Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: The best free automotive info. I've found anywhere.
From: R. Carter

I just wanted to say thanks for the valuable info that your [site] offers to its readers — for free!

As my wife and I recently purchased a '02 Pathfinder SE, we were ready with information regarding the car's pricing and equipment (both standard and optional), as well as the manner in which the Pathfinder compared to its competitors. While both your individual car reviews and your class-comparison tests proved to be incredibly beneficial, I think that your comparison tests may prove to be the most applicable source of information just about anywhere for anyone considering a specific type of vehicle (e.g. family sedan, midsize SUV, economy car, etc.). My wife and I were looking for a car-like SUV for its nimble ride, power, 4wd, and storage capabilities. Your SUV comparison test hit it on the nose!

The only two improvements that I might humbly suggest regards the TMV pricing, as well as reviewing a car's reliability. Specifically, I was able to get a much lower price on the Pathfinder by using information specific to the car's invoice pricing (including invoice pricing for option packages, fees, etc.) than I would have if I had solely relied on the TMV (I would have payed over $1500 more!). I realize that the TMV suggests what most consumers are paying for a specific vehicle, which is very nice to know. But the best educated (and perhaps more aggressive) consumers should almost always be able to do better than the TMV (excluding the luxury and performance brands). In addition, for those who plan on purchasing (instead of leasing) and care and keeping it for 100,000+ miles, reliability is an absolutely "vital" concern. While I know that most automotive manufacturers have increased the overall reliability of their vehicles, there are still certain vehicles that excel. While you usually comment on a car's overall assembly/build quality, more attention to the car's history of reliability would be very useful. Even if the difference seems somewhat insignificant, over the course of 10+ years, the cost of owning a car with average reliability vs. an extremely reliable car could potentially mean thousands of dollars!


Subject: True Cost to Own Feature
From: T. Andreson

Whoever thought this little gem up is a genius. This is probably the most helpful thing I have ever seen in regards to buying a car. Bravo.


Subject: VW Passat W8
From: S. Binau

First off, congrats on having the best car resource on the web. Your site continues to impress and improve, with great reviews and information. It has helped tremendously in my car shopping and buying. Keep it up!

I wanted to comment about your first drive article of the Volkswagen Passat W8. While it is obvious how much you adore the Passat, I think it is a little much to be touting this thing anymore as a family sedan. Nobody I know will be shelling out 37K for this thing and hauling around kids.

The author (Liz Kim) makes an outstanding point to compare apples to apples and put it up against Infiniti or BMW or Lexus. Suddenly the Passat is ordinary at best. While base Passats still fall into a family sedan category (barely with how expensive options are), I hardly think the W8 belongs anywhere close to a family sedan comparison. Perhaps with these "near luxury" cars (W8, Maxima, etc) that exceed 30K all decked out, are we heading towards an entirely new class of automobiles?

In an upcoming comparison test, we'll be pitting the Passat W8 against a Chrysler 300M Special, Infiniti I35, Lexus ES 300 and Saab 9-5 Arc. — Ed.


Subject: Performance testing
From: Travis

I'm just curious (and I guess this goes for all "professional" car critics): why do you test cars on racetracks? As far as I know, in the real world, people don't drive through racetracks to get to work or to visit relatives on weekends and vacations. I'm guessing any car can handle well as long as you don't drive real stupid.

If it weren't for the financial cost and mechanical wear-and-tear, we'd probably take every car we review to a racetrack. As it is, we only subject a small percentage of vehicles that we review to that environment. Indeed, most cars do just fine when driven to the local shopping mall at 30 mph. But we here at Edmunds want to find out how they do in extreme situations. It's very difficult (from a legal and safety standpoint) to determine this on public roads. Only by pushing these cars to their absolute limits can we find out how the cars perform in terms of handling, braking and acceleration. The better a car is on a racetrack, the better it's going to be on the street. Strong brakes, quick acceleration and sharp and predictable handling are all directly correlated to active vehicle safety. While we learn most of this during our instrumented testing regimen (conducted at a private testing facility), sport-oriented cars like a Corvette Z06 or BMW M3 really do require a drive on a racetrack to learn their true nature. Plus, it's a lot of fun. — Ed.


Subject: Long-term road tests
From: B. Tzeng

Hello there, I am an avid visitor to your site. Edmunds has become my favorite resource for info and reviews on cars, largely because of your down-to-earth, user- (as opposed to "performance driver") focused perspective.

I also appreciate reading the long-term reviews, which I think are eminently useful for prospective buyers. Recently, however, I was struck by the posh nature of the most recent additions to the fleet — namely the Sequoia, A4, and Ferrari(!). It seems like you guys are treating yourself pretty well! I don't mean to impugn your intentions, but the long-term test program is beginning to appear more of a corporate boondoggle than a service to the readers. Maybe it's just the timing of these acquisitions; I know that you are testing more pedestrian and economical cars as well. But I can't help but notice that compared to the previous models given the long-term testing, the high end keeps getting higher.

You might check out our next long-term addition at the beginning of July — the decidedly "low-end" $20,000 Mini Cooper S.


Subject: Hatchback comparison
From: John

I generally enjoy your site, but I get a kick out of all you car testers who continue to rave about the Ford Focus. I don't care how well it handles, if the rear-end may fall off, I'm not interested. Any car that's been recalled as many times as this one is definitely off my list. I think it's time to expect a car company to get it right before we rave about its products.

One of the reviewers in the Town Hall actually said, "I've had this car for 9000 miles and haven't had one problem!" Talk about lowering our standards.

I'll stick with Toyota.


