAg03: I agree with this list as well, except for reliability. I think reliability has gotten so close any more, it is hard to tell
You’ve obviously never owned a recent VW (*snicker*).
February 8th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
oh and i really like the idea of reviewing used rides, say 2 or three years, off lease for instance- thats where i buy. It would be interesting to compare say a two year old version of the same car with a new one, to see if it is any way worth it to buy a new one.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Except… the problem with reviewing used rides is, well, the use.
Like, if someone were to review my last WRX… boy… “For some reason, Subaru saw fit to dent each and every body panel, including the hood and roof.”
February 8th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
The new direction makes lots of sense to me. I would also suggest toning down the endless cutsie wordplay. A little spice is nice, but too much makes the meal impossible to eat.
Building the world’s best independent car reviews resource is an outstanding goal.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Great. What’s next? A Corvette vs. 911 shootout? Best Mini-Vans under 25K? Perhaps a special guest appearance by Chubba Cheddar?
This feels like I’ve just been dumped by my girlfriend, so she can go hang with the popular crowd.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
I’ve been reading since there were probably only 20 or so reviews (all by Robert). I fondly recall the first Deathwatch!
The new TTAC plan sounds like a great resource. I would love to see a quick comparison of the model reviewed with its classmates. How does it compare in terms of value, looks, etc… All subjective, but helpful. Also a detail into a model’s safety features beyond the stars.
K.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Jonny
yeah as i was writing that comment, i was realizing that it might be almost impossible. Perhaps this - a way to compare stats of a given model regardless of year - within reason, of course. Say a 98 model with its 2007 itineration. Just to get an idea of whats changed.
Or a way to compare various late model cars with each other - like the 2002 versions of three different models.
I dunno, but it sure would be nice to have a comparison service for late model cars, instead of only new ones.
capiche?
February 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Robert - I think the review centric site is viable. Particularly if you can remain as independent as you are and also include ’second opinion’ reviews as well as customer reviews including a database of common complaints.
Good luck and don’t cut back on the creative writing. It’s so good I swear some other automotive sites are trying to copy the trend.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
RF - just a few concerns about the change:
-If you’re going to do more reviews, please make sure the quality of the writing remains as high as it is now. Please keep them witty and interesting to read. I know I don’t have to worry about you selling out to the advertisers.
-If you’re trying to open up to the masses, then you’re going to need to change the comment system or TTAC will be ruined with flame wars. If you want to keep it open like now, then maybe something like a slashdot style moderation system where trusted users moderate comments so that the trolls’ comments get hidden from view. Or maybe a jalopnik style invite system to keep the number of accounts low. Right now the TTAC signal to noise ratio is pretty good (except for yesterday’s heliocentric debate). More subscribers will increase the noise faster than the signal until TTAC is unreadable.
-Keep the clean design of TTAC. This site is well designed, no flash, no blinking ads, nothing distracting. Everything just works well and looks good. None of the other mainstream sites are easy to deal with, and I hope that going big doesn’t do that to you.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
I’m making notes.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
As a car /auto industry enthusiast ,I visit yor site occasionally for relevant news.I’m not really interested in “rants”as much as credibility and facts.I like braking news stories because it seems to be where industry insiders head when then want to keep abreast of the trends.I think they(industry publicists) also tend to volunteer more material to that “particular site” which offers a steady stream of auto news.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
I am all for expanded car reviews, but TTAC must continue to be different. This site gives unbiased opinions as well as rants, and this is what makes us (if I may be so bold to use that word) different. Our difference has enabled us to punch above our weight in the automotive web world. I tire of reading web car reviews that seem to be cut and pasted from the manufacturers advertising. Also, I hope that the tone of our reviews does not change, due to any added manufacturer pressure. If any aspect of a car is crap, the review should state it.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Frankly what I would also like to see which nobody has the guts for is honest calls of what to buy at different price points and categories: Something like:
$25,000:
1. Mazdaspeed 3
2. VW GTI
3. Suburu…
$150,000 Sedans:
1. Maserati Quattroporte
2. Mercedes S550
…
and so on… Just make the calls and say this is the best thing going at the price and why. I also agree with the person above who suggested comparing against used options. For example, you might like the Pontiac Solstice just fine, until you find out that a 6 year old Porsche Boxster is the same price and still a better car for the money.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
The biggest change I would make to the comments section would be threading. Flat comments in an article get unreadable very quickly. Some sort of moderation would be good as well.
I’m very excited about this site becoming more review-centric, as the one thing I wish this site had more of was reviews. You should have a review of every mainstream North American model currently available.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
I agree with most of the above Hey everybody has to pay the bills so I know where your coming from.
Two things I’d like to see, first is used cars its been said allready.and couldn’t agree more.
Second is remember TTAC is international There is whole lot of us up here in the frozen north, and in europe.
Sometimes we would like to hear something from a Canadian perspective.So give Lesely W some more work.
The anti flaming policy is good[even though I spend a lot of time in the dog house]as long as it is fairly applied.
Other that the whole world is changing ever day why should TTAC be any different.Bring it on!
February 8th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
akatsuki:
$25,000:
1. Mazdaspeed 3
2. VW GTI
Ack!! As a 6′3″ guy who likes to go on camping and cycling trips with the wife and friends, the last thing I’m going to spend $25k on is a compact car that gets lousy gas mileage. I might spend 15, but not 25. The fact that these are zippy street racers means nothing to me personally. This is why we need ratings broken down by category.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Boo! I like it the way it is!!! But, I definitely also see a need for an independent reliable review site and trust TTAC to fill that void.
I would like the site to include feature adjusted price comparo’s a la Mr. Karesh’s site. Real reliability data, ie. tgw’s, warranty, customer sat within meaningful range (not 1 month, and including outside warranty range if possible). Moderated comments regarding poster’s experiences with vehicles. Certified pre-owned vehicle reviews (to filter out the dented WRX’s and such).
February 8th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I was just going to say the same thing… Your audience is from around the world. I would suggest including reviews of cars from other regions too.
But you would need to ensure reviewers conform to the same standards and formats in their assessment.
This change will certainly bring the site out into the mainstream and all for the better. Good decision.
An interesting comparative function would be to understand precisely what is different between badge engineered cars. Why, for example, is the MKZ premium worth it over the regular Fusion? Also, it would be awesome to know what other cars share the same platform/chassis for comparative purposes. It would really empower the regular buyer and defeat the smoke and mirrors hype so loved by manufacturer marketers.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
You may not want to but take a look at Edmunds. They do a good job at providing detailed information about cars. Including pricing, reviews, current incentives (absolutely essential when buying a new car) and so forth. While Edmunds Insideline may not be as “in your face” about a car as TTAC I find their reviews pretty good and if it’s a stinker they say so. They just aren’t rude about it.
