Re: Crap & Drivel (tm) Station Wagon Review

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

On Sun, 4 Feb 1996 CTDreher@aol.com wrote:

> I simply have to weigh-in on the trashing Car and Driver took in this
> newsgroup about the comparison between the A6Q, BMW525i and Volvo 850 Turbo
> wagons. 

oho, so it was the hot volvo vs. the tame bimmer and audi?  ok, now i can
see why there's grounds for bashing....  can you say "rigged from the
outset"?  (sorry, i didn't realize it was the turbo volvo they were
using)

> For those who have not read the article, the final tally was Volvo
> 92, Audi 91, BWM 86.

and what is this supposed to imply?  that engine and chassis is as
important as cupholders?  this adding up points BS is another reason
why it's Crap and Drivel (tm).  they should have a separate category
for cupholders alone.  why should all these various categories be
equally important as the other categories?

>  C&D loved the Audi but gave the Volvo the nod because
> its 222 bhp/221 ft-lb engine gave it a substantial performance edge.  They
> complained that the Audi is slow.
> 
> Folks, it IS slow.  Really slow.  0-60 in 10.7, vs 7.8 for the Volvo.

that's not the point.  the point is that it was an apples to oranges
comparison.  there is a non turbo volvo wagon that would have been a
fairer comparison.  when i read a Crap and Drivel (tm) comparison
test, i always come away with the feeling that their rankings were
rigged right from the beginning and that the entire test is just a
total sham to "justify" their rankings.  why?  because they are not
even marginally convincing or persuasive.  that's why some people
get upset.  me, i just get a good laugh....

> PLEASE, no more garbage about not-knowing how to drive the car or use the
> engine.  Acceleration testing doesn't take an Andretti to master.  172 hp in
> a 3800 lb car is simply not enough.

i agree with you on this.
 
> The fault does not lie with C&D.  It belongs with Audi's STUPID marketing
> division that refused to bring the 5-speed wagon into the USA.

the s6 wagon should also have been imported with slush.  it's 3 years
too late and still missing the mark.  if it's any consolation, piech
fired a boatload of AOA executives not that long ago.

> For those who argued that they should have chosen the S6 for the test, that
> model is way out of their target price range for the comparison test. 

no, splitting hairs over price is a totally bogus concept.  here's why:

1) nobody pays MSRP.  every car can be discounted to varying degrees,
so you won't really know which one will cost more in real life.  the
A6 can be gotten with huge discounts.. if we use the street price and
get anal over street price, does this eliminate the a6's weaknesses?
absolutely not.  the a6 slush has a performance problem that is
completely independent of how much it costs.

2) when you are in the $40K range, you are not buying basic
transportation.  where's the evidence that somebody in this market
segment is going to let a couple of grand sway his decision?  
yes, the s6 should at least be mentioned.

3) if someone is buying these cars used, a price biased report becomes
totally useless.  3 years from now how valuable is this test report?
as useless as it is now.

> In
> fact, one of the big reasons the BMW finished last was that BMW sent them a
> car loaded with $6k worth of options (to $46K!) and they didn't feel that car
> was worth the money.

that's Crap and Drivel (tm) at its finest.  you mean to say that just because
they tested a car with $6K worth of options, somebody cannot go out there
and buy the 525i WITHOUT those options?  why should this influence the
test results in any way?

nah, it was just BMW's turn to come in last.  i bet this is nothing
but a prelude to an upcoming test of either the new 5 or 7 series or
maybe the 328i where it will be god's gift to the automotive world.

this test could have gone any which way depending on the direction of
the wind.  they can so easily say that the volvo's performance
advantage is useless because it can't put down the power in the wet
like the audi can... the goalposts constantly shift.  there's never a
consistent criteria that you can rely on when you read their scam
tests.

i have in the past predicted successfully Crap and Drivel's (tm)
pattern of "results".  mark my words above.  there will soon be a
volvo tested soon against either a lexus or acura and the volvo will
be trounced.

wasn't there a highly critical review of a slush A4 followed by a
differently configured A4 in their 10 best?  hahahahahahahaha

> So, the A6 was slowest, handled worst, stopped longest, and got the poorest
> gas mileage.  Seems to me we were lucky it placed second!

you have to wonder why it wasn't last...  it really has nothing to do with
the cars themselves, does it?

> But the
> article was fair.

and i have a bridge in brooklyn for sale....  really cheep...  offer ends
end of this month... :) :) :)

Crap and Drivel (tm).   JUST SAY NO.

ciao,


eliot