Subject: Edmunds Reviews need to aim higher than the other guys'
From: David

While reading a recent comparison test (2002 Sport Hatchbacks) I couldn't help but notice the final ranking criteria. There was "Personal Rating" and "Recommended Rating" which both seemed based primarily on each vehicle's raw performance numbers. Then came "Evaluation Score" which included, thankfully, some other criteria, but still based over a quarter of the rating on performance. I thought the next category, "Feature Content," would finally provide a break from the article's pubescent fixation on raw performance (maybe the intention), but seeing "Minimum 16-inch wheel" topping your list of top 10 features prompted me to look elsewhere. The next category, "Performance Testing," very rightfully was all about judging and comparing the cars based on performance, but I laughed at your claim that performance only accounted for 20% of the total score. "Price," the last category, seemed to be the most objective by far, but unfortunately the computation was a little too simplistic for what I expect from Edmunds. No mention of the real price of owning a car, such as resale value; rather, the price part of the equation was just an overly simplistic comparison of upfront purchase cost.

Please put all that nitpicking aside, however, because I've saved my biggest complaint for last: quality. Initial quality and long term reliability were both sorely lacking. You did manage to squeak in the sub-sub-sub-category, "Overall Build Quality;" however, it only accounted for 1/7 of 1/4 of 1/5 of the overall score (less than 1% for you calculator-phobes). What gives? Will you please figure out a way to include real quantitative (or even opinionated) quality and reliability data into your final rankings?

When I want to read a trumped up performance test, I'll pick up a copy of Engine Fad, Deck and Course, or Mule and Skinner. When I want to read a real evaluation test, I expect to read it at Edmunds.com.

Future comparison tests will incorporate our new True Cost to Own^SM feature. Doing so will help us take into account more quantifiable aspects such as depreciation and insurance costs. But if all you're interested in is initial quality and long-term reliability, may we humbly point you to a 2002 Toyota Corolla CE automatic? — Ed.


Subject: Comparing Sport Hatches without the mother of Sport Hatches?
From: Jeffrey

I have come to Edmunds for quite some time now. I always read the reviews, previews, long term test drives and comparison tests. Many times I agree with what this site has to say, and many times I totally disagree with this site. Still I read all the articles and keep an open mind. I have never contacted ED before because I am sure I don't have anything new to say, but this time I just had to contact you. Please, I beg you, you must tell us the readers why you left the VW GTI out of the 2002 Sport Hatch comparison! You do nothing but praise the VW GTI in the article, but you don't compare it to the others! You instead use the VW Beetle S, which obviously is a niche car, and not one to be thrown into a comparison against 2 cars that are made primarily to be sport hatches. The Beetle S is just a Beetle that goes faster. The VW GTI is a hatch that goes fast. So please I beg you, have a good reason for leaving the GTI out of the test. There must be a good reason. I eagerly await your answer!

Uhh, cuz we wanted to? At the time we conducted the test, the New Beetle Turbo S packed more sport and performance hardware than the GTI, including a six-speed manual transmission, sport seats, stability control, special body modifications and a unique interior treatment. A GTI 337 would likely do better, but it's still not available at the time of this writing. — Ed.


Subject: Forget the Fold Flat Seat
From: D. Wikner

Please stop saying that a fold flat third seat is a must-have feature on a minivan. It is not a true statement. Those of us with three kids are looking for seating for five with plenty of storage space for luggage. The split third bench on the Caravan and Toyota Sienna provides this flexibility by allowing the removal of half the third bench. The Honda Odyssey, with the third seat folded down, provides plenty of storage, but less seating than a standard 5-passenger sedan; not necessarily a desirable feature.


Subject: Why some things?
From: Lou

I have been a reader of your website for a while and have read about many different cars. Here are a couple of easy questions for your experts.

You make the unequivocal point that rear wheel drive is superior to front wheel drive. Is this the case for a wide range of general driving or just if I want to put my $40,000 530i in the local autocross?

Despite your positive comments, for a while I was sure the reason behind six-speed manuals and 5-speed automatics (especially on German cars like Audis) was merely to ratchet up the price. However, I checked a German website for Audi, and sure enough, there was the six-speed on the A6's. So why should I be happy to have a six-speed if I want a manual on my A6? Why should I be more assured with a five-speed if I want an automatic? Are there good reasons or is this just more automotive hedonism or gimmickry (like with golf clubs)?

Rear-drive is superior to front-drive when it comes to performance. On a front-drive car, the front wheels are asked to steer and pull the car. Front-drive cars carry more of their weight over the front axle, increasing the car's tendency to understeer during cornering and spin its front tires during hard acceleration. With a rear-drive car, the weight is spread more evenly and the front wheels only have to steer. Front-drive cars do have an advantage when it comes to packaging (the engine can be mounted transversely and there's no need to run a driveshaft to the rear of the car) and, in general, driving in the snow.

For transmissions, more gears are preferable to fewer. By having an extra cog (going from a five-speed to a six-speed, for instance), car engineers can design a wider spread of gear ratios. In other words, the six-speed's lowest gear can be shorter (more mechanical advantage) than the five-speed's, thereby improving standing-start acceleration, as well as having a taller top gear for a more relaxed cruising rpm.

On some cars, such as the Acura RSX Type-S, a six-speed allows the driver to keep the engine in the higher reaches of the rev band, thereby maximizing acceleration. Big V8 cars, such as the Chevrolet Corvette, use a six-speed to offer two tall overdrive gears (fifth and sixth). This improves highway mileage.

The downside to having more gearing in a transmission is that the transmission will likely be more expensive and heavier. In a six-speed manual's case, it will also require more shifting. A more recent innovation is the continuously variable transmission, or CVT. A CVT lacks conventional gearing and takes full advantage of a wide ratio spread. — Ed.