Next thing, on reviews you have to kill the 800 word limit. While the car reviews here are entertaining they are not substantive enough. There needs to be a set of details including performance (0-60, 1.4 mile, braking, skidpad, slalom, etc.), design, quality, competing cars in the segment, reliability, safety, etc. The hard part about that is being able to afford to come up with your own testing that can be done routinely at a facility. Having a car for a week and driving it around town is great for an overall general impression of a car but it doesn’t tell me how it really measures up.
Lastly you need to decide what will make TTAC’s reviews different from the other sources out there. Why should someone visit TTAC for car reviews besides, Edmunds, C&D, MT, and so forth?
I use the internet a great deal when shopping for cars. I’ve bought my last 4 cars exclusively online. I use KBB for pricing as their configurator is the best I’ve found. It knows what packages on the fly need to be added when you select something (like you selected the sport package which requires the moonroof package). I use the manufacturer’s site for general info and pictures of the car. I then use Edmunds for all the rest, reviews, video, current incentives, comparable models, reliability etc. I’ll of course check other site reviews to get a good feel on the car as well as read actual owner reviews.
Once I’ve narrowed my selection down I find a forum for the cars I like and talk to people who have owned the car to see how they like it and what issues it has.
Here are some snippets from a “First Look” review from Edmunds on the Dodge Avenger (This isn’t a “Full Review” but it is already very detailed and gives someone a good idea on the car. It is well over 800 words because you just can’t fit everything a customer would want to read with that limitation. It also shows that just because your mainstream doesn’t mean you are stuck to the auto manufacturer’s tit.):
“The Avenger’s haunches rise awkwardly out of the rear doors, as if they were a last-minute add-on to an already completed design…”
“…but this Dodge is built to a price, and you can tell when you put it next to a Honda Accord, Nissan Altima or Toyota Camry. “
“Even Dodge admits to us that the Japanese-label competition has a stranglehold on the market for midsize sedans, and the 2008 Dodge Avenger will have to scrap with the Ford Fusion and Pontiac G6 for what’s left over.
This doesn’t sound very aggressive to us. “
February 8th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Keep as much of the “spice” as feasible, for many consider it a “litmus test” for independent journalism. I’ve gotten at least one hearty laugh per day since I started reading this site (< 1 month ago!) and would miss that aspect if it were lost. That said, more comprehensive reviews would make this a site that I could recommend to my friends as a practical resource– the great writing would be icing on the cake.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I hope TTAC can successfully balance sophisticated reviews for car enthusiasts and the general car shopping and researching public.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
So give Lesely W some more work.
Hey, I’m a Canuck too! (Just not from Tarrana)
As for TTAC’s direction, I’d like to see more car reviews too. Heck, if it wasn’t such a pain in the ass for me to get access to everything, they’re all I’d write. Personally, I find all the (brilliant) DW and SW stuff difficult to wade through every day.
But here’s a thought: the most successful motoring program in the world is not really one you’d tune into if you were seeking info on a purchasing. I hit up TG partly for the absurd commentary[which is getting a bit recycled actually] and partly for the gorgeous cinematography. Yes, stars, a lemonometer or Pros/Cons would ad a bit more cred, but in terms of commercial success, TTAC should offer something the big boys don’t.
Right now, that’s the pull-no-punches writing, and coupled with some eye candy, away you go. I love the minimalist style, but there’s nothing wrong with a little fizz and panache to pull in the punters, and make the site infotaining. People might go to edmunds for reliability ratings on a particular model, but they’ll have a year-long subscription to R&T or C&D because they want to stoke their fascination with all things automotive.
Also, maybe dividing the editorial section from the reviews will leave TTAC with a home for the hardcore, as well as improving it’s accessibility to n00bs. Draw in more pistonheads, and get advertising from Dinan, Perrin, Vishnu, and other tuning companies that recognize the importance of people who are willing to spend money on their rides. Tire companies too.
FWIW, I try and spread the word on all the auto forums I’m on.
Lastly: Hey rob, there outghta be a Paypal donation button on this site, there oughta be TTAC t-shirts, etc, etc. Take a look at how webcomics pay for themselves, and maybe try to incorporate that as well, seeing it from the point of view of an entertainment as well as information site. Forums will pull in revenue as well.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Robert,
The car reviews where the initial reason I enjoyed this site. I found them to be very entertaining. There is a ton of information readily available on the net for the automotive interested. I have read very little that is as organic or grass-roots (i.e. human vs. Large Corp. dumb-downed “special advertising” section like reviews) as TTAC. Expand on your assets.
I would love to see platform history, test tract numbers and/or design philosophy (or lack-there-of) discussed in the reviews.
Good Luck!
February 8th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Merchandise?
Such as window stickers, T-shirts, thong underwear that says “thetruthaboutcars.com” from Cafepress or some other DIY site.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Totally behind what you’re proposing - the auto world could use good, clear-cut reviews with the pithiness that the site’s writing style has shown in the past. Now just keep the reviews to the car in question, and leave out any opinions about the manufacturer in general, and you’d have one hell of a source for prospective purchasers.
Definitely cull the editorials (and comments) to another section where the viewer who really doesn’t care about the motor industry can avoid them. Our propensity for slagging can be a real turn-off to someone who’s merely looking for a four wheeled transportation appliance.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Sounds like you’ve got a pretty good plan. Here’re my suggestions (and, as usual on the intarweb, they’re worth exactly what you paid for them):
1. Resist the temptation to bog down the reviews with numbers. So many reviews degenerate into lists of numbers (braking distance, 0-whatever times, and so on…) - I read you guys for your subjective views - whether it’s fast enough, whether the braking is acceptable - not what the numbers are…
2. As unpopular as it might be, I’d suggest that there be no comments section for reviews. They’re fun for the editorials but not something I’d like to see on reviews.
3. I value what you’ve got here because the article are well crafted. Stick with that - it may mean it’ll take a while before there enough writers and time are available to do things like comparisons, but that’s OK as long as the quality remains.
4. Have you considered a regular foreign correspondant (or even better, someone from the US who travels, and rents, regularly)? So many of the ‘new’ cars (even from stereotypically ‘US’ companies) showing up recently are transplants from overseas - it would allow reviews of ‘upcoming’ cars without the pain (and industry ‘help’) of getting ahold of pre-production vehicles. Sure, the interiors or fascias might be different, but it would at least allow a hint of what’s coming…
-S5
February 8th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Good move, and overdue. When I first stumbled onto your site several years back, I was looking for unvarnished product reviews. Your industry-related stuff is great, and you should not abandon it, but my interest in someone else’s workplace has its limits. I can’t bring myself to sit through a Sunday of NFL games for the same reason.
There are tons of review sites out there, and even the best only hit on a few cylinders. I have found carsdirect.com/research to be useful for quick and dirty comparisons. Forbes.com has a useful format. Dan Neil approximates your narrative style. If prior to writing a review, you put the press kit through a shredder, you will be ahead of 99% of the field.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Is TTAC going to have the resources (engineering tools) to objectively compare vehicles?
