second, I think the way to keep TTAC’s character while also improving a bit would be to kill the 800-word limit (as many are saying) but use the extra verbiage not for a bunch of stats but for the writers to explain and justify their opinions a bit more. for example, I often hear writers here say the ride on a car is not very good, and I’d like to hear more about why they think that and what they experienced while driving it. reading such things is entertaining, informs me about the car, and also educates me about what to feel for the next time I drive. bring it on.

also I think doing some point/counterpoint would be great. get a couple of your writers, if possible, to drive the same thing and duke out their opinions a bit. two expert, opinionated, literate people arguing about something fun is always interesting.

As for advise on what new TTAC features to build, I second many of the above reader comments.

Do not put a huge effort into duplicating a KBB / Edmunds
type database to show that to get heated seats, the invoice
price of the LE package is higher than the premium package,
and moreover, doesn’t include the CD changer.

Do not become obsessed with test numbers especially where
normalization for road surface and temperature or tires are
questionable. Is road holding in July of 0.92g really better than
0.89g in Feb ?

Some positive suggestions:

Experiment with taxonomies and multi-faced classifications.
Looks at jobs.snap.com or zappos.com shoe store to see the
many ways of drilling down from the whole population
to a small subset to a very short list.

You are less limited in space for photos than print mags,
so show the car from all angles. So many _Automobile_
reviews mention parts of the car that are not shown in the
review, from redesigned tal lights to a new center console.

If you must run a special advertizing section, do something
original, like interviews with tort lawyers about lemon laws.

Realize you are now banking on years of archived reviews
and views, so do not make understanding the writing depend
on understanding some pop culture ephemera that’s already
deader than Anna Nicole Smith. That said, a knowning
reference to cultural touchstones is well appreciated.

The V1 startup sounds have more blips and beeps than
Cabaret Voltaire at the 1978 Edinburgh Fringe Festival.

One approach I would like to see more of is technical
background about car design and features.

Go beyond most other reviewers who provide an uncritical
feature checklist and say the car has ABS brakes, and
instead, tell me the difference between super sport abs
tuned on an STi or M3 vs the lame ABS on my 1996 Neon
rental.

Write this ABS article as a standalone sidebar for some review,
and when the topic of abs comes up in other articles, link to it.

Endulge writer’s repartee only so far; labelling a car a
shopping trolley or hairdresser’s car or soccer mom/
nascar dad’s choice without explaination is a useless cliche,
and far too many articles rely on similies such as
preferring the penetration of an RS4 to the dry humping
of a mere S4.

But telling us the roofline of the car reminds you of
the arched back of a canine doing #2 is OK.

Great site- I’ve been reading it for months, but only now registered to post this comment.

There are a number of features that I see lacking from other car review and comparison sites. These usually concern technical and feature details that are not published by the car companies marketing departments and are only found buries in an owners manual or service manual.

Some examples of features I’d like to see included in comparisons are:

Drive train (fwd, rwd, 4wd, awd)
More transmission details than just standard or automatic. Adjustable shift points? Paddle shifter?
Can you deactivate the traction control?
Can you deactivate the anti-lock brakes?
Do the tires have enough body clearance to allow tire chains or cables? (I live in snow country)
Does the vehicle use a common tire size. Odd/different tire sizes can greatly reduce the selection of aftermarket tires.
Interior sound levels at various speeds (30, 55, 70 MPH?)
And finally, something that will probably annoy the rest of the readers of this site- the number of cup holders accessible to the driver.

These are just some examples of things that I see lacking from most other sites.

I am looking forward to the new site. Keep up the good work.

hayes.

Second, there should links to similar models from any review, to keep your readers from wandering off to another site when they’re done with the review. A side-by-side comparison feature inherently complicated and busy and a bit much.

Third, true pricing information and contacting local dealer features are critical, because users have to do them eventually, and you don’t want them to leave your site for that.

Fourth, the front page needs to be helpful for people who haven’t the foggiest idea about existing models but have some general notion of what kind of car they want – for example, I might want a small convertible, or a large truck, or a medium-sized sedan. A zillion ways to search cluttering up the front page is counterproductive, but some jumping-off point is important.

Finally, you can never beat comprehensiveness of reviews – ideally your site should have a review of the latest model year of every major model. Currently it isn’t anywhere close to that, but hopefully some changes which boost readership will enable the budget to let that happen.

Go ahead with the redesign and refocusing. I love the editorials, but they have begun to dominate the content. Without focusing more on reviews you risk becoming nothing more than an auto-related blog. Call me a luddite, but I dislike most blogs and I prefer to think of TTAC as an online magazine.

Unlike many here (apparently) TTAC is the ONLY auto site that I visit regularly. Which means that I come here for the writing, not so much for the subject. So it is absolutely imperative for me that you keep the quality up. Do not dilute the writing for sake of quantity.

Keep the 800 word limit for editorials. Keep an 800 word limit on the reviews, but consider using sidebars for additional observations (cargo space, back seat room, and the like). The short reviews keep things interesting, quick to read, and encourage the TTAC style. Sidebars (which could be written by someone else as a counterpoint, too) allow the inclusion of information some people want but others don’t care about.

Keep comments on the editorials, but lose them on the reviews, if only to save yourselves the burden of moderation. Comment sections in reviews rarely stay relevant, and often lead to stupidity and flames.

Don’t thread comments. If possible, see if the site developer can send a cookie (yeah, I know) that will allow readers to find the last comment they read.

Keep up the good work.

