DRIVEN: Is This LA Times Review Of Luxury Diesel Sedans Spot On Or Giving Weight To The WRONG Things?

Being a critic or a reviewer isn't exactly the easiest thing in the world. Sure, scribes and presenters are provided with free wheels and get to live the jet-set life, but you have to remember that there is a price to pay. No, not your dignity. The part about testing products no one talks about is having to put your neck on the line and "do the right thing."

That's probably because no one really does it anymore. That's another story for another day, though.

**Read Agent00R's luxury diesel sedan showdown HERE!

The Los Angeles Times recently concluded testing of luxury diesel sedans. And, wouldn't you know, it's essentially the same exact test I conducted. The only difference is I was provided an Audi A7 TDI and not the A6 TDI.

After reading the review though I find it a bit, well, peculiar. Instead of weighting fuel economy and price into the equation — why else would you buy a diesel (?) — it seems the LA Times writer is looking for a vehicle with performance intentions. Why else would a 28 mpg earning 535d get the nod over the 29 mpg besting A6 and accomplished 35 mpg of the E-Class?

So, I have to ask: is this reviewer REALLY doing good work here or is this some sort of BMWphile lovefest going on here?

**Check out the FULL LA Times review by clicking "Read Article" below!

...The 535d starts at $57,525, but our tester piled on an additional $8,900 worth of relatively mundane options. But for all that coin, the car still doesn't have a backup camera or parking sensors, which is silly considering they seem to be standard on everything but tricycles now.

But even with the stress of parking by feel, this is the diesel sedan we'd choose. It's exactly the kind of ambassador that diesel cars need to show how power and efficiency can live together happily...

Read Article

610looper - 7/29/2014 9:28:12 AM

+5 Boost

So the BMW was the least fuel efficient, lacked atleast a backup camera & sensor, but still had $9k in options, is slower than the Audi, yet the review never stated what stood out for the BMW to win.....oh it did have a panoramic moonroof..

MattDarringer - 7/29/2014 10:08:05 AM

0 Boost

LA Times??? It's a vapid newspaper to begin with...

CarCrazedinCali - 7/29/2014 12:54:11 PM

+3 Boost

I have always had an affinity with BMW for marrying performance with luxury and recently for their balance of power and fuel economy, seems the writer of the article likes this about the BMW. I fully agree that BMW needs to get with the times a bit with offering better standard features.

gkearns56 - 7/29/2014 1:10:32 PM

+5 Boost

@CarCraze: Now you know why I left them; plus they need to get rid of those gosh awful run-flat tires. They ride rougher and last about 1/3 less miles. Just give me a good Performance Tire please.

CarCrazedinCali - 7/29/2014 5:56:32 PM

0 Boost

I quite like my RFTs on my MINI and BMW actually, it's like insurance, sucks to pay for it but when you need it it is a godsent. no exageration)A rock put a hole in my tire nearly the entire height of the tire's profile and same width (about 3 by 3 inches) and I just kept driving and didn't lose control going 70+mph on the highway.

ChiAutoGuy - 7/29/2014 3:45:18 PM

+3 Boost

So what is this - Some sort of Automobile Journalism Cat Fight?

@gkearns56 - Get rid of those RFT's, put on some nice performance tires and the BMW's become a whole new car - I have no idea why BMW sticks with the RFTs

MorePower - 7/29/2014 6:54:09 PM

0 Boost

Both reviews are poorly written, but YOUR(agent 00r) ARTICLE IS WORSE!!!

Both articles suffer many mistakes, but agent00r's suffers more for its poor use of language and horrible formatting.

The agent's poor choice of tone is not only distracting, but costs the writer credibility. There is no place for works like "helluva", "skinny", "chutzpah" or "swagger" in a professional review. It comes across as if you 1: Don't know who your audience is 2: Trying to be too topical and conversational with your audience to the point that you lose credibility.

Formatting was considerably better in the LA Times article. The LA Times article was presented in the tone of a "well" written business report. It was comprised of an executive summary that concisely gave the reader the outcome of his analysis and then went deeper into that analysis for the respective cars, with a somewhat perceived bias towards MB over Audi. The agent unsuccessfully tries to accomplish this but fails. The agent's report states a conclusion that is based upon mpg efficiency. Instead of following upon that theme by adding additional facts in the long-form of the article, the agent wanders through other basis of judgement for the cars, ranging from performance and fit/finish to perceived quality and price; with further inclusions of poor language choices. If all of these factors: performance, feel, price, fit & finish, etc.; are determining factors used to evaluate a car, why is the executive summary based on MPG only?

The agent's article also suffers from using too many pictures, from the press packet(s). This is definitely a place where an editor is sorely needed. While the La Times article has its flaws, including poor word usage and a perception that it was written on the basis of quick marketing analysis of its subscribers than actually basing the article on a pure journalistic endeavor, it is still consistent in tone, formatting and function.

Agent00R - 7/29/2014 10:46:45 PM

+1 Boost

Well, you know what they say about opinions...

Thank you for the advice, I will be sure not to take it.

MorePower - 7/30/2014 3:13:07 AM

0 Boost

Take or not, I don't care.

Your review was bad. If you can not take criticism, you should have not offered it up for comparison. My points were valid on both articles. Both were bad, one was worse.

Agent00R - 7/30/2014 7:09:10 AM

+2 Boost

@morepower

Considering you've never submitted anything you're opinion is worth shit.

In addition, a lot of folks found it useful.

Agent00R - 7/30/2014 7:13:00 AM

+2 Boost

In addition, I wasn't asking whose was "better" by your definition.

I was asking who's telling the right story. It looks like this was a hack job influenced by a PR team.

MorePower - 7/30/2014 7:51:01 PM

0 Boost

@ agent00r

Your argument is very wrong. By your logic, because you have never built a hybrid vehicle, you have no basis to judge the quality of another manufacturer's product.

One does not have to write an article to asses the flaws or quality of that article.

The fact that a person, or group of people, judged the article to be useful or enjoyable does not validate or qualify the quality or helpfulness of that article.

MorePower - 8/5/2014 5:06:55 PM

+1 Boost

Being down voted for the truth, got to love autospies.com!