0-60
1/4 mile
Braking
Slalom
Mileage
There is a lot more to a comprehensive review than just stating how it feels to you. The “Edmunds” type’s have the tools to be scientific… will you?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Be hesitant to get into assessing reliability. Other sources are available for that info. Accurate reliability ratings require heavy duty research.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
They do not need to have the scientific tools to measure a vehicle performance. They can readily quote the statistics from the myriad of other sources that do measure them. If 10 other such sites measured the quarter mile, why be the 11th to repeat the test?
This site has always been about reviewing the qualitative, not quantitative, aspects of a vehicle.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
I’m probably in the minority, but, I’d like to see more of the reviews devoted to the actual cars themselves. I find too much of the limited space is spent trying to come up with witty sayings and catchy descriptions.
Quoted for truth. Here’s looking at you, BM.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Robert, I have been reading car mags for longer than most of the visitors to this site have been on the planet and have been following on-line auto information and forums since about 1989. I have found TTAC to be interesting but not, as you seem to have now concluded, compelling. I believe you are correct that people do want to see honest car reviews with a good sprinkling of humor to move things along. Tom McCann, writing for Popular Mechanics long ago, was an earlier practitioner of this and Dan Neil is a respected modern purveyor of such writing.
Automobile reviews today often miss the mark because they are too cute, they shill for the manufacturer, or they fall victim to conventional wisdom. Clever wording is often entertaining, but rarely informative. Some of the TTAC editorials have fallen in this category, sacrificing insight for trick metaphors. Jeremy Clarkson is the leading advocate of this style, one that is perfectly suitable for the Sunday Times but is not particularly good for anything else. While Edmunds was once a very useful site, they have recently fallen into the Motor Trend and to lesser extent, Road & Track habit of essentially recycling press releases as original journalism. If I want to know what the manufacturer thinks about its cars, I’ll go to their websites. The most egregious fault of any review, in my opinion, is to fall for the cliché of the day. It is, for example, an article of faith that all Americans dislike hatchbacks. That same fantasy is repeated again and again, mindlessly, without any intervening original research. Yesterday we saw an example of that type of fixation on TTAC, when hammering the Taurus under the misconception that everyone looking to buy a new car has had a bad rental experience with the bull.
Another peeve of mine is the review that goes on and on about the most minor interior details of a car yet neglects to cover the essential engineering. How many times does one see paragraphs lavished on the virtues or flaws of the fake wood on the dash yet nary a word about which wheels drive the car? One of the main reasons people read reviews is to learn things that can’t be easily discovered by simply sitting in the car at the dealer.
Finally, I would like to see more reviews of interesting older cars. For example a pristine ’83 911 SC might be more rewarding and a better investment than a new vanilla jelly- bean from Korea for about the same amount of money.
Good luck with your new format.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Tough choices. Personally, I think comments are key, and that car reviews should definitely have comments sections. In fact, I’d encourage owners to write their own detailed reviews - I’d much rather hear from someone that’s lived with a car for months or years.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
1. I would second the not getting bogged down in numbers. Skidpad numbers might matter when I’m shopping for a wrx, civic si, etc. However, I know that I could care less about the track numbers for a 4 cyl midsize sedan and neither will most people. TTAC has done a pretty good job of tailoring reviews to a car’s usage with some fun to drive thrown in keep that.
2. Used car reviews would really be helpful since many have to go on old reviews and would like to know how they would stack up now. This even goes for models that haven’t been totally redesigned and are forgotten by most pubs.
3. I would like to a list of recommended vehicles based on category and maybe even price point. Also look at realistic prices, don’t just compare with MSRP numbers. Fords are a lot cheaper than Hondas.
4. Keep a comments section for reviews, but restrict it to questions about the cars because it can helpful to ask about things the reviewer forgot to mention.
5. If not a reliability section, then at least put disclaimers in the reviews about known major mechanical issues (i.e. sludge in certain vw and toyota motors)
February 8th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Now I have a greater understanding of what you were referring to when you made your invitation. I believe Frank and I will be able to develop a great relationship. Does he know yet? I think you have taken a giant leap for TTAC that is a harbinger of a future with an exciting upward rocketing curve of success. I do like the comment referring to the older type cars and have a couple ideas to run by Frank. I look forward to being part and parcel of this future. The e-ghetto comment rocked BTW.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
When I think of TTAC I think of honest reviews but I also think of honest industry analysis. Maybe there isn’t money in that side of journalism but I hope you don’t sacrifice those insightful editorials.
This sort of echoes the theme of how to you compete with stores like Walmart. I believe that you can compete, you just need to compete on quality or on unique products. You can’t compete head on and not on price. There may be an analogy here. To compete with edmunds, you can’t just offer the same product, there should be something compelling about yours.
I’m not sure of the answer but I’ll throw out a couple ideas. One, have consistent sections and consistently formatted tables to make comparisons easier.
Maybe you could have a section called “Who this vehicle is marketed to” and a “Who we think is likely to buy this vehicle”, then give a poser factor which relates how the above two overlap. Maybe come up with other unique numerical metrics for other things like this. Keep them consistent among all reviews.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
When I was shopping for a new car, I narrowed it down to 5 candidates and test drove them all. One stood out as right for me. I didn’t need the internet for that.
But when I was ready to actually buy, I found 2 things very helpful, both at Edmunds. First was their True Cost to Own forecasts which give you a holistic view of car costs over the next 5 years. The second was the “what I paid” forum. Understanding what invoice for my car was, how holdbacks work and what manufacturer incentives were in place. Saved me a grand easy.
It would be nice to see dealer rankings as well.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I would be careful about reporting “known” major mechanical issues. If you do so, I would only report Technical Service Bulletins or known recalls. As a matter of fact, I really like the idea of reporting TSBs.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I would love to see reviews and comparisons of cars that I could actually consider purchasing. It’s fun to read about the latest greatest supercar, but since I’m not actually buying it I can settle for reading about it in C&D or MT and putting up with their biases, I don’t really need the bare bones honest truth about it.
I trust you guys, and you’re the 1st place I’ll come to when I want reliable information. A comparison test between $100k cars is entertainment; a comparison test between $25k cars is actually useful, and I’m sure you’ll find a way to make it entertaining as well.
I think you said it best: “It’s time for TTAC to get out of the entertainment business, into mainstream infotainment.”
February 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
charliewhiskey: Tom McCann, writing for Popular Mechanics long ago,
I believe you’re referring to “Uncle Tom” McCahill, who wrote for Mechanix Illustrated. He was one of the first automotive writers who actually tested the car and reported on his findings instead of recycling information from the manufacturers. His use of hyperbole, metaphors and similes could put TTAC to shame.
Some quotes from some of his tests:
On the 1962 Plymouth:
” It was raining like tears in a onion cannery when I did my test…. ….the slightly teutonic looks of the Valiant, enlarged (on the 62 Plymouth) stand out like a hip flask in a bikini.”
On the 1959 T-bird:
“It went over like a keg of brandy in a prison camp…..(but)……rolls like the Queen Mary in a full gale.”
