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.
139 Comments on “Site Unseen: TTAC’s New Focus...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
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.
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
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).
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 :).
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.
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.
* 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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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 ;)
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).
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!
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*).
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I’m making notes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
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. “
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.
I hope TTAC can successfully balance sophisticated reviews for car enthusiasts and the general car shopping and researching public.
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.
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!
Merchandise?
Such as window stickers, T-shirts, thong underwear that says “thetruthaboutcars.com” from Cafepress or some other DIY site.
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.
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
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.
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?
Be hesitant to get into assessing reliability. Other sources are available for that info. Accurate reliability ratings require heavy duty research.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.