[maxbhp]

Its very very sad to notice that these days magazines are giving out fake or rather exaggerated or lets say biased opinions reports on a Car . Many a times I have felt this and I kept quite . Now I just stick to 2 magazines AutoCar and Car India , Auto car for its test report layout and and Car India for the quality of images , though latter aspect Top Gear is no bad . Coming back to my topic as I was going through the sep 06 issue of Car india , I came across a test comparison of Civic vs Oct vs Corolla all 1.8 petrols , perfect cars for comparison as all of them were equally matched in terms of perfomance though in other departments each one had its own pros and cons . What's shocking is the perfomance figures Corolla 1.8(manual) 0-100 in 11 secs ??????????????? what the heck is this ? at one point of time one mag. had claimed 8.98 secs and now its all down the way to 11secs . Another thing is Skoda 1.8 T or lets say RS getting high mileage , I am not disclosing any figures as that itself can triggered into a debatable topic .

Manufacture's should see to it that before the car is given to any Auto Journalist , they have to be pre tested lets say 5 corolla one each to Different magazines so that test data doesnt differ by a huge margin .

Inshort Data figures has to be consistent , that way readers can atleast gain some information . Right now I feel its more like reading a story .[/SIZE]

[Mr.Bangalore]

hi maxbhp

i agree with you.. i think this happens b'coz of different Journalist wirting the article and also the test conditions what they have done.. If they have not tested it on few points they will take the input from the Auto dealers and publish it without even verifying it..

[hondadude]

This is my favourity gripe with Auto mags as well. When a new car is introduced, these journos go ga-ga over it and they start seeing flaws in it an year or two down the line. Flaws, that should have been apparant right from day 1.

Granted that newer cars do make some flaws in older cars more obvious. But then what's the different between an average Joe and auto journalist ? One would expect the journalists to be more objective and more knowledgeable (and more critical as well) of cars.

I don't know why they have to suck up to auto manufacturers. They probably do it because they want exclusive scoops and exclusive first test drives but in the long run they are probably hurting their own credibility.

[Shan2nu]

From the figs, it looks like you're talking about Overdrive here.

Hey 11 secs is for the new Corolla, the old one was 9.89 secs (not 8.98).

8.98 was for the Accord 2.4 (According to Autocar).

Shan2nu

[maxbhp]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

From the figs, it looks like you're talking about Overdrive here.

Hey 11 secs is for the new Corolla, the old one was 9.89 secs (not 8.98).

8.98 was for the Accord 2.4 (According to Autocar).

Shan2nu

Am talking about September 06 CAR India , pag no.60 .Acceleration figures Corolla 0-100 11secs . Corolla was not 9.89 , Auto car says 9.07 , I am sure I saw 8.9? in another mag . 11.00 is close to the that of the Auto Corolla's figure of 11.64, Car India themselves have tested it at 0-100 in 9.90 refer page 164 of September issue.

One more thing is that magazines have making laot of mistakes like mixing pics like on page 58 where they have posted Civic's interiors for that of Toyota , not that it makes a big difference but it does throw us a light on how serious they are about the publishing material.

[Shan2nu]

I guess they're just getting more commercial these days. Less importance to technical details more importance to adverts.

One of the mags had printed Laura specs on NHC Vtec sheet.

Shan2nu

[vincentt]

I have to agree with you MaxBHP, the element of consistency seems to be missing. But let me explain it in this way. I am not supporting any mag in this ok :-)

We have seen threads where say owners of Baleno are getting mileage ranging from 11kmpl to 15kmpl, different people giving differnt figues. If we can take these as test data then we see variance in them. Similarly I guess every mag has a test driver having his own style. I am sure that will be one of the reasons why there is so much of inconsistency at times in the reports. I often look at 2 mags when it comes to bikes / cars and notice that figures are quite different at time when it comes to fit and finish report, mileage reports, speed reports, etc.

[maxbhp]

Originally Posted by vincentt

I have to agree with you MaxBHP, the element of consistency seems to be missing. But let me explain it in this way. I am not supporting any mag in this ok :-)

We have seen threads where say owners of Baleno are getting mileage ranging from 11kmpl to 15kmpl, different people giving differnt figues. If we can take these as test data then we see variance in them. Similarly I guess every mag has a test driver having his own style. I am sure that will be one of the reasons why there is so much of inconsistency at times in the reports. I often look at 2 mags when it comes to bikes / cars and notice that figures are quite different at time when it comes to fit and finish report, mileage reports, speed reports, etc.

Thats exactly what I am saying Vncent , first of all we should have a standard of measurement , Manufacturers whould maintain Test car having similar levels of perfomance say around 4 or 5 of them and tests should be based only on those cars ,

coming back to septemeber issue I forgot to mention one morething , instead of Skoda Riders pic I guess they have put Combi's pic and that too the RS model , come on they shouldnt be so laid back on the material they are publishing ..

[THE-U-]

People at the magazine are so overworked may be so they're mixing up pictures. Also, there can be genuine differences between the magazines in their testing methodology. For example, manufacturers and testers define turning radius differently. Also, braking is another sticking issue between magazines because they don't test the cars on the same surface. This obviously can result in very different numbers.

I am not sure how many repetition the mag folks do, but may be not that much. Otherwise, there cannot be a difference of 3 seconds in any of the 0 to 60kmph tests. The Corolla 1.8 does 0-100kmph in about 10 seconds for sure.

[ess_a]

Originally Posted by maxbhp

Am talking about September 06 CAR India , pag no.60 .Acceleration figures Corolla 0-100 11secs . Corolla was not 9.89 , Auto car says 9.07 , I am sure I saw 8.9? in another mag . 11.00 is close to the that of the Auto Corolla's figure of 11.64, Car India themselves have tested it at 0-100 in 9.90 refer page 164 of September issue.

One thing dude, let us know the figures of the CIVIC and OCTI as well... That can shed more light on this... Are all figures so bad or the corolla has been singled out... The Autocar (Aug) figures for the corolla and civic were 9.9 sec and 9.5 sec respectively (both 1.8 manual)..