I only buy this magazine a few times each year to try and keep up with the plethora of new cars in the pipe line but I find the above section and read, all rather depressing when you start to look at their comments of the models that you might be interested in.
Practically every car has so many negative comments that one would be put off buying any new car mentioned there.
Having said that, my car, VW Golf MK6 1.4TSI does not come off too badly, I suppose.
I suppose it would be too much to ask that there were just one or two models that did not have any negative comments at all?
|
|
Just goes to show that cars today are all crap....
|
Reading some of their comments (both positive and negative), it seems that they felt they had to rack their brains to write something for each category.
The negative points for my car are how common it is and how it suffers from heavy depreciation - that's fine by me, it means I can buy spares anywhere and it was cheap second-hand.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Wed 7 Sep 11 at 21:30
|
They said about the Panda is "it can be too small" err well yes talking about the bleeding obvious, but err I think buyers will know it is a small car! And I got 6 lots of 2.5 metre CLS wood in it no problem with about 2 inches spare from the tailgate closing.
Next they will be criticising a Ferrari for having high running costs!
|
|
They seem to like the expression "poor quality plastics" as a negative point - I mean, plastic is plastic, does it matter whether it's good or bad??
|
Anyone with a modicum of common sense would realise that magazines, such as this, thrive on being supercrital about almost everything on wheels.
Frankly, if we like a particular make and model, we'll buy it regardless of what Whatcar think.
Best thing is to read reports from all sources and then draw your own conclusions, isnt it?
|
...that magazines, such as this, thrive on being supercrital about almost everything on wheels...
Motoring hacks are often criticised for not being critical enough because they are only worried about getting the next free car for the weekend.
|
>>They seem to like the expression "poor quality plastics" as a negative point - I mean, plastic is plastic, does it matter whether it's good or bad?? <<
Yeah, I think it does. And I can't believe I'm the only one who has noticed that plastic isn't just plastic.
Almost everybody these days goes on about the quality of Ford Mondeo plastic, for example. Not I.
It all depends on what you've experienced, I guess.
I feel a bit like ST - I fear I would go right through the A-Z and find nothing to obsess over.
|
|
Had Whatcar and their ilk been around in the '60s and '70s what would they have thought of the atrocious rust buckets around then? Looking back, most were really carp cars and I owned an Austin A30, Mini, Austin 1300 and four Austin Healey Sprites, to name but a few.
|
It was - in the 70s anyway. I bought my first one - for 35p of my pocket money - in June 1976. It had a test of the MG Midget against the Triumph Spitfire, and another with a Capri, a Celica and something else I've forgotten. They preferred the Spitfire to the Midget.
I've always found it well edited and less race track-obsessed than most car magazines, but I haven't actually bought it for years.
|
>> I've always found it well edited and less race track-obsessed than most car magazines, but
>> I haven't actually bought it for years.
>>
Can't see the point in buying that type of magazine more than, say, twice a year. Cannot really see why anyone would take out a monthly subscription.
|
|
And now it's all on the web, is there any point in buying it at all?
|
|
Although I'm an internet junkie, I still prefer to thumb through the pages of a book or magazine.
|
Which I do in libraries and WHSmith :-)
|
|
When sat on the bog, it's a lot easier reading a magazine than a computer screen!
|
Whatcar's A to Z of New Cars. - swiss tony