On the 1959 Chevy Impala:
“The rear deck treatment is pure Louis Armstrong: gone, man, gone!”
On the 1959 Imperial:
“This doll was as loaded as an opium peddler during a tong war……..Swivel seats make it as easy to get into as a floating crap game with fresh money……….On the 31 degree banked turns the big Imp hung in there like oil going through a hose……The finest car built in America, and I’ve been testing cars for a long time.”
On the 1968 AMC Javelin:
“It corners as flat as a tanked soprano’s high C and with the big, fat new tires holds tight corners like the painted lines on the road. I purposely threw it into several spins on gravel and found the Javelin as controllable as a mouse in a small, dead-end pipe”
Thom McCann made shoes.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Since TTAC isn’t the first, or the biggest in its field, I think its best bets are to be:
A) The most entertaining
B) The most informative
C) The most personal
A) involves keeping — and improving, where possible — the writing style. Non-gearheads don’t understand references to a 1968 Skoda, but tell them that a truck is meant for the Village People (Bless you, Jonny Lieberman) and they get a chuckle along with useful information.
B) involves giving people information they can’t get elsewhere. Can TTAC develop closer ties to TrueDelta?
Can it offer novel features like a “For the same money, we’d buy” link in the article reviews. Can it have novel ways of looking at cars that the other sites aren’t delivering?
C) relates to B. Most people when they’re shopping for cars are not interested in cars generally, they’re interested in the right car for them!
For example, I look at the “Top 10 lists” at Edmunds and see potential. But categories like “Top 10 Cars traded in for Hybrids” are not very useful.
I think if TTAC can generate something like “Cars for Tall People priced under $25,000″ that focus on a particular customer’s narrow need, it would make a lot of people happy.
Especially if that can be generated on request, so people can customize it to their desires.
Another feature might be something like “Help me buy a car”. It would lead people by the nose, narrowing choices down based on selection criteria/priorities. Something like the Tire Selection Guide at Tirerack.com.
In other words, TTAC should beg/borrow/steal the best of what’s out there, make it TTAC’s own and better, and use the ’sizzle’ of TTAC entertaining car reviews to get people to buy the ’steak’ of truly useful car information
I’m just sayin’…..
February 8th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Bravo. Although I too spend 10-15 mins each day reading TTAC, I would be apt to spend far more time if there were more reviews/ photos, etc….
One piece that I would love to see, ala ePinions, CNET, etc…is owner comments. “I bought the car because of this and I’ve learned that”
My only fear here is that folks with an agenda might login and post bogus raves.
You go Farago!
February 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
What’s the business plan? More readers = more clickthrus?
I think you’ve got a niche market cornered at this point. Adding more car reviews would be great. I’m not sure how adding technical data that can be found everywhere else won’t dilute your excellent content.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I applaud the new focus and think this site will be the better for it. Here are my suggestions:
1. Don’t annoy your audience. While this may seem obvious and self evident, far too many sites get this wrong. Others have already pointed out the pitfalls of complicated site navigation (iDrive for the web anyone?), but advertisements can be equally annoying. I’m not referring to the content of the ads, but rather the way in which they are presented to the viewer. Pop-up, banner and interstitial ads (and others of their ilk) are like mother-in-laws (except mine of course) - irritatingly intrusive.
2. Make the reviews consistent. Studies have shown that the fastest way to make mice stop pressing on a button for food is not to completely cut off the food supply but to make it completely random. If the reviews are written (as they have been to date) primarily to be entertaining, this is less important, but if the new focus is to make them informative and useful as well, the reader has to know what type of reviews to expect. As it stands now, each of your reviewers not only has a distinctly different style but a distinctly different set of values, preferences and criteria. The problem with this is that the reader has to calibrate the opinions (i.e. put them in context) for them to be useful (as opposed to merely entertaining). For example, if X writes a damning or glowing review of a car, it’s hard to know what that really says about the car without knowing what X’s values and preferences are. There are various ways to address this issue: (i) create a mission statement (the “Company line”) for the reviews and have all the reviews written with the same set of values and criteria (WR, Evo and others do this with varying degrees of success), (ii) publish profiles for each of the reviewers with their values, preferences, etc., (iii) write objective reviews accompanied by subjective editorial comments (similar to a counterpoint but from the same reviewer) or (iv) some combination of these. The idea behind option (iii) is to have each review written in as objective, impartial and, to be honest, dry manner as possible, providing a maximum of information, and accompany it with a subjective commentary from the reviewer. For example, I could write an exhaustive review of the Ford 500 nee Taurus setting forth its strengths and weaknessess, and follow it with a no holds barred commentary on why I hate it, love it our could care less about it.
3. Don’t force the entertainment. A funny/witty article can only be written by someone who is naturally funny and witty. If you start inserting ridiculous metaphors just because you think it’s what the readers want (as does a certain once irreverent magazine), it doesn’t work. Some writers can do it (JL [his RS4 review is a classic], Jeremy Clarkson, etc.) and others can’t, and trying to be funny when you’re not is ten times worse than not trying to be funny at all.
4. Stay true to the site’s origins. The new focus is all well and good as long as it doesn’t obscure the site’s raison d’etre - to give an independent and (crucially) different perspective on the industry. The market is fully saturated and the only way to succeed is by offering something unique and different. If you try to compete with the big guns on their field by their rules, you’ll lose. If you play on a different field entirely, however, you can, and I think will, succeed.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Quick note: I started subscribing to R&T in 1966 (in other words I have been reading car mags for a long, long time). I now only read English mags, they do it very, very well. Don’t bother with the stats, or make it brief, anyone who needs loads of stats can find ‘em somewhere on the web. Maybe a thousand words max, and keep the reviews personal. The eds probably do need to be on a separate page, but please continue to moderate them.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I am all for an truly independent review site. But if you’re going to be different, then please continue to avoid reviewing every vehicle the same way.
You guys have done an admirable job of reviewing a vehicle in its context — the preferences of the market it’s aimed at. Please keep doing so, please be more consistent doing it. While a Civic si and a Scion xB might be aiming for the same “age of ownership,” they’re aiming for very different segments. Please keep looking at vehicles that way.
You guys can continue to set yourselves apart if you don’t view every vehicle as just a set of performance numbers. The brilliant Super Duty review is a perfect example.
Bottom line, keep up the good work and kep honing in on what will is and will continue to set you apart.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
I enjoy TTAC enough to read daily, both the editorial content and the reviews. I’d love to see more of the latter, but that doesn’t mean that I want less of the former.
As others have suggested, to get more mainstream viewers, TTAC is going to have to be more of a basic information source for folks who aren’t car nuts. I see the current reviews as something akin to bebop — you need to know the standards and the melodies in order to grasp the witticism of the improvisation, and if you don’t, what you’re hearing may sound like unintelligible noise. Gearheads presume that one who considers a Camry purchase has also thought of Accord and Altima, but millions out there aren’t thinking down that path, and need to be told.
