Bogus car review


#1

I give Warren a solid C on this review:

http://www…01379.html



His reviews are more about entertainment than info, so he takes a paragraph to say he liked the car, then another paragraph to defend his reviewing style.



Third paragraph he actually talks about the car a little then finishes with a typical dig against gas-electric hybrids.



In the next few paragraphs he shows his limited layman’s technical knowledge: “But turbo-charging more efficiently combines air and fuel”.



Later he talks about diesel fuel and claims that the black smoke from some diesels is due to sulfur in the fuel, which is just plain wrong. That smoke is mostly carbon.


#2

You’re generous. I’d give him a firm “F”.

After reading his article, I still know nothing about the car except that it’s a Jetta diesel.

And engine efficiency is how much of the energy contained in the fuel source is converted to torque, and I think he has some of his other terminology and definitions all screwed up too.

“An engine that requires relatively less power to create the same, or relatively more, torque is a more efficient engine.” should say an engine that requires less FUEL to create the same torque is a more efficient engine.

“But turbo-charging more efficiently combines air and fuel, thereby creating a better bang – more power without an appreciably increased expenditure of fuel.” is just plain wrong. A turbo charger does NOT more efficiently combine air and fuel, a turnbocharger forces more air/fuel mix into the cylinders. That’s not the same thing. And it increases fuel use…it’s pumping more in (with air).

And sulpher does NOT make the thick black smoke, carbon makes the thick black smoke.

I have more concerns, but these should be enough. The man is babblingwithout technical knowledge. The tung is in gear, but not the brain.


#3

Why can’t all reviews be as complete/all-inclusive as this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP6xtYGQjPc

Warren didn’t even get into the important stuff, like how well it handles indoors.


#4

Reviews published in magazines and newspapers are usually just a re-hash of the sales brochure that was on the front seat when the review writer picked up the car…Have you EVER seen a truly negative review in any publication supported by advertising?? It’s just not going to happen… All you are going to get is filler about cup-holders, heated seats, the “superb” sound system, and the thoughtfully laid out switch arrangement on the door panel. If the POS vehicle requires $6000 worth of dealer performed maintenance every year to keep the 5/50 warranty in force, you can be SURE that will NOT be mentioned in the “review”…


#5

Technical knowledge is apparently not this guy’s strong suit, nor is verification of the information he dispenses. I have never heard ‘horsepower’ referred to as an English concept derived from a horse’s ability to pull a load and a machine’s ability to do the same. A horsepower is generally equivalent to 746 watts of power, or 550 foot pounds per second (according to Wikipedia). I have also heard that it is the ability to move 746 pounds one foot in one second, but cannot verify this, so it could be misinformation. Some horses, when measured according to the unit of measurement called horsepower, can actually put out close to 15 horsepower.

All things considered, the review as a whole, excluding the technical ramblings of bad information and ignorance, was pretty much worthless as far as helping you make a decision whether to consider buying the car or not. I suppose it could serve as comedy for the more well informed, but it is frustrating to think people may actually use that information as education. Journalists should be more careful what they publish since many readers regard them as intelligent, educated, knowledgeable people.


#6

“You’re generous. I’d give him a firm ‘F’.”

On second thought, decent spelling and grammar (that’s really all this review has going for it) rates a ‘D’ in my grade book.


#7

I have never heard ‘horsepower’ referred to as an English concept derived from a horse’s ability to pull a load and a machine’s ability to do the same.

You may never had heard of it, but it’s generally believed that is where the unit came from. It was a way to compare the output of steam engines to the output of horses. If you can track down the biography of James Watt by H. W. Dickenson you can find the explanation for the origin of horsepower which basically breaks down to the fact that Watt thought a horse could push with a force of 180 lbs at a speed of 180 ft/min, and used that number when he was selling his steam engines.


#8

do you mean the review should be posted in the entertainment page? just asking… :slight_smile:


#9

Sounds like he took the car for a drive, reviewed the PR release,googled some info on the “technical” aspects without really understanding what it means, and wrote the article up in his favorite bar!