Edmunds' Biases
Edmunds' Biases
Yo Yimbie,Let us know what you think about the Edmunds article/review and why it was biased...peace
Re: Edmunds' Biases (G376MT)
Oh wow that was so long ago. lol Alright, let me gather everything together and I'll tell you why I feel that the test should be done over again in different vehicles.
- Yimbie
- Yimbie
Re: Edmunds' Biases (G376MT)
To fully understand what I'm about to argue... you have to know about these two parts of the comparison test...
Specifications and PerformanceFinal Rankings and Scoring Explanations
... a lot of people don't even bother to see those two parts and thus get misguided a lot by what the Edmunds states.
1. The two cars were tested on the track under different conditions. If there was to be a truly fair and equal comparison... there wouldn't be a 20F difference, the Infiniti G37 had 2x wind (whether against it or helping it), and the Infiniti G37 had 2x less humidity.
2. Pricing was a factor in the final decision of the winner. If the 335i and G37 were built as closely as possible... the final price difference would've been $7,312.
3. Edmunds selectively omitted or included certain features of both cars. Why Edmunds decided to not include the navigation while the Infiniti had it puzzles me. Why Edmunds decided to not include the active steering option of the BMW but had the 4WAS for the Infiniti puzzles me. All of this relates back to the price and overall affect of the car.
4. Edmunds already stated previously in their separate review of the G37 that they disliked the 4WAS for the car. The car that was part of the comparison test though HAD the 4WAS and Edmunds stated that it was MANDATORY. That is completely false considering that for all G37 models, it is an OPTION.
5. Inaccuracies with braking... Edmunds reportedly got 5 feet better braking in the comparison test than the review that they did of the 335i alone a while back. Why such a big difference? For some reason... the Infiniti had a large amount of FADE during the comparison test. Although from their G37 Review, the car had absolutely no fade at all. Also from all the reviews that I've read from other car magazines and websites, they also experienced no fade from the G37.
6. "Recommended Rating (2.5%): After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the two coupes in order of preference based on which he or she thought would be best for the average consumer shopping in this segment." From what I know, the AVERAGE consumer shopping in this segment isn't an enthusiast...
7. "29-Point Evaluation (35%): Each participating editor ranked each car based on a comprehensive 29-point evaluation. The evaluation covered everything from exterior design to cupholders. Scoring was calculated on a point system, and the scores listed are averages based on all test participants' evaluations." They never even explain what the 29-point evaluation includes. This point evaluation from the looks it seems to be very subjective and considering that there are actual OWNERS (I know of one EDITOR especially) of the 335i in Edmunds, wouldn't there be just a *tad* bit of bias?
8. "Performance Testing (25%): Each coupe was subjected to a set of performance tests that measure acceleration, braking, speed through a 600-foot slalom course and lateral gs on a 200-foot skid pad. Scores were calculated by giving the better-performing coupe in each category 100 percent. The lesser performer was awarded points based on how close it came to the top car's score." How much would have changed if the G37 didn't have the 4WAS that Edmunds really dislikes? It was even stated in the G37 full road test review but Edmunds still went along with it and tested a G37 WITH the 4WAS. The testing conditions weren't the same also.
Also... let me include a quote from a person on a different forum... he made some very valid and interesting points...
"What I find interesting is that if you go to their final summary scoring, and you weigh the price category correctly, the G37 wins. I'm assuming that Infiniti got 100% and the BMW got 91.1% because the BMW is 91.1% of the G37's price (mathematically works out close 91.8). In reality, a fully equipped 335 is $54k and you still don't get the equal tech of the Infiniti. The actual percentage is 78%. Plug that in, and the results change to put the G37 in 1st place.
The most disturbing thing is where they say that all 6mt's get the 4WAS. I hope that is not true. That definitely should be an option, especially since almost all tests have been hampered by this system due to weight and understeering.
Otherwise, the review is as expected. Same old story - pass over the BMW's faults and exaggerate the Infiniti's.
