jeremy

I just read the Evo test of the Impreza's and was not impressed. As in some of their better tests of the past, there was no mention of on-limit difficult road driving- on challenging roads with foul weather- the very aspects the Impreza tackles so well. Only mentioned was something about how the new Impreza's are not as adjustable and more prone to understeer? In their more serious moments/tests evo like to write about steering feel, predicability on the limit, progressive handling caracteristics upon a loss of grip and so on, yet its only on a few of their tests that they actualy bother to discuss these things. Obviously the Impreza test did not discuss these most 'Evo' of characteristics. I suppose its a lot easier to test cars quickly, on limited test routes and for one afternoon. Has evo succumb, and become a copy of CAR. Letting less-experienced testers lead important road tests, wrting tests of mere paragraphs in length, and creating completly flexible standards as too what they feel constitutes evoness. Too bad.

scoobynutta555

Are you Jeremy Clarckson???????????

I know what u mean, u pay nearly several quid, often just for 1 article, and you expect good quality reviews. Sometimes you cannot browse the article in the shop because of this shrink wrap fad theyve got going on where u cant get to open the mag to check review.

Then when u actually get home and have a proper read its just about some muppet trying cringingly hard to sound cool.

DavidBrown

Magazines (in general) are crap.

The masses are expected to trust/believe the views of ONE person reviewing the product (whether it be a car or a can opener) - with the backdrop of advertisers breathing down their necks.

You never know if you're reading a straight-up review, or a paid-for advertorial.

Just look at this months CCC magazine, giving the history of the Lotus.. it's not a coincidence that there is an inordinate number of Lotus related advertisers in that issue.

The number of times I've seen a so-called independent round up of products that I've been offered to appear in.. but only if I'd handed over large sums of cash.

It's a corrupt medium.

Even if a review is independent, it's not safe from the stupidity of the reviewer.

[This message has been edited by DavidBrown (edited 19 July 2001).]

davyboy

Motoring Jounalists are Tw*ts!

Make up your own minds and test drive some cars. All cars have their good and bad points. They are all trying to impress their collegues. We are not racing drivers (most) and drive on the road most of the time. Grrrrrrrr.

I once read a BMW 750 has no point! I think its bloody great car.

But unfortunately most of us are at some point swayed by what we read.

jeremy

I think that Evo (specifically John Barker and Richard Meaden)are capable of some great writing and the very best descriptive analysis of how cars handle in varying conditions. In fact, the idea about not relying on car scribes is to my mind not fair. I think that indeed we must rely on the very most trained and experienced of road testers to experience cars in the kind of demanding conditions, that no test drive would allow a mere consumer access to.
Its just that objectivity and consistency must be used. If cars are not rated against a uniform set of standards and compared with each other from these, then all road tests amount to are random remarks about, "too much over/under steer, direct steering, great bodycontrol". These very basic statments made in isolation, mean almost nothing if not in relation to the best in the same set of conditions with the same driver or similar aboard.
Why is it that so many other products(aircraft, electronics, computers, tires, crash tests, etc.) can be tested with consistent and contextualized ratings, while car scribes still feel they can so casually rate cars?
Cars do exhibit readily identifiable traits that can be measured and felt and compared with other like machines, (and so improved upon by manufacturers in future product evolutions), its just not easy to do.

Josh L

With respect, I don't think the article was ever intended to be an ultimate handling test. It was intended as a comparison test, which is somewhat different.

I might me biased, as it was my P1, but I thought it was a well balanced article, which conveyed the essence of the cars.

After all, there have been countless tests of RB5's and P1's, and I can see little point in an in-depth review of a Japanese version of a car which is likely to be different to the one that appears in the UK next year.

Josh

jeremy

Josh,
While I do understand that this test was not an ultimate handling test, there really are some important aspects about the new Impreza that need to be worked out. Yes, Evo have done a excellent job of describing the handling characteristics of the older Impreza's, however it is how the new Impreza compares to this hallmark car that now matters.
A few months back when the new Impreza was introduced John Barker took one to compare with the previous MY00 Impreza. On this test he concluded that he was not confident in the feel the new car gave of the surface below, therefore limiting his ability to press on and keep up with the well-driven older car ahead.
So it was with some suspense that I awaited a well thought out formal comparison test, to seek to confirm or overturn Mr. Barker's initial impression.

With acclimation would the 01' or the better shod Uk300, or firmer sti, utilize their greater rigidity and fresher technical spec, to prove to Mr. Barker that over time the fingertips and seat of ones pants might get used to the softer responses and allow these cars to be driven just as fast and with similar confidence? Might they be just as predicable and progressive in their slides and possibly even better able to resist being thrown off line in the first place? Certainly Subaru have improved the Impreza in some respects, which ones?
What was called for was a hard charging test, over a few days in challenging conditions, to make the critical judgment that all Impreza fans seek to know-and as of yet have yet to be told, and that is..on a demanding road in convoy how does the new Impreza follow the old? What specificaly are its strenghs and weaknesses in specific conditions?
If the Impreza was the car of the decade, then lets find out how exactly its next of kin measures up. (Now sadly, the test is over and it is unlikly another will be done to firmly settle this matter.)

