Question about online and magazine reviews

[nachocheese]

Now, don't start calling me a fanboy, because I'm not. I like the mustang and I concede that it has a slight performance edge on the Camaro (for both V6 and V8). That said, it seems like that the same talking points seem to pop up in every review I read or watch. Most reviews of the Camaro pointed out the car's flaws (weight, visibility) even when the car was brand new. For the Mustang, not one reviewer has brought up even one real flaw (I'm sure even the mighty 5.0 has a few). My question is whether some of these "reviews" are really just advertising. Does anyone know if companies sometimes pay the magazines/websites?

[KeepItGreasey]

i'm sure some magazines are biased - with or without being paid off. who would you believe? someone who got paid to write an article OR someone who is a 4th generation (family) Ford owner who is writing Camaro reviews? no one will deny that the Mustang will beat the Camaro in a slalom course or a winding mountain road... just as the Camaro will beat the Challenger (on the same course, for the same reasons). weight plays a big factor in these race courses. but power can overcome weight when it comes to drag racing.

but once you start modifying your drive train and turbo charging engines - it's anyone's game.

not every car is comfortable for every driver. sometimes you suffer for style. some people like the way the Challenger looks, but they suffer because it's so heavy and cumbersome. some people like the way the Mustang performs, but it suffers from a lack of power.

from day one, visibility has NEVER been an issue for me. i can see everything around me by looking in my mirrors, and looking to the left or the right before i make a move. some people are disappointed in the "lack of visibility" because they don't use their mirrors, and they're used to turning their head around up to 180* to see what's going on around them. c'mon, i know you've seen people doing that too. if you want visibility AND performance, buy a motorcycle - and take those ugly mirrors off because i know you wont be using them anway.

or buy a car like this, and not a Camaro, Mustang, or Challenger:



but a warning... those windows are just begging to have rocks thrown through them. and if i see you driving one, i'm going to get out of my 2010 SS and tip you over.

personally, i like the style and privacy that the windows provide on my Camaro.

[|BLACKSS|]

2011 Mustang V6 and V8 should have a performance edge. Ford had to keep up with the 2010 Camaro. 2010 Mustang didnt hold a candle to the new Camaro. Now its Chevy's turn to up performance. It will always go back and forth.

[Paul Huizenga]

Hmm... every mention of the S197 Mustang I've seen since the 2005 MY debuted mentions the "ancient live axle" rear suspension...

[EastBayBossMan]

Sure seems like they are paid off. It's late so I'm not investigating right now but when the 2010 Camaro came out, the GT500 was way slower than normal when the magazine compared them. When the 5.0 came out, the 2010 Camaro SS was 0.4 slower in the quarter than that mag's previous test.

I was considering a 5.0 before I ever drove one or a 5th gen Camaro. The magazines made the Mustang seem so much better.

I test drove both and liked the Camaro a lot more- for example, I like the Camaro interior better, even though virtually all magazine reviews preferred the Mustang.

Gotta drive all the cars you are comparing and take reviews with a grain of salt.

[Sturmer]

In my experience horizontal visibility is almost the same as in any other car.
Actually I love door windows. When Im looking over my left shoulder I can actually see something, not only the door beam.

Vertical visibility is definitely reduced. This creates feeling that we are driving a tank. So someone can easily say that Camaro has bad visibility. But do we really need to see birds in sky and ants in ground while driving.
Actually reduced vertical visibility makes me more concentrated to road than before.

[SSLarry]

The Mustang is a better car to review....as in; spend 1 day (or one hour) in the car then write a review. Most of the complaints are not complaints after day 2 (just ask most Camaro owners).

By the way, nothing wrong with being a 'fan boy'. If not, then you would sell your car every other review that came along. You're actually joining a team when you by a Camaro or a Mustang. If you don't see things this way, then by an Accord or Camry (an A-to-B tool).

[whamslam3]

there is a HUGE flaw with the new mustangs, the redesigned back of them are UGLY

[nachocheese]

Originally Posted by Paul Huizenga

Hmm... every mention of the S197 Mustang I've seen since the 2005 MY debuted mentions the "ancient live axle" rear suspension...

That is true, but every review also follows that with compliments about how Ford has managed to make the live axle work great. That is one of the "talking points" that seems to strangely pop up in so many reviews.

[nachocheese]

Originally Posted by whamslam3

there is a HUGE flaw with the new mustangs, the redesigned back of them are UGLY

And yet none of the reviews mention this as an issue, even though almost everybody that sees the car comments on it. I can just imagine a Ford executive saying, "If you want our advertising dollars, don't say anything about the way the back end looks."

[Caspers2SSRS]

Having had driven both the 2010 Mustang & Camaro on long distance jaunts before purchasing the Gen5............there is no doubt that the Camaro has a more spacious and comfortable driver area, especially if your among the taller/larger drivers. There are other less physically beneficial aspects in my opinion to the entire Gen5 platform. And for the record I am also the current owner of a Ford Mustang, it has served our household of drivers well and continues too.

[THE EVIL TW1N]

Originally Posted by nachocheese

And yet none of the reviews mention this as an issue, even though almost everybody that sees the car comments on it. I can just imagine a Ford executive saying, "If you want our advertising dollars, don't say anything about the way the back end looks."

and i can imagine a GM exceutive saying "if you want our advertising dollars, dont say anything about how chunky the new camaro looks."

[usmc8411]

Im still wating to see stock mustangs run like everyone saying they should.

I see no stock vs stock advantage in 1/4 mile for the mustang. A shop comes out with a shop car and runs some impressive numbers on sketchy mod details and everyone takes it as gospel and runs for the hills.

Then vids come out....and lo and behold it runs identical times to the Camaros. Overhyped, a bit. Im not dogging the Mustang, but its not all that and a bag of chips.

[2010-1SS-IBM]

Originally Posted by nachocheese

Now, don't start calling me a fanboy, because I'm not. I like the mustang and I concede that it has a slight performance edge on the Camaro (for both V6 and V8). That said, it seems like that the same talking points seem to pop up in every review I read or watch. Most reviews of the Camaro pointed out the car's flaws (weight, visibility) even when the car was brand new. For the Mustang, not one reviewer has brought up even one real flaw (I'm sure even the mighty 5.0 has a few). My question is whether some of these "reviews" are really just advertising. Does anyone know if companies sometimes pay the magazines/websites?

I don't think it's bribery, I just think a lot of reviewers have no idea what the majority of auto buyers like. But you can say the same thing for most of media.