Vid Review: 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt SS

[91 s-10baja]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

By that I mean that they aren't getting caught up in the little details or the nitty-gritty that some reviews get into -- and by extension possibly passed poor judgement or given a negative review in the process.

For example, cars have gotten so good in recent years that folks seem to complain about smaller and smaller details just to have something to complain about. Otherwise, it would be purely a subjective reason to make a purchase (I like the way it looks) rather than an objective one (it runs like crap).

I remember reading a 7 way mid-sized/family car comparison in one of the US monthly car magazines where the Aura finished mid-pack. They had a few legit gripes (4-speed auto on the base I4, 'noisey' I4, etc) - but then they spent a paragraph and a half complaining about the truck hatch. It seems they hated reaching low to pull up the truck when you opened it with the remote control. They would have preferred a truck that springs open immediately, etc.

It seemed their biggest complain -- and the car finished lower in the pack than some main competitors.

Now this is somewhat simplistic, but when your biggest gripe is that you have fingerprint marks on the truck-lid b/c it didn't "pop open high enough" for you, then you're basically getting off easy. Compared to cars in the past and real legit complaints regarding poor build quality, poor materials, etc we almost have it too good when all we have to b-tch about is trucklids and fingerprints.

This review, by comparison, wasn't really like that. It seemed to be more of an "everyday" comparison in that any average joe could have possibly done it. It was less nit-picky and more "real world". It wasn't focused on the number of cup holders or if a single piece of interior trim destroyed the whole ambiance of the cockpit, etc. That's kind of what I meant and why I liked it.

If you've ever read car-reviews on www.familycar.com they are much more like this -- less cliche BS and more real world feel.

Just my two cents....

Got it, so you are about the opinions of the details! Me too I suppose, but I like that on this review there was a lot of driving footage form outside and from w/i the cabin! Familycar is pretty basic IMO

[nadepalma]

Originally Posted by 91 s-10baja

Got it, so you are about the opinions of the details! Me too I suppose, but I like that on this review there was a lot of driving footage form outside and from w/i the cabin! Familycar is pretty basic IMO

Family Car is basic, but I think it has its place as well -- even, if as you say, it's rather bare bones.

I agree, the more footage the better.

Yeah, my response to people's opinions are based alot on how they derive them themselves. If the details dont match, I dont pay attention to it as much or just use it as an example of what's wrong with journalism, etc. The example of the Aura is a prime case of this. It isnt' a bad car by any stretch -- but something so small counting for so much gets to you after awhile...

[Ach]

Originally Posted by nadepalma

By that I mean that they aren't getting caught up in the little details or the nitty-gritty that some reviews get into -- and by extension possibly passed poor judgement or given a negative review in the process.

For example, cars have gotten so good in recent years that folks seem to complain about smaller and smaller details just to have something to complain about. Otherwise, it would be purely a subjective reason to make a purchase (I like the way it looks) rather than an objective one (it runs like crap).

I remember reading a 7 way mid-sized/family car comparison in one of the US monthly car magazines where the Aura finished mid-pack. They had a few legit gripes (4-speed auto on the base I4, 'noisey' I4, etc) - but then they spent a paragraph and a half complaining about the truck hatch. It seems they hated reaching low to pull up the truck when you opened it with the remote control. They would have preferred a truck that springs open immediately, etc.

It seemed their biggest complain -- and the car finished lower in the pack than some main competitors.

Now this is somewhat simplistic, but when your biggest gripe is that you have fingerprint marks on the truck-lid b/c it didn't "pop open high enough" for you, then you're basically getting off easy. Compared to cars in the past and real legit complaints regarding poor build quality, poor materials, etc we almost have it too good when all we have to b-tch about is trucklids and fingerprints.

This review, by comparison, wasn't really like that. It seemed to be more of an "everyday" comparison in that any average joe could have possibly done it. It was less nit-picky and more "real world". It wasn't focused on the number of cup holders or if a single piece of interior trim destroyed the whole ambiance of the cockpit, etc. That's kind of what I meant and why I liked it.

If you've ever read car-reviews on www.familycar.com they are much more like this -- less cliche BS and more real world feel.

Just my two cents....

Very good post. I remember the review to which you refer, it was by Car and Driver. As you said, they went on and on about the Aura's trunk release but gave the top-ranked Accord a complete pass on the fact that it had by far the longest stopping distance in the comparo.