Re: Crap & Drivel (tm) Station Wagon Review

[brettd@tiac.net (Brett Dikeman)]

>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)
Ahem!  How is this rigged?  Besides, C+D usually takes into account
differences between cars, and that's why they call it a COMPARISON!

>
>> 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?

Think about what you just said.  I'm not familiar with how they racked up
points-one would think that they'd ask more than one person...
But think about it.  You're whining and complaining because Audi came 1
point away from the Volvo, 2 from beating the Volvo.
Consider this for a fact: the 850 Turbo has MSRP of about 25k-30k.  The
Audi, as you say, is in the "40k range".  Ah, the Volvo has at least a
10-15k advantage over the Audi. As we see:

>>  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
Are you saying that you didn't like it because the meanies stacked a car
with more HP, 10k lower in price, same or better safety features(better, I
guess:SIPS and SI airbags-kinda silly, but hey, I'd rather have one!), good
handling, better maintenance record, etc. etc. against your precious Audi?
:)

>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....
Well, maybe they should send an issue to Audi people, send another issue to
Beemer people, and another to Volvo people.  That way, everybody would hear
what they want to hear, and _everybody_ would be happy!

>> 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.
Same here-there are only so many ways to step on the gas in an automatic :)
Also, does anybody know if they actually use an accelerometer?  They might
just do average acceleration using a stopwatch+tape measure.

>
>> 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.
Um, why are you saying that it _should_ be imported with a slush?

>
>> 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:

maybe for you, but not for most!  See below!  They aren't even close to
being in the same price class-more like Volvo-------->Audi-->Beemer
>
>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.

So you admit that it isn't just the price thing!  Besides, Volvo offers big
discounts too and how much can you discount off of 10k?  Yes, nobody pays
MSRP.  But, MSRP can be a fairly good comparison.  If both dealers offer
about the same discount, what's the difference?  Still the same, folks!

>
>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.

The Volvo 850, even the Turbo, costs much, much less than either the Beemer
or the Audi.  Some (ie new couples, people with kids, or retired people)
buy the 850 because it is extremely safe, very zippy, and (fairly)
inexpensive-you's pays your money and takes your choice!  It may not be
basic transportation-let's say it's fancy basic transportation
>
>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?
Hmmm..did C+D think that the money was not worth it for the car with
options or the options themselves?  My bet is that they thought that both
the car and the options were not worth it.  Beemers are overpriced,
overhyped, reputation-inflated cars.   Like some Audis, the older the
better. If you want to pay extra for the name(like when you buy something
from Sony), then the Beemer is for you.

>
>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.
I wouldn't be so sure.  Who says that BMW is still turning out "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.
Ah, but according to you, they shouldn't test cars with different features!
Did the Audi have a quattro system?  Otherwise, both are front wheel
drive, and then test results can vary greatly on tires!
I bet that if Volvo developed a simlar AWD system, you and a lot of other
people would SCREAM BLUE-BLOODY-MURDER-YOU-COPIED-AUDI!

>
>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.
Ah, yes, I bet it will be.  But note these sets:
Audi
Beemer
Volvo


Volvo
Lexus
Acura

THE ONLY SIMILAR CAR IS VOLVO.  Note, you don't mention a test between,
say, lexus and Audi.

I bet the volvo will be trounced because it is not a luxury car.  It's a
sport/utility!  Volvo calls it the "Thunderwagon".  Wagons are for hauling
shit, and 220 hp engines are for hauling shit fast. Volvos are for hauling
shit safely.  Lexuses are for hauling money :)  The volvo(an nice, economy
more-practical-than-others kinda car.  Lexuses and Accuras are serious
luxury-only cars.  That's why the clock is the centerpiece of.....hey!  I
got a clock on my 5kCST there too!  And ohmygosh!  THERE'S ONE ON MY WRIST!
Wow!  Our family's Volvo 960 has one right next to the speedometer, nice
and big-great place!  You're actually aware of the time when you're
driving...)
>
>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!
Hmm..I seem to remember being in the Volvo dealership and seeing marks down
a corridor with the various cars' stopping distances-I noticed Audi wasn't
on the wall.  Then, I was walking into an Audi dealership and I saw what
Volvo hadn't mentioned-that the Audi came in lower than they did...
Also, don't get too hyped about their tests, unless they get someone
reasonably good to do this.  Getting all the conditions the same is pretty
tough...