1. A forum would be a good idea. Maybe at the end of car reviews, have a link that takes you to the specific thread for that car. Maybe that’s cheesy, I don’t know. At any rate, a forum for comments would be a good thing, I think.

2. A new car survey. If anyone has read Top Gear, you’ll know that they have this every year. Lets say I bought a ‘06 Camry. TTAC invites people who have bought a new ‘06/’07 Camry in the past 7 or so months to take a survey about their car. What they liked, what they didn’t, etc. After so many surveys are compiled, put up the results. This obviously might not be feasible right off the bat, but I think it could work.

Ok, I tried to keep it short.

Good Luck!

2. Used cars. To pick one example, reviewers routinely lambast i-Drive in newer BMWs, as well as their styling. The obvious missing link is “If you don’t like i-Drive, then maybe you ought to take a look at an older BMW without this.” Here’s our take (and vetted readers’) on older BMWs, if you like the BMW vibe, but just are turned off by the newer models. Or just want to save some money. I’d be glad to give a summary on what to expect from owning an ‘89BMW, ‘95 Mercedes, or ‘03 Volvo. Reviews of cars by people who have them for longer than a week really tell you alot.

3. Keep the colorful writing style. Then again, I love Raymondy Chandler novels and his great metaphors. Most writing on cars is dry as dust. The humor is one of the big reasons I visit the site. We live in an age of conformity and euphemism. It is refreshing to see somebody call ‘em like they see ‘em in the automotive world. I can read boilerplate stuff anywhere.

I think that there’s a difference between a for-profit business like Coke and a for-profit business like TTAC. As long as TTAC retains its strong parts who are we, mere web mortals, to tell Farago et. al. that they shouldn’t change? The democratic process that this site has taken is really brilliant in my mind. I read slate sometimes and no one asked me what I thought of the site and impending changes, and I f–king hate the new site. I read it much less now because it’s annoying.

I have confidence that RF is going to do what is best for TTAC AND its readers, something that is really lacking in today’s e-market. If I don’t want to read the reviews I don’t have to. And for everyone else, I think it’s the same. However, I think that the main group of readers is going to still come back for the biting industry commentary and if more people come to read reviews and stuff that’s good for the bottom line. The old adage “evolve or die” couldn’t be more true than on the internet and I just don’t think that the guys (and girl) that are commenting on the site now can maintain the traffic that is needed for TTAC to not fall.

Personally, I would prefer that there are (slightly) more ads and a new layout and a more average-car-user-friendly focus than to lose more writers like Loverman. Cause lets face it, he’s going where the $$ is and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. I’m just saying that I’d prefer certain sacrifices if it means that the quality of the writing can remain the same.

I read many car magazines and web sites. I don’t contribute to any of them. I do contribute to TTAC. Do you know why? Because it is NOT a (blatently) for-profit business. It is a community in which all the contributors do so out of love for the automobile. The lead writer has a mission to educate, not to sell. Of course, some advertising here and there is necessary to cover expenses. But once it becomes a bread-and-butter for-profit business, it is no longer a community of enthusiasts.

Now, on the other hand, if I came across a brick-and-morter product or business with the “farago” name or endorsement, I would trust that that product would be a quality product. I would be comfortable supporting that business. But messing with TTAC? Sheesh!

Did I effectively express my dissatisfaction with this new plan?

The standard performance stats (1/4 mile times, 0-60 accel, skidpad, etc.) are all well and good, but I’m primarily concerned with how a car makes *me* feel (how about “hoonage” factor for cars or Top Gear style track times?), not how capable it is transporting a family of four around. Please keep that passion in TTAC. Be different than the other guys.

Oh and also, like others have mentioned, please tone down on the simile’s and metaphors in the reviews. Sometimes it’s just too much.

You said “new focus”. Does that mean we’re getting the Euro Focus now?

Sorry, had to ask… :)

Make the navigation simple & include the keyword searching (as many have mentioned).

Include links to all the other sites for the nitty gritty numbers. Sure they’re entertaining, but until I’m looking to drop $70-100K on a sports car, I really don’t care about a couple hundredths in the 1/4 mile, but I do care about cargo space. I can find that from any of the other sites, it’d be nice to link to it quickly when I’m ready to get down to it.

Most important: Review the car for its intended audience. All the reviews are great, but I keep thinking yeah, it sucks at canyon carving, but I’m not really interested in that – I just gotta make it to work this morning.

Don’t know if you can, but see if you can get ads targeted at add-on parts, shops, etc. not car manufacturers/dealers. That will help keep the sense of objectivity for the new viewers.

None of these are original ideas, I just wanted to add my $0.02 worth.

Keep up the great work, keep it simple, and rake in the cash!

I would keep the site as is and seek your fortune in more creative (or less creative, as the case may be) ways. Build a side business that leverages the brand that you’ve created. But the site itself is sacred and should not be tampered with.

TTAC’s foundation is free content. Your contributors write for free. The community is free to join. Everyone is here because they enjoy it. Trying to turn it into a profitable business turns against the e-society that allowed it to become successful in the first place. It is not “natural”.

Feel free to make money in other ways, as a result of building a respected surname in car circles. But messing with the TTAC formula spells d-o-o-m.

Threaded comments
Yuck.

Keep up the great work. I look forward to seeing the new format.

PS Please test it in IE7 – the current home page looks bad in IE7.

That’s why I also read Consumer reports. Though they are decidedly bland and pragmatic in their reviews, they will tell you what it might be like to actually live with a car for years. I mix that info with an enthusiast’s site like this one, and BINGO! Real information that I can use.

Good luck. Its been a great ride so far!