Letters to the Editors
Send a letter to the editors

Subject: Fantasy Long-Term Vehicles
From: M. Brickell

Hello. I love your site and appreciate the good work in general. But, in my humble opinion, I noticed something disturbing about your long-term vehicles. When I look at the past vehicles, I notice a lot of cars us regular folk that use your site drive — Toyota Camry, Ford Ranger, Dodge Intrepid, Oldsmobile Intrigue, Isuzu Rodeo and Hyundai Elantra. Then I look at your current vehicles, and I see a $226,000 Ferrari, a BMW 745, a BMW 330i, an Audi A4, a Toyota Sequoia and a Maxima GLE.

I notice a trend here: past cars that are relevant to most of us, and current test cars that about 3 percent of the U.S. population can afford. Are you guys moving upscale a little too far? I mean, I would think a lot more people would benefit — and would be interested in — cars like an Accord, Camry or Jetta. Of course, I'm just going by what I see on the road on the interstate on the way to work every day. Of course I like some spice in life. This is why I drive a Jetta not a Civic or Corolla. But come on, guys and gals, let's keep it a little real here!

A gander at our Most Researched list for the month of June shows the BMW 3 Series in slot five, the Audi A4 in slot 13, the Nissan Maxima in slot 15 and the Toyota Sequoia in slot 26, meaning that four of the six models you mentioned are in the top 51 percent of interest of Edmunds.com readers. — Ed.


Subject: Long-Term Road Tests
From: dle01

First, let me say that I really enjoy your web site, especially the road tests and the town hall features. Your site is among my favorite on the web.

I would like to offer a bit of what I hope to be constructive criticism regarding your editorial policy for selecting long-term test vehicles. First, I'm very puzzled by your recent selection of another BMW 3 Series. I know you loved the first one (I read all about it), but I think that your selection of long term vehicles should have much more to do with testing as many different vehicles as possible, rather than choosing your favorites so you can drive around in them some more. Why not choose a Lexus IS 300, an Infiniti G35, or a Cadillac CTS? That way readers who would be interested in that type of car could compare long term tests and make their decisions. And yes, I am aware that you do currently have an A4 in your fleet.

The other thing that I note is that your fleet is gravitating towards the upper end of the price scale. The majority of the vehicles you are currently testing cost over $25,000. Your recent acquisitions certainly favor luxury and conspicuous consumption (BMW 745; Mercedes ML320; a Ferrari!) rather than cars that the average family would consider. Personally, I am much more interested in reading about cars that I might actually one day acquire. My favorite long term tests have been the Passat (my wife and I own a 2000 model, and its good to see that yours has held up), the XTerra (almost bought one instead of the Passat, and glad I didn't) and the Hyundai Elantra (who would have thought Hyundai would make a good car?).

I would like to suggest that you revamp your criteria for selecting long-term vehicles. With your knowledge of the automotive market, I'll bet you guys can develop some criteria that would lead to a fleet mix that more accurately represents the automobile buying patterns in this county. In any event, enjoy your Ferrari and your 330i for a year. But next year, please consider my suggestion. Thanks for your time and consideration.

In the next few months, look for long-term tests of the 2003 Honda Accord, 2002 Mini Cooper S, 2003 Mitsubishi Outlander, 2002 Saturn Vue and 2003 Subaru Forester. — Ed.


Subject: Car Salespeople
From: J. Helsel

I am in the car business. I sell Toyota products on a daily basis. Even though I am fairly new to the business, I think it would be safe to say that I am a good salesman. The purpose of this message isn't to boast about myself, but I feel that I needed to let you know a little bit about myself to establish some creditability in what I am about to relay to you.

Your website does a wonderful job in providing consumers with comparison information on different makes and models. In addition to that, your website provides very accurate factory option descriptions, colors and trimlines.

Where your website lacks accuracy is in the pricing information, I am not saying that your invoice or MSRP prices are wrong. I am simply saying that there are some additional costs that reflect on the dealer invoice that you do not inform consumers about. This causes consumers to come in to the dealership with the perception that we are higher than your TMV even if we match up line for line pricing.

The Consumer thinks we are lying to them. I can't blame them, they have been misinformed. Next you tell consumers that there is a 2 percent holdback that leads them to believe that they can buy the car at invoice, when actually that 2 percent never gets relayed to anyone but the dealership. So if they buy a car at invoice, then we as salespeople are all working for free. Would you work for free? I have a hard time believing that anyone would work for free. What I am trying to say is that everyone appreciates a good value but when was the last time you walked in to a clothing store and asked a salesperson "how much did this Armani suit actually cost because you make too much money?"

