Whom do you trust?

Just a little back ground. I just bought my first new car ever a 08 Mazda CX-9. The reason this is significant is that I have always felt I got more value out of buying pre-owned and I don’t like to take that depreciation hit. My car lineup prior to this purchase was an 89 Subaru Loyale wagon 4WD, 93 Q45t, and a 01 Olds Aurora. The Subaru and Q45 became too much to maintain but I really didn’t want to give up either however drive way space and my wife dictated that I should do so. So far the CX-9 has done a decent job of replace the Subie but not the Q45. I kept the Aurora for a daily driver.

Now back to the title. I consider myself an enthusiast of cars so I follow this site as well as many others and magazines as well. I know that a lot of folks on this site and others are biased on their view of cars what one should buy and drive and this site is no different than any other site or magazine. I trust this site for two reasons. One I believe that not everyone is lying about the cars that they have. Two, I trust that you have actually driven the cars.

I have subscribed to several car mags for the last twenty years and trusted them to a point. That is until I could drive and inspect the car in question for my-self. Before my purchase I researched for about a year on every crossover on the market and all the ones coming out until October of this year. So by September I narrowed it down to a Flex, CX-9, Veracruz, High Lander, Pilot, MDX, Q7 and an Enclave. I eliminated all but two for various reasons. That left me with the CX-9 and Pilot. Even though the Pilot was the last one I drove and thought by all the pics that it was ugly and not very well conceived. But I wanted see what everyone else was saying about it so I reserved judgment, I went back and read what you guys thought as well as other sites.

I have read so many articles and test drives on all the vehicles but I had noticed one thing. Every site I went to and mag I read stated that the Pilot of just a shadow of its former self and that it wasn’t as at the top of class even with the redesign anymore. Criticisms ranged from poorly designed exterior to ugly exterior to very very poor braking. All but Car and Driver which states that it was the best of the bunch because it rode like a “truck”. Now that is a WTF if I have ever heard one. I drove it and it was just a bad experience.
So the question is why did CandD do this? And why so many sites are and mags favor BMW, Honda or Toyota. Road and Track won’t give a Toyota a bad review, and Motor Trend loves BMW or at least the 3 series. I think that the guy from US Today just doesn’t like cars.

holmstar - 1/5/2009 4:13:00 PM

+5 Boost

Top gear... ok yeah, they are sarcastic and nit-picky and rate cars rather subjectively, but they also tend to give the viewer a lot of information you wouldn't get from most magazines. The biggest thing is that they are publicly funded, which means they don't have to give a rats a$$ about whether they will piss off some car-maker.

Magazines need to sell subscriptions, and advertising... this means they do have to care about what car makers think, and gives them incentive to sensationalize, use misleading titles, and generally just say things that grab your attention but may not be entirely accurate.

holmstar - 1/5/2009 11:25:16 PM

+1 Boost

I wouldn't be surprised, but if you watch the show you'll know how many issues Clarkson had in ordering the ford GT. With all of the delays, I doubt that was an attempt by ford to sway him.

OneOfOne - 1/12/2009 9:16:24 PM

+1 Boost

top gear is also a magazine you know. a magazine with as they would say 'adverts'.

XYZZ - 1/6/2009 6:50:48 AM

0 Boost

plz explain just how they were caught "fudgeing reports?"

CR is one of the most unbiased periodicals.

zairnaim - 1/5/2009 6:46:40 PM

+3 Boost

ChuckG37 if ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person alive:D The fact is that the Q didn't do so well so they stopped making it plain and simple! Sadly I can't be sure if that is simple enough for you to understand. I am not bashing Infiniti I actually like their cars a lot. And the LS however unentertaining it may be is very good at what it does.

LuxuryFan - 1/5/2009 11:46:19 PM

+1 Boost

The first generation Q45's cabin was nothing more a banal expanse of cheap Nissan vinyl and hard plastic surfaces -- all adorned with an impractical analog clock. It's almost a Maxima-esque affair.

Nissan's attempt to atone for such automotive atrocities resulted in each successive generation of Inifinit sedans to be adorned with swaths of fake wood paneling and low quality leather surfaces. For example take a look at an second-gen I30's cabin versus that of an second-gen ES 300.

LuxuryFan - 1/5/2009 11:54:36 PM

+3 Boost

Yes, the Q45 can be relatively expensive to maintain. The AC system, for instance, can cost several thousands to repair.

snatchandgrab - 1/8/2009 10:37:00 AM

+1 Boost

I still own and drive my 99 Q45t on a regular basis, but a 93 is expensive to maintain. I do a lot of the work myself, because I've learned over the years that I don't trust dealerships and I never visit them after the warranty is gone.

DennyCrane - 1/5/2009 6:08:56 PM

+1 Boost

ChuckG you're an idiot! The Q45 is the car that never was. A nansy pansy belt buckle instead of a grill and seats as hard as church pews. When that car launched they didn't even show pictures of it the car was so ugly. The LS spanked that car out of the gate and never looked back.

Pop goes the weasel. Denny Crane!

lexworld - 1/5/2009 11:31:49 PM

+1 Boost

ChuckyG37...Come on man. Dude you can't possibly believe the Q45 was a good machine? That thing was a piece of crap from it's conception. Now let me remind you Chucky, Nissan was going bankrupt in the 90s and was saved by Renault. They currently are Nissan/Renault,if you did'nt know. So,if I were you I would'nt let the cat out of the bag just yet. Nissan overall is likened to a modern Chrysler. Don't get me wrong here! "Infiniti does help keep hope alive"!...But it can't roll with the big Toy!

richardposluszny - 1/6/2009 2:48:08 AM

+1 Boost

I believe the automotive media provides a service for readers and that it must be kept in mind that all opinions are subjective. Ultimately, journalists provide the reader with an idea; however, it is up to the user to go out, drive and figure it out for themselves. Every car suits a particular individual's wants and needs.

XYZZ - 1/6/2009 7:10:41 AM

+2 Boost

"So the question is why did CandD do this? And why so many sites are and mags favor BMW, Honda or Toyota. Road and Track won’t give a Toyota a bad review, and Motor Trend loves BMW or at least the 3 series."


there is a mix of factors. 1) auto journalists are little different from the rest of us. they have their personal biases. 2) most periodicals are supported by advertisers. while theoretically individual writers are independent thinkers, the EDITORS can influence them to not piss off big ad buyers. 3) the cars test driven are almost universally BORROWED from the mfgr/distributor. it would not be unusual for specially optioned and/or 'prepped' units to be the ones provided to the "press fleet."

afaik, Consumer Reports is the one mass circulation publication that avoids these influences. all their test vehicles are bought outright, anonymously. their testers are auto engineers (who also WRITE like engineers, not overenthusiastic journos).

personally, i'd read as many articles in as many different mags as i could, on the car(s) i'm interested in. then, check CR for their evaluations and especially, LONG-TERM RELIABILITY assessments. (CR is unique in presenting these, based on million-plus owner reports.)

XYZZ - 1/6/2009 7:18:08 AM

+1 Boost

oh, and of course, do as many test drives as you have time for. measure whatever you read, with your OWN experiences.

and, it doesn't hurt to ask all your friends and anyone else about their personal experiences with any car you're interested in. BUT carefully WEIGH these statements. people don't readily admit they've bought a less than satisfactory vehicle.