BUYER BEWARE! A LOT Of Reviewers You Read Don't Even Own A Car Themselves! How WRONG Is THAT?

There's an old saying: "You don't have to be a watchmaker to know what time it is."

So someone who doesn't own a car *can* write a valuable car review, but that doesn't mean that everyone will. As soon as we allow ourselves to blindly embrace another's view as our own "reality," we short-circuit our Critical Thinking, and we become lesser beings for it. In such situations, it's common to blame others for what they said and wrote, rather than ourselves for our lack of critical think or due diligence.

Amen TheSteve Amen

You two, stop making sense! It's skewing my rudimentary value system ;)

A lot of people review cars for a living and are pretty good at it. They have a systematic and arguably objective take. They can't possibly own every car they review.

Vice-versa, owning a car can make people jaded, take the car for granted and have them concentrate on the negative aspects without appreciating what it has to offer.

So lets see. A reviewer is lent a new model every week by manufacturers to live with and test or is flown somewhere exotic to test new vehicles on a regular basis. Why wouldn't this qualify him to give an educated review on a specific car even though he may not own a car himself? Works for me.

For the simple reason that the person has no experience with the vehicle over time. Most new cars seem great because they are new, but when you live with them, their "flaws" come to the surface.

Aside from that, I say go for it.

And if this 'reviewer' has no idea what it's like to go choose a car, pay with their own $$$ and actually experience what's really happening out there from a customer perspective then it's impossible for him/her to rate a vehicle correctly because price/features/dealer experience are just as important as the actual drive of a car.

And you cannot relate to the actual buyers of these cars because you do not understand their needs or the needs of the markets at large.

It's great to be in love with a Tesla for a week, but a whole other thing to recommend it for an audience you do not know or can relate to.

That is why we stick to the premium and up and comer in our reviews. Because all of us here are REAL customers of the products and in the end our review of the car is more important than the writer living in NYC with not a dime in their pocket riding the rails as their regular mode of transportation.

NO ONE will EVER work for AutoSpies.com who doesn't OWN a car. PERIOD. If you have NO skin in the game, YOU'RE FIRED.

001

The issue is if I don't own a car I can't live without the cars sent from companies to review. If I write bad reviews I don't get a car from them, so if I'm smart I focus on the good qualities and over look all the ugly. There is a serious conflict of interest.

Get a POS VW Golf for the in between days. They are dirt cheap these days.

One does not need to own a car in order to be knowledgeable on cars. I could literally drive a new car every three months and never own one. Although I recently threw down large for a new car, during the past 3 years I did not own a new vehicle.

The vehicle I bought, I will keep long term.

Granted, if I were a reviewer, I would bristle at not being able to be candid with my observations.

I guess it depends on the sort of review written. I don't think a Consumer Report reviewer needs to be passionate about cars to assemble a technical review and provide a good opinion about an appliance.

On the other hand, if I'm reading a debate about whether to opt on a GT3 RS or a Speciale and the review is purely numeric without imparting the subtle tradeoffs that someone with track experience, for example, offers, then I lose interest. And I find it hard to believe that someone who has this sort of experience or passion would not want to own a car that delivers on the promise every morning.

Heck, I can't wait to go to work every morning just to drive the dang things! :)

I also realize many racers aren't passionate about cars. however, that's typically true during their racing careers. Most of them go on to drive 'pretty nice wheels' as opposed to basic transportation (or being chauffeured around) once that careers are over. Of course, part of that is because they can afford it but I'd like to believe that it's also because they can appreciate the benefits.

Anyway, intellectually, I'd rather believe that I share common traits with the reviewer... :)

Auto Media has become unreliable, dishonest and clueless.

Ironic that autopsies has this post.
I noticed that worldcarfans has spy pics of the new C-class convertible and Hyundia Ionic. Carscoops has great spy pics of the Continental.
Autospies has this article....or and the Infiniti.

Autospies tends to be very National Enquirer and all "tabloidy" than substantive, grounded reporting, but that's why we like it. Autospies is like Little Caesar's pizza pizza. We love it, but no one would call it gourmet.

Thankfully, Autospies is not deadly dull like Left Lane which is so boring that I couldn't get past its feed of articles for more than a few days before giving up.

Meh, I could care less if an automotive journalist owns a car or not. A journalist could own a VW Beetle and review exotic cars all day, does that make him/her any more credible or any less credible?

What I look for when reading reviews of cars is consistency. More red flags go up for me when I see multiple reviews on the same car and very divergent opinions. In some cases, it could be situations of flat-out bias, or "bought" reviews. There are definitely some brands out there where I see divergent opinions on a fairly consistent basis, so I actually tend to stay from those brands now (no, I won't name names).

I would like to respond to Agent 001's comment. I'm also an automotive journalist and, well, I was the one who helped stir up this debate.

Here are my thoughts:

I've been thinking about your comment for a day or so and I'd like to add some additional thoughts.

1. Quite a few PR reps, company executives and manufacturing employees don't own new vehicles. I know, my dad was a GM engineer for 37 years and 20 of those years he didn't own a vehicle. Why? He was told not too. Instead, he was given a vehicle from their fleet and asked to put miles on it. Two reasons for this - 1. he could evaluate the product and look for ways to improve it. 2. these vehicles became certified pre-owned vehicles which helped stock dealers lots.

If then, company employees don't own vehicles, how can we expect journalists to own vehicles.

2. There is a certain amount of bias that comes from owning a vehicle. For example, my last new vehicle I bought was a 2013 Toyota Tundra. I was (and still am) working for Tundraheadquarters, so it made sense for me to own a vehicle being it is an enthusiast site. However, this created many problems writing for other sites since people saw me as being biased towards Toyota. In fact, if you read the comments on say Pickuptrucks.com or Truck Trend, you will still see that bias opinion stand out. For as much as owning the vehicle may have helped me, it definitely hurt me long term.

3. I own two vehicles - a 1963 International C1200 and a 1999 Honda CR-V. Referencing either of these vehicles in a review would be asinine.

4. You talk about the buying experience and long-term ownership. However, everyone's experience there is different. Also, how do either of those things matter in a review of the current model and trim level of a vehicle. While reviewing a truck, should I bring up my experience with my local dealer? Who does that benefit? Also, we all know you can still buy a lemon these days. I had a few quality issues with my last vehicle. Should I call the automaker out for issues on a pre-production vehicle? That isn't really fair is it since it the vehicle is pre-production and its issues may not be representative of the rest of the vehicles produced.

5. Who then owns new vehicles? Look around and really dig. None of the major outlets probably do. They have long-term testers that they need to put miles on.

Finally, and not really a point, but I sold my Tundra 2 years after buying it. Why? It sat and sat and sat around. I spent $700 a month on a vehicle that I put less than 100 miles a month on. In fact, I went 6-8 weeks without putting any miles on it. Who's the bigger idiot then? The journalist who doesn't own a new car or the one who is sending in hundreds of dollars in payments for the vehicle to sit there which we all know isn't good for vehicles to sit.

Agree with your points.

It's also interesting at the dealer level especially if a holding company has its fingers in multiple dealers.