I just would like to know what would happen had Web sites like yours not cast a dark stereotype on the car business. Now I think that with a little bit of critiquing your website would be a valuable selling tool for me and others alike.

Folks, lets make it a happy world for everyone. I don't mind giving discounts, but I do not like to argue to people that I indeed have a 2 percent hold back and TDA (Toyota dealer advertising), which is charged to us by the manufacturer. If you don't believe me, just open any magazine or newspaper and you will see an advertisement trust me it wasn't put there for free.

The reality of it is that you're on the right track because you do allow for a profit with your TMV pricing. But please include the TDA and don't tell them about holdback because that misleads people.

In "10 Steps to Buying a New Car" — which is the most frequently read advice article on our site — we write: "If the ad fee is in the car's invoice, paying it seems unavoidable. If it has been written into the dealership's contract as an additional item, you may be able to get it removed."

In a recent Low Down, Low Payments column, we wrote: "It is Edmunds' position that fees on the manufacturer's invoice are not negotiable. However, if duplicate fees...are written into the contract by the dealer, these additional charges can be challenged."

Since ad fees, and other legitimate additional expenses listed on the invoice, are charged on a regional basis, it is difficult to collect and post all this information. As long as some car dealers try to increase profits with bogus or redundant fees, we will continue to urge consumers to carefully check all figures in the contract.

And as far as "casting a dark stereotype on the car business" goes, people have been equating the car-buying process to a trip to the dentist for far longer than any Web site, including ours, has existed. If anything, it's Edmunds.com's goal to change that perception. — Ed.


Subject: Jaguar F-Type woes
From: M. Fossati

First of all, I'd like to commend all of you at Edmunds for doing such a great job. Comparisons, news, road tests, first drives, everything...it's always great to read your articles because they have consistently addressed all the aspects of a car. By far, the comparison tests are the most entertaining to read; the suspense of seeing who Edmunds chose as the best of a group is always tons of fun.

I was hoping someone could shed a little light on Ford and Jaguar's decision to cut the F-type. It seemed like an instant classic in the making — from the concept design at least. The ultracompact design seemed so unique compared to the ubiquitous common-roadsters: Z3, Miata, and Celica. It was a winner for sure! Is Ford truly so financially shallow to have to pull the plug on it's luxury brand's brilliant designs?

Thanks for all the entertaining and insightful reviews, I always look forward to scanning through the new news articles!

Shallow or wise? Ford lost $5.45 billion in 2001. The purse strings, as you might say, are tight. From Ford's perspective, the F-Type's creation would have required an all-new platform that had little potential for parts-sharing or co-branding. No doubt, enthusiasts find the decision a major disappointment. For Jaguar, however, the money saved by axing the F-Type can now go toward further development of the all-new (and extremely important) 2004 XJ sedan. — Ed.


Subject: Edmund.com Editors
From: Paul

I am a regular visitor to your website. I even read some of your auto reviews on occasion and took them seriously — until I looked at the backgrounds of your road test editors. It is astonishing to learn that your editors are mostly English and history majors who lack any technical training or experience in science, engineering, auto mechanics, or auto racing. They do not appear to have any specialized knowledge of automobiles aside from driving a Camry around the streets and freeways of LA. Very unimpressive qualifications for sure.

They write well, as they should, since most of them appear to have been employed in this capacity. But when they sprinkle technical terms and jargon in their articles like "peak torque," "understeer," "turbo lag," and make judgments on vehicle dynamics, power delivery, and such, I believe they do not really understand what they're describing — they only want to sound like they're knowledgeable. Do any of them understand how an internal combustion engine works? My sneaking suspicion is that it's just a black box to them.

I believe in truth in advertising. You should caution your readers that the "reviews" are written by your average, everyday folk, and that's perfectly fine by me. Your reviews are worthwhile as long as the reader remembers one thing: that anyone can get as good and competent an opinion on the lift throttle oversteer characteristics for the latest Porsche 911 turbo from one of your editors or from a 11-year-old kid who just built a plastic model of one.

Wait — you mean to tell us that there's something under the hood? We had no idea.

On the contrary, our editorial staff is well equipped for the duties at Edmunds.com. We are, after all, reviewing cars and trucks, not particle accelerators. We are all enthusiasts. Many of our editors wrench on their own personal cars. Every road test editor attends at least one high-performance driving school each year, and we frequently test vehicles on race tracks.