I don’t know if you want to invest the resources it would take to make the site a better source than Edmunds for detailed, objective information (size, acceleration, EPA mileage, price, etc.), but I doubt that there’s much room to try to consistently beat the field on that basis. Once you have the set of relevant information, and it’s accurate, it’s pretty much fungible, and how much more user-friendly can any one site be for any length of time?
Instead, I think TTAC can set itself apart and play to its strengths by including a comparison component in every review. Whatever its shortcomings, I think Consumer Reports gets and keeps readers because it recognizes that they’re looking for answers to the “which one should I buy?” question, and they put all their content into a format that offers ready access to their opinions of the answer.
So don’t tell the average reader how much you liked or disliked driving the new Camry — unless you tell him in the same review how it compared to driving Accord and Altima. Don’t tell me about the excesses and absurdity of an ML 63 — tell me what it does better and worse than the Cayenne Turbo S. I don’t think any source does that in any depth with any regularity. Comparisons are the exception in car review content, but when somebody’s spending money, they’re the rule.
TTAC can do comparisons better than they’re being done now. R & T (print version) has a hint of what I’m getting at in including thumbnail sketches of two cars that compete with the road tested vehicle. But that’s insufficient depth. R & T, C & D and Edmunds do comparos but seem to fixate on one or two subjective likes and dislikes in order to justify a ranking — to the neglect of other characteristics that might be relevant to a buyer (okay, you hate the Maxima’s torque steer — but I still want to know how it compares to the others in holding its line on a bumpy 65 m.p.h. curve). Whenever I see a review of a car, I’d like to see your suggestions about what its competitors are, and about where each of them ranks against the others in reliability, utility/comfort, safety and real-world driving. If there are no apparent significant edges in a category, say so.
And about that real-world driving . . . If car A beats car B from 0-60 using aggressive dragstrip launch techniques, but B’s actually faster if you start and shift normally, and if B’s faster from 10-60, 20-60, 30-60, and 40-90 then I want to know. And if you’re calling A the better handler because it’s easier to manage its tail with your right foot, I want to know — I have the room to enjoy powerslides far less often than I have an expressway curve with broken pavement beneath me and a big concrete wall a foot or two to one side, so I’m more interested in composure under those circumstances than I am in the trackday fun component. For my taste, too many reviews everywhere discuss handling in the “Can I play Gilles Villeneuve?” sense to the neglect of what average drivers are concerned about — and once again, Consumer Reports gets to thrive.
If all this basic comparison stuff were included in every review, TTAC would have something that readers can’t find elsewhere. The reviewers could be hard-hitting in ways that other sources don’t dare — thereby ensuring a continued edge on the competition. I agree with other folks who have suggested that a relaxation on the word limit would be a good thing. After the basic melody is established, the improv that we see here now, including the interaction between reviewer, colleagues and readers, could continue to be the attraction that keeps gearheads.
Now that all that’s off my chest, good luck, and I’ll go back to read-only mode.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I tried to read all the responses, but I just don’t have time:
I think the new direction is the way to go. I remember a while back the brain-storming that took place for a pay site, etc…I really think it’s better to go more mainstream (i assume advertisers pay more when you’ve got more page views), but still retain the we-ain’t-bought-by-no-one mentality.
Like RF is suggesting, you don’t want to read vanilla reviews of Corolla’s…Fine, skip that part; the editorials are still going to be as they are.
I love the minimalist site too, but I would rather have to ignore certain items, then not have a TTAC to visit.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Shabster, if you’re in the minority then I’m right in there with you. I actually quit visiting the site for a while because the writing was getting too annoying and repetitive. In editorials, cute phrases and standup-comic routines sprinkled with pop-culture references are occasionally amusing, but in reviews (which are supposed to provide information) they quickly become hackneyed and tiresome.
Robert: You opened the floodgates here, so I’ll respond:
I think this is a good move. Clever writing will only get you so far, and as far as opinions go, there are 10 million blogs out there with people writing their opinions. If TTAC is to survive and thrive it must offer something that those other opinion sites can’t, and I think well written, no-pulled-punches reviews is the way to go.
I would start by de-emphasising any excessive commentary on style. Style is completely subjective - after all, there’s not a day that goes by that I don’t see someone driving a B9 Tribeca or an Aztek. So if you start a review by saying “this vehicle is so ugly it would make Oedipus want to put his eyes back in just so he could have the opportunity to claw them out a second time, ” a potential buyer is just going to think your an arrogant jerk and not read the rest of the review.
The way a certain car looks is often the only thing a potential buyer does know about the car, and if the buyer is still interested, then obviously he/she likes the looks (or at least is not put off by them) so dwelling excessively on purely subjective appearance factors is both a waste of time and potentially off-putting to the person who really needs the information.
Along these lines, can we please, please, please drop the cutesy-poo neologisms? The first time I saw “spizzarkle” I thought it was mildly humorous but by the 50th iteration it had gone the way of “tubular!” or “way cool!”
Ditto with terms like “bangle-butt” and “hoon.” The effect of these silly terms has been to make all the writing look the same. And the pop-culture references make the articles hopelessly dated in very short time (take your Mark Foley reference above. Wasn’t that from about 6 months ago? And do people in Europe even know who Mark Foley is? Do they care?)
In addition, the apparent neccessity to “out-hip” the next writer encourages contributors to spend a lot more effort on coming up with their next cute pop culture analogy than they do in actually providing information that a potential buyer would use.
It also might help if the people who reviewed vehicles did so with an open mind. Having someone who hates trucks or SUVs review an SUV just so they can slag it doesn’t help anybody. Nor do extraneous and irrelevant comments about global warming, foreign policy, oil dependence, or other comments about political matters that belong on the editorial page, not in the reviews.
A danger with car reviewers, as with restaurant critics, is the tendency to get spoiled and to have unrealistic expectations as a result. Reviewers who spend a week driving the slickest, accessory-laden Caddy or Mercedes might well find the interior of a Camry or a Malibu to be “cheap” but so what? How does that help the person trying to choose between the Malibu, the Altima and the Accord? Reviewers who get to take the latest Ferrari out to the track might well find that the handling on the Chrysler mini-van is “wooden” or “unresponsive,” but again, how does this help the potential buyer?
I think TTAC has real potential, but too much of the writing is more about “opinion” than “truth” and given that opinions are like certain body parts, TTAC needs to do something different to set it apart from the crowd.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
>>Another peeve of mine is the review that goes on and on about the most minor interior details of a car yet neglects to cover the essential engineering. How many times does one see paragraphs lavished on the virtues or flaws of the fake wood on the dash yet nary a word about which wheels drive the car? One of the main reasons people read reviews is to learn things that can’t be easily discovered by simply sitting in the car at the dealer.
I second this.
>>Tough choices. Personally, I think comments are key, and that car reviews should definitely have comments sections. In fact, I’d encourage owners to write their own detailed reviews - I’d much rather hear from someone that’s lived with a car for months or years.