>
>you have to wonder why it wasn't last...  it really has nothing to do with
>the cars themselves, does it?
Maybe they just really liked the Audi itself-besides, what did C+D actually
say?  I notice that nobody mentions what issue or article so we can't look
it up ourselves...

>
>> But the
>> article was fair.
>
>and i have a bridge in brooklyn for sale....  really cheep...  offer ends
>end of this month... :) :) :)

I have a bridge you can...
If you're going to be this BITTER about Audi getting beaten by one point,
DON'T EVEN BOTHER READING C+D.  You obviously don't fit their intended
audience.  You can't yell at them for aiming at a more consumer-oriented
magazine-most people look to them when they buy a car for industy news,
their part-by-part OPINION about what was good, what was ok, and what
stunk.  Then, they go and do a test drive of the cars they're interested
in.  If they notice the same things, they feel confident that they're not
just dreaming it up.  If they don't notice something, they think about how
much they care about that particular quality/defect, and then they buy the
car they like the best.  Some people will only buy Beemer.  Some will only
by Audi.  Others will buy Volvo.  Some will buy lexus and send their
nametags away to get 'em gold plated.  If I had that kind of money, I would
personally get a 5kCSTQW, do a few turbo mods, and have a blast laughing
hysterically at the people who bought any of the above, BMW, Volvo, or Audi
A4/S4/whatever while blowing past them in the left lane with at least
$5-10k sitting next to me on the pass. seat! *-<:)
>

>Crap and Drivel (tm).   JUST SAY NO.

That whole "Just say no to drugs" thing was such a crock of Regan/Bush
political shit.  Like anybody actually stopped using drugs cause some
weirdo named George Herbert Walker Bush said 'Just read my lips-say not to
drugs"!  Whoops! Sorry-not very relevant, but I still think "Just say no"
should be reserved to "Just say no to B, yes to A"

Oh, eliot, what tune would you be singing if C+D _had_ given the Audi an
extra point or two, even though overall the Volvo kicked butt?

Personally, I think it's kinda cool that Volvo, the once
only-yuppie-people-who-like-boxes-buy-it, sluggish, overexpensive, ugly car
is now the zippy-as-a-944, cheaper-than-one-too,
more-storage-space-than-one-too, pretty-neat-looking-cept-for-its-rear-end
and comes with both stick and auto!  Both Audi and Volvo have been making
cars for about the same about of time-I think Volvo may have been making
cars longer by at least a few years..but then the arguement gets into VW
and things get messy...but they have both been making cars that share
similar features like Audi's design for the crumple zones and safety cage.
They do, however, serve different markets, and each has its own ups and
downs, +'s and -'s.  Just look at all the TQC people, or most of us on the
list!  We've all had good and bad experinces, and even though our cars
did/do tend to go awry, we're still proud of 'em cause they drive great,
look great, last long, etc. etc.  Notice my recent trip to the dealer to
find out a visor is $140 or so!  I bet Volvo sunvisors are a _lot_ cheaper!
Everybody's got their little baby.  My history teacher puts it best-
"there's no such thing as a free lunch", and as I said before, "Yous pay
your money and takes your choice."  In some cases, we're talking product
differentiation.

Keep also in mind that each person at C+D is not the all knowing car expert
that you are.  Have you driven all three?  Hmmm? Have you?  I bet you
haven't!  I  also bet you don't know much about the 850, so how can you say
they're wrong? I bet you haven't studied the BMW either!  Remember, this
writer/writers are offering their OPINIONS ONLY.  You apparently have your
opinion too, and you're allowed to express it too-I'm just pointing out
that you haven't given all the facts, and you don't even say if you read
this article, although I think you have.  Please, think more evenly before
you moan to the list about how much you hate C+D.  We've already
established(with at least 10-20 posts) that people don't like C+D.  Can we
all just accept that some of us like 'em and some of us don't?

I don't really care one way or the other, although I'm more towards not
liking them-I think people should use them to get an idea about a car, and
then form their own opinion in a test drive.
Besides!  I got better things to do than complain about C+D-like sleep!

Brett

"Occasionally, man will stuble over the truth.   Most of the time, he will
pick himself up and carry on."  -Winston Churchill