Josh L

Jeremy,

Whilst I understand what you're getting at, I think most mags would be reluctant to go through the same tests yet again with the older cars.

Personally, I think they are very different cars, with their own charcteristics. Better in some areas, worse in others. But at the end of the day it's all subjective. What was given was a report based on a back to back test of the four cars during the day out of one and straight into the next), the author having had the advantage of driving the UK300 for the best part of a week leading up to the test.

I know they had been at MIRA the day before doing some tests with the UK300, so it's possible that there might be a more detailed report due in a future edition.

Josh

Gridlock Mikey

Call me biased if you like, but i'm getting quite naffed off with EVO's constant quips/adverts about the Clio 172 which "...saw off even the Impreza WRX in our EPR test".

There are 4 seperate references to this in this issue alone

I'd like to see it put up against a UK spec to see what the outcome would be.

I often have my mates state this "Giant slaying feat" and i'm getting bored of trying to tell them that the wrx is VERY different to my MY00.

You never know if you're reading a straight-up review, or a paid-for advertorial.

Makes you think don't it?

Rant Over


MIKEY

p.s it's still the best mag out there though

GaryC

What a fickle bunch you/'we' are

Let me get this right, if they said the Impreza was a fantastic car (as they have in the past), couldn't be faulted and was THE best car in the real world - It would have been heralded it as a tremendous piece of accurate motoring journalism. But because they picked fault with our beloved Impreza, they are now crap at writing?? Come on lads - get a grip As mentioned above - drive the cars yourself and make your own mind up Test drives are free, but the experiance can be priceless


The objectivity and consistency arguement is not really valid. Times change, expectations change and we change. What was THE car 5 years ago, will not still be THE car today, as everything (technology/competitors/expectations etc) have moved on for 5 years.

I can remember a test of the Ferrari 355 just as the 360 came out written to prove this very point. When launched, the motoring press heralded it as the best car in the world. Ultimate handling, (near)Ultimate speed, Ultimate looks etc etc. As it was being fazed out, they tested one alongside a 360, and compared to that, it looked/felt/drove etc very old and was no-where near the best car in the world. The car was the same, even the tester was the same (I think it was John Barker), but as newer and in certain areas, better cars had come out, the 355 suddenly looked and felt its age Not that we all still wouldn't kill to own one

matt d

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jeremy:
<B>I just read the Evo test of the Impreza's and was not impressed. As in some of their better tests of the past, there was no mention of on-limit difficult road driving- on challenging roads with foul weather- the very aspects the Impreza tackles so well. Only mentioned was something about how the new Impreza's are not as adjustable and more prone to understeer? In their more serious moments/tests evo like to write about steering feel, predicability on the limit, progressive handling caracteristics upon a loss of grip and so on, yet its only on a few of their tests that they actualy bother to discuss these things. Obviously the Impreza test did not discuss these most 'Evo' of characteristics. I suppose its a lot easier to test cars quickly, on limited test routes and for one afternoon. Has evo succumb, and become a copy of CAR. Letting less-experienced testers lead important road tests, wrting tests of mere paragraphs in length, and creating completly flexible standards as too what they feel constitutes evoness. Too bad.[/quote]

The cars in the article have already been extensively tested e.g. RB5 in their 4x4 group test, P1 in best driver's car in the real world group test, RB5 in Evo car of the year 99, P1 in Evo car of the year 2000, new STi vs Evo VII article, WRX tested in the Evo Performance Rating issue, and all 4 cars have been given a brief review in "Driven" as far as I recall. It would be expensive, and simply repetitive and pointless for Evo to conduct the same tests (e.g. 0-60, 0-100, TED, on-limit handling round a track, extensive real world driving etc) repeatedly on the same cars every time an article is written about them. Given they have already made many comments about the on limit handling of the cars, they probably expect the readers to know that already, and instead concentrate on adding something new (i.e. how do the cars feel when driven back to back in a comparison?).

As for objectivity in car reviews: 0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile times, along with braking times/distances, TED and so on are obviously pretty objective measures, as are weight, power & torque measurements, and so on. But cars are not just the sum of a bunch of power-to-weight ratios and 0-60 times though - things like steering feel, handling, engine note, build quality, throttle response and many other subjective factors all add up to make a good car, and you can't measure that scientifically. It is like reviewing hi-fi - there are objective measurements of performance, but they tell you little; what it comes down to is a subjective view of the quality of the thing being tested.

Lastly, to those who doubt the journalists integrity - do you have any evidence of "paid for advertorials" at Evo? They've always struck me as being very impartial.