As stated on the Web site, our editorial philosophy is as follows: "We will inform and entertain consumers, striving to give them the benefit of our vehicular knowledge, insight into the automotive industry, experience of owning and driving vehicles, and lessons we've learned about owning, buying and selling automobiles. We exist for the consumer, and write to that audience. Everything we publish is designed to make our readers better-educated car owners, buyers and sellers."

We test hundreds of cars and trucks per year. If we weren't able to accurately and concisely convey our views to the consumer (which often happens when one doesn't have a firm grasp of the English language), the effort would be wasted.

If you compare our content to any other publication, we think you'll find we offer an editorial package that is, in sum, unequalled within the industry. Best of all, it doesn't cost you anything more than the time it takes to read. — Ed.


Subject: 2002 Luxury Convertibles Over $55,000 Comparison Test
From: Previn

I visit your site daily and love the vast amount of new information you provide almost everyday, especially the roadtests which other magazines take at least a week to produce a new one. But the latest one — the 2002 Luxury Convertibles Over $55,000 Comparison Test — did not include the BMW Z8! Is there any particular reason you did not include this incredible vehicle?

We were not able to acquire one in time for the test. — Ed.


Subject: Excellent VW Phaeton review, except...
From: J. Pittman

John Booth's recent review of the 2004 VW Phaeton was a delight (as the car appears to be) until the last couple of paragraphs. He opened the review by reminding us how, back in the early 90s, all those silly pundits were wrong in their predictions that affluent US buyers wouldn't shell out the big bucks for high-end imports from Nissan/Infiniti, Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus. A few paragraphs later, he closed the review by predicting that affluent US buyers won't buy a high-end import from Volkswagen.

Huh?

The reason wealthy Americans won't buy a luxury car from VW? According to Mr. Booth, Americans require more status than the VW nameplate offers, since "the main reason for buying a luxury car is to lord over the less monied, and therefore less deserving." Indeed? How sinister these rich folks are! Maybe soon we can be enlightened on the clandestine reasons successful people buy, say, auxiliary generator systems, or swimming pools, or Viking stoves. Simply because they'd like to have them and can afford them? No, that couldn't be. There must be at least a few dark, antisocial motives that Mr. Booth can divine and then share with us.

But he has proof: Americans buy "chrome wheels, gold chrome trim kits and fake V12 and M5 badges." Sorry people, but the folks buying those things are rarely affluent. They're making monthly payments on those gaudy trinkets in addition to the monthly payments they're making on their used cars. The idea that the cheap shiny bauble aftermarket is the same market VW seeks to penetrate with the Phaeton doesn't pass the giggle test. Where were your editors during this very strange detour from an otherwise excellent review?

We were fitting our new Mini Cooper long-term car with "Cooper S" emblems. — Ed.


Subject: Pontiac Aztek review
From: M. Michitake

Kudos to Edmunds for giving the Aztek a chance based on the merits of the vehicle itself. I have found it to be an extremely good value considering the price and all of the features and versatility. Sure, the engine could be a little better, but I've actually replaced the stock muffler and done a few things to remedy that! And I still have people follow me around for blocks to ask, "What is that and where can I get one?" When I say "Pontiac" they look confused, but go away satisfied. I guess they expected it to be the next Mitsubishi Montero or hybrid concept vehicle from Honda?


Subject: Edmunds.com
From: Scott

It must have been naive of me to believe that Edmunds.com was "above" all of the other online car sites. By other, I mean the web sites that provide redundant, biased, and corporately-tied drivel. Two years ago I distinctly recall Edmunds enumerating the authentic costs involved in the purchase of a 2000 Honda Accord Coupe. Now, however, in my quest for a 2002 Accord of the same model, not only have you disappointed me in your reluctance to release the break-down of all the costs involved, but you humiliate myself and every other trusting consumer when you provide erroneous numbers and biased material. Fortunately, at the rather ridiculous sum of 12 dollars, I can still purchase unadulterated information from a company that hasn't whored itself out — Consumer Reports. But don't feel bad; Kelly's Blue Book and the rest of them jumped on the boat, too. And, while I am sure you won't post this "letter" on your useless website, I hope you realize that some people actually counted on you guys, and, quite simply, you let us down.

We're sorry to hear that you're not finding the Web site as useful as you once did. We're not sure what you're referring to when you say we are providing erroneous and biased information. All of the information you were finding two years ago is still there. It's just presented in a different fashion. In addition, with our new True Market Value (TMV^®) and Cost to Own features, we now offer more information and more ways to help you make an informed car-buying decision than ever before (and certainly more than what those "other" sites offer). — Ed.