Busting the myths and misconceptions of car reviews

Today we’re going to learn how to read a car review. I’m aware that this has the potential to sound incredibly condescending. After all, if you’re reading this – in print or online – there’s every chance you’re well versed in motoring journalism. However, this is an opportunity to explain how reviews are constructed from our end and perhaps clear up some misconceptions that exist.

In its purest form the motoring media shouldn’t deliver a ‘verdict’ on any car. Our job should be to observe and report, free from judgement and untainted by bias, and leave it up to you, the reader, to formulate a verdict based on your own personal preferences. An early lesson from my mentor Nathan Ponchard, formerly Deputy Editor at the MOTOR parish, clearly explained this: “It’s not about what you like or don’t like.”

If a motoring journalist is doing his or her job properly, they should have no problem with giving a car they hate 10/10 and, conversely, panning a car they love. For example: if I have a philosophical objection to electric vehicles (I don’t, but for the sake of argument) it shouldn’t stop me recognising the brilliance of the Porsche Taycan. Likewise, I might personally feel like front-wheel drive is stupid and never want to own one (also not the case), but that shouldn’t prevent the Ford Fiesta ST or Honda Civic Type R from getting top marks.

3

The problem with this is y’all want verdicts. A score is an oversimplification, distilling all that’s good and bad about a car into a single number, but it’s also easy to understand at a glance, preventing the need for further time-consuming investigation (i.e. actually reading the review). It also makes for great pub argument fodder: Car X scored 7 and Car Y scored 8, ergo Car Y is better.

If only it were that simple. The trouble is people’s buying criteria are as diverse as the car offerings themselves, so attempting to put a one-size-fits-all score on that car is effectively a hiding to nothing. As a silly example, the Porsche 992 911 GT3 is one of the most amazing driving machines ever built, but if your buying priorities are seating for five, fuel economy and a long warranty then it gets 0/10.

The best we can do is evaluate cars on “performance of intended function”. This is the central tenet to how we approach reviews: how successfully does this car do what it’s intended to? And if people bought on rational, objective grounds, it would probably suffice. This is rarely the case.

3

I’ll provide a personal example. Let’s wind back a few years and consider the Jaguar F-Type R (the RWD V8) and the Porsche 911 Carrera S (991-series). Professionally, it’s a slam dunk victory for the 911. It’s as quick in a straight line as the Jag, superior in corners with better braking, steering, handling and traction, rides better, is more economical, has more boot space and the option of rear seats for small kids. Personally? I’d buy the F-Type. I love the way it looks, the way it sounds and the way it’s hilariously traction-limited, oversteering at the drop of a hat. So which is the better car?

Remember this when reading a review, whether it be a single-car or a comparison. Firstly, actually read it, rather than just looking at the score. Yes, there will be a verdict, but it doesn’t need to be YOUR verdict. If the piece is written well it should provide you with all the information you need about the car – what it does well, what it does poorly, its price, its performance, its features – but you need to view that information through your own lens.

Don’t mind a firm ride? Discount the criticism about ride quality. Got an unlimited fuel budget? Ignore the section on fuel economy. Apply your own verdict. Then leave a comment telling us we’re wrong anyway.