Chins

I have to agree with Jeremy on this. Not just because I drive a UK300 . Whilst the article is reasonably fair, I would of liked to see a PPP MY01 EPR tested. EVO harp on about it so much, why not subject the UK300 to it ?. In fact I dont think we have ever seen one for the P1. The same issue shows the EPR testing nearly every other car featured. I dont live and die by an EPR rating, but then I am sceptical of some of the words/sentences.

EVO can use some very creative language and be prone to BS.

<B>This road appears as a simple squiggle on my atlas but amongst its many corners is one particularly demanding, long, long left hander. It starts shallow, gradually tightens up to a very late apex, and then the sting in the tail, a visious hollow. We spear into it purposefully, going hard in third. In ost cars you take a confidence lift, but not when your steering an EVO VI. It was made for this corner. And besides its got an STI V up its chuff.

Already loaded up with lateral g-force, the EVO hits the apex and its tail squats heavily into the compression. Theres a faint bang and a faint poping noise. The feedback from the rear suspension goes odly numb as the bump stops become momentarily into play., but then we are powering out, glued on line. A glance in the mirror: the STI is still right there. </B>


Great journalism taken from the EVO VI vs STI V in April 99. Only problem is, I was the driver of the STI V. I cant remember it quite like that Mr Barker can take the honour for the above. When Mr Barker pushed it he would leave me for dead. In fact he was as fast as me on the same section of road in the Honda HRV.

Going back to the EVO article. Having owned an RB5 WR, P1 and now the UK300, I certianly would not rate the RB5 above the UK300. On a par at best. As a drivers car the P1 was certainly better than both the RB5 and my UK300. Looking forward to seeing the UK STI/P2 next year. A new King will be born ?

jeremy

I'll clarify one last time.
I believe that road testers need to establish coherent and consistent parameters for the testing of road cars handling characteristics. And while I have no problem with magazines using specific tests to measure acceleration, cornering force, overall grip and time exposed to danger, braking etc.- these are not, I repeat, not, complete tests of handling!
Journalists mistakenly think they can conveniently claim that because a car does well in a specific set of grip, braking, skidpad and track timed tests, that this can adequately describe how a car handles. This is simply taking the easy way out, and is simply not the case. In fact when asked to truly measure how cars handle-as in so many ultimate handling tests, testers themselves revert to many subjective judgements- rightly so. However it is my contention that these subjective feelings, or senses, are not wholly a matter of gut reaction or opinion- they are real.
What a car does, and how it communicates this to its driver, when it is traveling upon a downhill section of wet road and encounters a sharp curve is observable. Some cars may travel this section of road at similar speeds but with different slip angles-some requiring more or less corrective action with either the throttle or steering. Cars may slip differently- some losing grip all at once, others (which as Mr. Barker loves to reiterate, he feels handle best such as the M5 3.8) losing grip in slow-motion. And indeed many cars clearly provide an indication that they are nearing their limit, by slightly over or under steering, or merely going light in the steering- while other cars provide no indication what-so-ever. This is not mystical, this is driving a group of closely matched cars through demanding roads and being vigilant enough to notice what they do on different types of roads. Again, this type of testing is hard to do, what with deadlines, limited budgets etc, however it is eminently possible and the only way to paint a complete picture of how a car handles both the road and its driver.

GaryC

Remember the first fast-ish car you drove amd how perfect it seemed? How much lower do you think your opinion would be now having driven *real* performance cars.

The first fast-ish I drove was a Mk2 Golf GTi 16v (driving instructors car). It seemed so fast, so responsive, so communicative, gave awesome grip and mid-range grunt. Turn-in seemed instantaneous and brakes felt like F1 stoppers. Drove one again 10 years later and it felt like a barge. Does that mean I was wrong to think what I did when I first drove it?? No, I have just got more experiance, and now higher standards.

Similar thing with Imprezas. When I first drove a Std MY98 I thought it was awesome and would happily of waxed lyrically (in true car mag style) about how it was probably the best car around. I have since driven far *better* imprezas (P1, MY99PPP, STi in various levels of tune), and when I drove a friends MY98 it felt slow, and handled poorly, understeered like a dog etc etc. What I am saying is - Times change


If you want pure facts about a car, just read the tech spec 'box' at the end of the road test. If you want the testers opinion, take it as his opinion nothing else. If he has just leapt out of a Ferrari, then the scoob will feel soft and disappointing!

It does seem that as soon as a journo slates our beloved Scooby, they are labelled as crap, inconsistant etc etc. A large number of these journos are VERY accomplished drivers, and would rings round 99% of us on this board. Steve Sutcliffe, Messers Barker and Meaden et. al. are all far more qualified to test cars than we give them credit for - indeed, many of the motoring manufacturers use them as consultants to help develop new cars, and especially perfromance models!

As I said before - drive them yourself and make your own mind up. Good car mags (EVO is still the best) give a great insight into a car, but my opinion of cars having driven them always slightly differs from theirs!