If the BMW has a slower slalom speed due to it's "soft" suspension, then they come back with something about how it felt better going through the slalom. If the view out of the car wasn't as exciting (they compared the G to a ferrari), then it's because BMW is "down to business". The BMW steering ratio is not as aggressive as the Inifniti's, but it "felt" like it was. The G had a "relative lack of high end vigor" but then they show a dyno that reveals the G is making 30-40 more lb-ft of torque at redline. The G doesn't like to change direction but it achieved a 2 mph higher slalom and they themselves mention when talking about the 335 "the limits are very approachable and can't be pushed with comfort. Ultimately, the 335i is not as comfortable in fast transitions as the G37." Where was that in the review?
I also like how they said on two occassions that they dyno'd the cars because they couldn't explain the performance difference between the G and 335. And they discovered that the 335 was underrated. Meanwhile, Edmunds has already written multiple articles about this. How fake.
All that being said, outside of the straight line stuff, the rest was all subjective (even when their objective tests told them otherwise). Which could be genuine. If the people driving the cars happened to like the BMW better (maybe they just prefer the German-esque feel of the BMW), then that will come out in their review. I would use this test more for the data that they collected than anything else. Everyone should drive the car and decide for themselves. As an example: I've driven a 2007 G35 Sedan and was as impressed with it as I was the 335 I test drove. One of the things I didn't like about the 335 was the clutch engagement. I learned later on these forums that BMW has what they call a clutch delay valve that makes for awkward hard shifting. But Edmunds said the clutch engagement is smooth. That part of the review alone made me realize how different people's opinions of one thing could be. Where I saw the clutch engagement as a big disappointment on the 335, they saw it as smooth."
Edmunds was so blatantly biased in their comparison test towards the 335i. The wording and everything. Even calling the G37 a BMW "wannabe" and treating the G37 as if it's some kind of cheap competitor.
- Yimbie
P.S. I might have missed some points to argue against but this post pretty much just sums it up.
Specifications and PerformanceFinal Rankings and Scoring Explanations
... a lot of people don't even bother to see those two parts and thus get misguided a lot by what the Edmunds states.
1. The two cars were tested on the track under different conditions. If there was to be a truly fair and equal comparison... there wouldn't be a 20F difference, the Infiniti G37 had 2x wind (whether against it or helping it), and the Infiniti G37 had 2x less humidity.
2. Pricing was a factor in the final decision of the winner. If the 335i and G37 were built as closely as possible... the final price difference would've been $7,312.
3. Edmunds selectively omitted or included certain features of both cars. Why Edmunds decided to not include the navigation while the Infiniti had it puzzles me. Why Edmunds decided to not include the active steering option of the BMW but had the 4WAS for the Infiniti puzzles me. All of this relates back to the price and overall affect of the car.
4. Edmunds already stated previously in their separate review of the G37 that they disliked the 4WAS for the car. The car that was part of the comparison test though HAD the 4WAS and Edmunds stated that it was MANDATORY. That is completely false considering that for all G37 models, it is an OPTION.
5. Inaccuracies with braking... Edmunds reportedly got 5 feet better braking in the comparison test than the review that they did of the 335i alone a while back. Why such a big difference? For some reason... the Infiniti had a large amount of FADE during the comparison test. Although from their G37 Review, the car had absolutely no fade at all. Also from all the reviews that I've read from other car magazines and websites, they also experienced no fade from the G37.
6. "Recommended Rating (2.5%): After the test, each participating editor was asked to rank the two coupes in order of preference based on which he or she thought would be best for the average consumer shopping in this segment." From what I know, the AVERAGE consumer shopping in this segment isn't an enthusiast...
7. "29-Point Evaluation (35%): Each participating editor ranked each car based on a comprehensive 29-point evaluation. The evaluation covered everything from exterior design to cupholders. Scoring was calculated on a point system, and the scores listed are averages based on all test participants' evaluations." They never even explain what the 29-point evaluation includes. This point evaluation from the looks it seems to be very subjective and considering that there are actual OWNERS (I know of one EDITOR especially) of the 335i in Edmunds, wouldn't there be just a *tad* bit of bias?