For car shopping, I find owner comments to be very useful. You can learn the details of what’s breaking down on a particular car.
Several people have said leave off the numbers. I say, keep the numbers, but put them in a table. And definitely include turning circle. In more than a decade, I never got used to having a 40ft turning circle on my old Saturn.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Think of a make and model of a car, go to Edmunds.com, and try to find a review of that car. Count the number of clicks, the wrong turns, the “WTF?” links on that site, and realize that, despite great content, Edmunds.com is a freakin nightmare to navigate!
I like this site due to its simplicity. Simplicity. Simplicity. All I would add to TTAC is a chart full of car stats for every review.
I suppose the “Why you should buy this car” bullets would be nich touch, too. That’s about it. Keep it simple!!!!
February 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I don’t have time for highly detailed sites. I suffer from information overload. I need short focused information.
I like the limited, targeted nature of this site. Once it gets too big, I’ll probably bail on it, and find another autoblog with laser-like focus, dead-simple navigation, and minimalist visual design. Like TTAC is now.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Martin Albright: And the pop-culture references make the articles hopelessly dated in very short time
In the case of new car reviews, is that really a problem? If you look at a review of the 1999 Lumina, aren’t you expecting it to be dated anyway? References to “Ross and Rachel on a break” or “Little Annie Skywalker” would be completely reasonable.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Quoted for truth. Here’s looking at you, BM
Least you’re looking.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Having a car for a week and driving it around town is great for an overall general impression of a car but it doesn’t tell me how it really measures up
I would beg to differ. having a car for a week & driving it around town will tell you more about a car than all the 0 to infiniti times in the world.
Maybe a table a little like Top Gear’s with a snappy line from the review linking to the main body of the review.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Keep it Simple, Sharp, and full of the consistent personality as always. Just make it easy to cross reference.
There’s always a moving window of affordable used cars. Perhaps highlight undervalued, high depreciation cars such as the VW Phaeton.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
RF -
Best of success in this re-focus. My only suggestion to add to the many excellent ones above is that you resist the urge to include car model reviews in Death or Suicide Watches (see latest Sebring review ergo suicide watch). To me this may be an innapproriate context for objective and truly consumer oriented car reviews.
I think you have rightly identified the reality that most car shoppers are not like any of us “carnuts” here reading the editorials and ranting in reply. My sense is that they are looking for no-holds-barred information on various vehicles without having to wade through all the reasons why a particular models portends the end of the manufacturer.
Then apply the same defined analysis to each vehicle so that their is consistency across all makes and models. I believe you and your talented writers can still inject the usual spice even with such structure and constraints.
I too saw a void among all the many resources out there in cyber-review land. I like the rating systems and stars (ala amazon) and a consumer review section written by folks who actually own the vehicle and live with it day after day.
My favorite non-TTAC review site is NCTD.com, and my own of course -
http://www.autoreviewcentral.com
Cheers.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Well that depends on the purpose of the reviews. If the purpose is to establish the hip credentials of the writer, in essence to be the automotive equivalent of a snarky gossip column, then the pop culture references are reasonable.
But if the purpose of the review is to provide actual information or to be some useful tool, then they are a waste of space and a distraction.
Incidentally, last month, I bought a new (to me) vehicle. Despite its flaws (and I totally agree with the comments about non-user-friendly interfaces, excessive clicking thru, and pop ups) I used Edmunds extensively to do my pre-buying research.
I did not use TTAC because
(a) TTAC reviewers almost never review the kinds of vehicle I was looking for [small pickups]
(b) When they do, it’s almost always done in sneering, condescending fashion that reveals not only the sports car/luxury car bias, but also a near complete ignorance of trucks and the reasons people buy them, and
(c) I had already narrowed it down to two or three models so what I needed was the hard data to help me differentiate between them, which Edmunds (for all its flaws) has in spades and which TTAC does not.
And I think that’s the real problem with TTAC. It’s become essentially two different sites: The first one has lots of “inside baseball” discussion about the car industry, which I find fascinating, and the second one is the automotive gossip column I mentioned above, which does not interest me.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I always want reliability considered. ALWAYS. That is my primary factor for wanting a car, if it ain’t reliable who needs it. And based upon my experience with GM and Ford lately, there is still a big difference. (And VW, based on my boss’ car.)
John
February 8th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I agree with liberty on both counts about getting some owners opinions of their cars. One, that it can be more insightful than review done over a short time period. And, two, that you’d have to keep an eye out for people with an agenda posting. I always find it amusing when I see people post ownership experiences on msn autos or Edmunds when the car hasn’t been released yet. (Or are there really 15 people who own 2006 Maybachs posting on MSN Autos? Shouldn’t they be rolling around on their piles on money?)
If you could filter out people by having them send you an image of their car with a certain item in it, that could help. Just a thought.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
To differentiate it from the sites you mentioned, I’d rather see more audio clip and ad some video clips. I’m thinking of video review like the British Fifth Wheel that you can find on You Tube. Their reviews are irreverent, funny and sometimes down right bizarre. But generally entertaining.
I think there is room for an American version of this. Not every car review should be video, but an irreverent clip (like 3-10 minutes would be a fun diversion).
February 8th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the are driving just a little bit. A Corvette guy reviewing a VW GTI is most likely just not going to get it. A guy used to luxury cars is not going to understand the little Kia is perfect for 45 mph city streets. Maybe this is where a counterpoint might be useful. I certainly appreciate the reader’s feedback.
I once read a car mag review of a VW Eurovan Weekender (camper) and the reviewer came right out and asked “who in their right mind would sleep in a van?” The review was down hill from there. They just didn’t get it. They needed to have an open mind and possibly schedule the review where they could attend an over-night VW campout where they could talk to other VW van owners - new and old. Then maybe they’d understand the culture and mind-set of the typical Eurovan/vintage VW owners.
For example alot of folks want something nicer than a tent, don’t want to tow a popup trailer, and don’t want to drive or own a fullsized camper. We’re all different. The Eurovan was expensive new but you’ve got to understand the US tariff structure and how that impacts VW’s pricing. Lookup the German Chicken War and the 25% tariff put on German trucks and vans - don’t know if it continues today.
I quit reading car mags about the same time that I read the VW article. That was about 10 years ago. Like so many of your other readers I got tired of articles which were obviously plagerized from the manufacturer’s literature. I also got tired of articles which focused on what the cars or vans or trucks could NOT do, vs what they could.
I think what happened was that I realized that it did not matter to me how fast a car was (7.1 seconds or 7.3 seconds) or how it fared on the skid-pad doing circles. Most of us do not drive at the limits of our vehicles on a daily basis. I wanted more practical information. It’s got to be tough to compare a really good car (this week’s car) to last week’s really good car. However I need some practical information. I’d like to know how previous models have faired reliability wise, what existing owners of previous models think of their cars, and what the resale values are like. An invoice price might be nice too!
One British site I read reviewed the cargo capacity by finding how many liters of water would fit in the trunk. Tell me the weight and the weight vs HP ratio and what the range of the vehicle is per tank/charge.
I could give very detailed reviews of our 4 vehicles - pros and cons. We’ve been happy with each of them.
Chris
February 8th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
I actually do site usability for a living so I will keep my comments on this to a minimum.
The reason I like your site is the lack of a generic star rating system. I like the more subjective approach to the reviews. To give a new visitor quick star ratings would be a disservice because it puts less emphasis on the editorial, which is this site’s strength IMHO.
Too many of the big sites make it hard to find a down to earth review amidst the ads, fluff, etc. Stats, Stars and dots don’t help me know what it’s like to drive a car.
The “swedish minimalist” is great. I have never had a problem finding a review or determining where you guys stand on in a review.
Love the site- best of luck.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I read your site via RSS feed, and I just read most articles as they come up. If I’m doing research, I use google, so I’d probably land on the review directly. So as you do your navigation, you might want to keep in mind people who have come directly to the review without following your site navigation — give them easy ways to go to similar vehicles, different trims, etc.
I also have to second the few people who have commented on the cutesy wordplay. Some of it is very clever, but clever-cleaver often gets in the way of communication. Sometimes I actually can’t figure out what the reviewer is trying to say; at least, a description of the car’s performance couched in witty metaphors is hard to extract much use from. So while your current style may appeal to readers looking for entertainment, it may be frustrating for those who are actually doing research.
And finally, I’d like to make another plea for you to stop putting hyphens between verbs and prepositions where they don’t belong. e.g. the phrase “While I’m not going to deep-six or dumb-down our rants…” should contain zero hyphens. I’ve tried to explain the principle in email before but finally gave up. it still antagonizes me about 5x a day though when I’m reading TTAC ;)
anyway, I think the site is great, and I think the new focus will be great. I hope you get the additional traffic you’re looking for, while remaining opinionated and entertaining.
February 8th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I think you,ve seen many good ideas above.
I have two comments:
1)Stress objectivity: when editing, ask yourself: Is this review TRUELY objective?
2)Ask your reviewers to think of the potential customers and usage and facing competition for this particular vehicle. Don’t get caught in the trap of comparing every B class econocar and SUV to a BMW 5 series.
Tom D
February 8th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
A few simple thoughts. Keep the number of font sizes on a given page to reasonable minimum. Use as few colored fonts as possible, if at all. And only flash unless you absolutely positively have to. :D
February 8th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Well I have always looked to this site for entertainment, and comments/discussions on the topic of “the business of the auto business” but not for reviews of cars I might buy.
I found this site one day several months ago looking for some entertaining reading from owners of crappy cars. One of my favorite winter reads is to check up on where the junk is. And search google for “my car sucks” and “my ford is junk” somehow long way down on one of those lists I found thetruthaboutcars.com. And continue to read it for its comments about company strategy, brand strategy, model identy, you name it. But not for a review of a car, although I have read almost all of them. Deciding to follow the flock, and offer auto reviews, remember you would be writing to capture the ear of owners of most of the cars that capture your writers greatest wrath. How would you review an Outlander fairly to qualify as a review a possible shopper can use? (sorry Uplander)
Seems to me you could just purchase a database of auto review data. You guys should just use your unique journalistic style and become an investment strategist simply based on watching the moves of the very same CEO types you are watching now at FoMoCo and GM. You could start with Home Depot’s new CEO and how he’s going to get more customers in, while the housing market goes into superslump this spring…. I can tell you now, that when I read a review here, I read a few comments until posters begin comparing things like X6’s ERQ’s, M9’s SQX’s and so many other non descript 3 letter combo’s I just don’t care to look up to follow the comment. Same goes for the endless comparison of production numbers:
Tacoma: 50,000 units 2005
Siera: 20,000 units 2005
f-150: 30,00 units 2005
Give me a break…… I just grab the scroll-bar and skip a few dozzen. Can’t you giys just post an official numbers page and you guys just refer to it over and over again. You know “truck production page - part B says…” As an auto business analyst site, you guys are pretty far ahead of the wall street sites I read every day. I saw a marketwatch piece on the Galaxy/Taurus thing that made me immediately think TTAC had a hand in it.
And your depth seems like your writers are very capable of learning the lingo of the industry, and writing appropriate appraisals of the business plan. Who cares about car reviews. Every web portal reviews cars. Put your Bold into it and forge a new review. Sorry to so many knowledgable posters, but some of the production numbers, and constant comparison to BMW, or Mersedes models just gets old.
Same for the idea Ford can come up with a Prius killer, they can’t and should not try, just stay in the game, not always be off somewhere designing some great thing bigger and better………but a few years late.
A nice nitch may be to use your business buff to review cars, and predict future resale value based on what you know about the misses or hits of cars as they roll off the line. ” The new taurus recently seen on Avis lots may hit resale” hey now that would begin a nice review, then tie it into projected resale, then you could have a feedback column. Well at least you got the website name that should command a different and distinctive look at cars, new and used. Be interesting to see you guys pull off your usual reviews, combine that with appeal to Outlander drivers (Dam, Uplander), and still not be just like car and driver with a cooler sounding website.
You know just an FYI, Car and Driver, the ones I believe hand out “car of the year awards” to whatever is new that year, has 0 credibility with me. Same for JD Powers and their silly Innitial Quality crap. Worthless. That award just means you didn’t have to walk the first week you owned it. Most of you can see I don’t love cars, don’t want to know every model, just be entertained. TTAC does this well, and it appeals to someone who is not a car buff. I assume you know some of your readers are just interested in the business of the car business, and not the dam cars. A novel idea may be to pay to follow owners of cars from the dealer lot to the trade in, and keep a running log… sorry blog. A transformation from a car business blog, to a car review blog??
Good luck.
me.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Categories work for me:
Cars under $25K
Cars tall people might prefer
Cars for towing
Trucks by category
Used cars? Tough call.
Long lists of specs? Make it a 2nd click to get to ‘em:
Gas tank capacity; seats 7 with third row this or that; zzz.
And about that real-world driving . . . If car A beats car B from 0-60 using aggressive dragstrip launch techniques, but B’s actually faster if you start and shift normally, and if B’s faster from 10-60, 20-60, 30-60, and 40-90 then I want to know.
Why??? OMG, no. (If there’s a full moon, and you shift from 1st to 3rd sideways, you’ll beat a Porche with a Civic. Please.)
Real-world driving for the masses does not invlove 0-60, nor do they run the 1/4 mile. Gawd the car rags beat that stuff to death already. Do you think mom and dad care about all that?
Not enough power to pass easily, okay. The rest? Not at all.
Think about terminology too: “Review” vs. “Road test.”
My preference is to seek out road tests as many “reviews” are simply a modified press release followed by a list of specs. Sorta like this. Although there are a few good paragraphs in there.
For some odd reason, I like seeing “most searched for” cars listed at sites. Guess we all like to know what others are looking for/at. ;-)
A truly useful “links” page, right off the review would be unique. I’m talking about, say you review the Civic. Then somewhere offer links to Civic-related forums and the like, such as TOV (Temple of VTEC), or 8thCivic.com No one does that now, best as I can tell. Imagine being directed to a VW ownewrs forum where you could see what actual owners think of their new Rabbit, or what the common problems are.
Either that, or somehow list “known issues” with past similar models. That type of information is useful. Not to all though.
Stars and dots don’t help me know what it’s like to drive a car.
Agreed. Nor do they tell what it would be like to own one.
I’d like to know how previous models have faired reliability wise, what existing owners of previous models think of their cars, and what the resale values are like. An invoice price might be nice too!
Invoice price is essential. Many of us print that out and bring (or e-mail) the invoice prive to the dealer to bargain with. :-)
Well said: Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the are driving just a little bit. A Corvette guy reviewing a VW GTI is most likely just not going to get it. A guy used to luxury cars is not going to understand the little Kia is perfect for 45 mph city streets. Maybe this is where a counterpoint might be useful.
I’ll miss the current format, but economic reality is what it is.
Good luck!
February 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Robert, I have found many people, perhaps your future newbies, will benefit from environmental impact of a particular model….greenhouse emissions, etc.
Environmental impact will affect my decision making when I buy my next car, and I know I’m not alone.
Thanks for an incredible site and I look forward to your new focus.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Think about termonology: Review vs. Road Test.
To me “road test” articles seem to be more fufilling.
Stars and dots? No. But people do love rankings.
0-60 and 1/4 mile times? Mom and dad don’t really care.
Let alone how to shift to get to 60 1/10th of a sec. faster.
I’m into cars but I gotta say, the rags beat that stuff to death: “During a full moon, we used this proceedure…and the Civic beat our Porche thru the 1/4 mile.” It’s so arcane.
Not enuf power to pass easily, sure that’s good to know.
Where was it that I saw a review that said something like this in a hard-top convertable comparo: In car A I could get two cases of snacks in the trunk, but in car B, I could only get one case in when the top was folded down. That’s useful info.
Few sites provide links to owner forums. That might be a differentiator. Reviewing the Civic? At the end toss in links to:
Temple of VTEC and, say, 8th Civic.com where prospective buyers can find actual owner feedback.
I’ll miss the current format, but economic reality is what it is.
Good luck!
P.S. Well said, Busbodger:
Make sure reviews are written by someone who values what the[y] are driving… A Corvette guy reviewing a VW GTI is most likely just not going to get it. A guy used to luxury cars is not going to understand the little Kia is perfect for 45 mph city streets. Maybe this is where a counterpoint might be useful.
Perspective is vital & counterpoints are often informative.
Reworked press releases with stats added are too common.
Oh and: If I see one more Mustang review in a magazine, I’m going to loose it. Camero this, Mustang that. Not main stream.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
RF,
If car reviews are what it takes to survive, so be it. Good call. Focus is good!
Just make sure you actually drive the cars and provide real feedback. I hate the sites/mags/papers that “review” a car, but in reality it’s just recycling comments from other reviews… Also, some technologies in cars are mischaracterized, exposing a lack of “homework” by the authors. Don’t fall into that trap.
Looking forward to the reviews, but will keep visiting for the rants.
February 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
I applaud your intentions to build TTAC into a more well-rounded review-based site… I think that in the process, though, it is important to stay true to what the site has been consistently good at…
I’ve read many posts above demanding 0-60 times and other statistics, but it seems to me that these base-level numbers are readily available at any number of other sterile magazine review sites populated by automatons. What you have the opportunity to do here is evaluate the cars you drive without the obligation to quote every new feature off the press kit (as C&D might do) or run it through a battery of tests (who truly knows the value of 20-80mph times, anyhow?). TTAC has always been able to provide a very true sense of what it is like to actually drive and inhabit the vehicles it reviews - something beyond the statistical numbers. A fast Lexus doesn’t necessarily conjure up the driving enjoyment of a comparatively slow (but impassioned) competitor. Likewise, the Mustang might be a real hoon, but does the fit, finish, and quality of interior measure up to the price point? This is truly what is needed in the otherwise crowded review-space…
I think, also, that real-world comparisons of value-for-money are worthwhile. I agree with akatsuki’s request above to lay out the consumer’s options when it comes to price point. If, say, I’m interested in a car that is fun to drive, has a nice interior, and costs ~$30k, I might not be so partial to a particular market segment - I might be facing off between a base BMW 3-series and a relatively maxed out VW R32…
The last point I would hope to impress, which has been stated already - objectivity is hardly possible when one is reviewing for the “feel” of the cars, but fairness in a review is… A car is not ugly *because* it is a Chevy, despite the fact that all current Chevys might actually be. Further, it is not fair to impose a “legacy” on a brand, nor blame it for going out of its market segment… To lambaste the VW Phaeton for being “too upscale” is to miss the true merits/failings of the vehicle. Leave it to the consumers to decide what “will sell” in the marketplace, and lead on to the “good ones” - the cars that will keep us driving happy…
Best of luck to all of you at TTAC!
February 8th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Hey man,
I’ve been saying the site needs to get back to its roots for months… That is, you, RF behind the wheel of cars that the average guy drives, with the essential witty repartee that follows. I imagine that if I were a car reviewer, I would love nothing more than to be able to drive the latest porsches and high end bimmers, but for us average guys, that’s just entertainment, and will not command the utility based traffic that you’re talking about up above.
It’s the writing and the truth, and mostly the truth about new cars, that drew me to site in the first place. It’s what made this site different from the Edmunds and MSNBC cars type sites. Looking forward to the new format.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Robert –
This is probably a necessary move, although I too like much about the site the way it is. A few thoughts:
If you decide keep the comments with the reviews, consider something like what Salon does: offer a choice between seeing all the comments and seeing a selection of “editor’s choice” comments. I love going through TTAC’s comments, but with so many, it often takes a long time to cull the good stuff from the ordinary.
I like the idea suggested by some of offering links to enthusiast and other sites with useful information. And a lot of the standard spec stuff can be added on (or linked to a subpage) in a table that quickly offers the data without the reader having to scan thru the review to find the 0-60 time.
The beefy writing beholden to none is definitely a draw for the likes of me. But I guess I would advise knowing who your intended audience is (or rather, who your audiences are). Car enthusiasts? No doubt. Mom & pop looking for car info? First-time buyers? My engineering friends hoovering data and scorning “all those words”? Bit of a different focus might be needed for all these audience types.
Best of luck with the new site!
February 8th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I’ll reiterate what someone else mentioned - give us a profile of the article’s author. As in you click their name “By Robert Farago” and it gives me your bio.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
A couple more ideas on customizing the presentation of information:
1) Don’t make it too detailed. I was just at MSN Autos (and I know Edmun