8. "Performance Testing (25%): Each coupe was subjected to a set of performance tests that measure acceleration, braking, speed through a 600-foot slalom course and lateral gs on a 200-foot skid pad. Scores were calculated by giving the better-performing coupe in each category 100 percent. The lesser performer was awarded points based on how close it came to the top car's score." How much would have changed if the G37 didn't have the 4WAS that Edmunds really dislikes? It was even stated in the G37 full road test review but Edmunds still went along with it and tested a G37 WITH the 4WAS. The testing conditions weren't the same also.
Also... let me include a quote from a person on a different forum... he made some very valid and interesting points...
"What I find interesting is that if you go to their final summary scoring, and you weigh the price category correctly, the G37 wins. I'm assuming that Infiniti got 100% and the BMW got 91.1% because the BMW is 91.1% of the G37's price (mathematically works out close 91.8). In reality, a fully equipped 335 is $54k and you still don't get the equal tech of the Infiniti. The actual percentage is 78%. Plug that in, and the results change to put the G37 in 1st place.
The most disturbing thing is where they say that all 6mt's get the 4WAS. I hope that is not true. That definitely should be an option, especially since almost all tests have been hampered by this system due to weight and understeering.
Otherwise, the review is as expected. Same old story - pass over the BMW's faults and exaggerate the Infiniti's.
If the BMW has a slower slalom speed due to it's "soft" suspension, then they come back with something about how it felt better going through the slalom. If the view out of the car wasn't as exciting (they compared the G to a ferrari), then it's because BMW is "down to business". The BMW steering ratio is not as aggressive as the Inifniti's, but it "felt" like it was. The G had a "relative lack of high end vigor" but then they show a dyno that reveals the G is making 30-40 more lb-ft of torque at redline. The G doesn't like to change direction but it achieved a 2 mph higher slalom and they themselves mention when talking about the 335 "the limits are very approachable and can't be pushed with comfort. Ultimately, the 335i is not as comfortable in fast transitions as the G37." Where was that in the review?
I also like how they said on two occassions that they dyno'd the cars because they couldn't explain the performance difference between the G and 335. And they discovered that the 335 was underrated. Meanwhile, Edmunds has already written multiple articles about this. How fake.
All that being said, outside of the straight line stuff, the rest was all subjective (even when their objective tests told them otherwise). Which could be genuine. If the people driving the cars happened to like the BMW better (maybe they just prefer the German-esque feel of the BMW), then that will come out in their review. I would use this test more for the data that they collected than anything else. Everyone should drive the car and decide for themselves. As an example: I've driven a 2007 G35 Sedan and was as impressed with it as I was the 335 I test drove. One of the things I didn't like about the 335 was the clutch engagement. I learned later on these forums that BMW has what they call a clutch delay valve that makes for awkward hard shifting. But Edmunds said the clutch engagement is smooth. That part of the review alone made me realize how different people's opinions of one thing could be. Where I saw the clutch engagement as a big disappointment on the 335, they saw it as smooth."
Edmunds was so blatantly biased in their comparison test towards the 335i. The wording and everything. Even calling the G37 a BMW "wannabe" and treating the G37 as if it's some kind of cheap competitor.
- Yimbie
P.S. I might have missed some points to argue against but this post pretty much just sums it up.
Re: Edmunds' Biases (G376MT)
thanks bro...very imformative...now if i could just decide on the 4WAS
Re: Edmunds' Biases (G376MT)
I think the 4WAS shouldn't bother you too much if none at all. To me it's just something that I don't need since I'm just a casual driver. I don't want to waste extra money hehe.G376MT wrote:thanks bro...very imformative...now if i could just decide on the 4WAS
- Yimbie
Re: Edmunds' Biases (G376MT)
I generally understand where Edmunds is coming from in their reviews and comparison tests, although they (like most journalists) don't stress enough that some of these items/issues may be more important to them than to you.G376MT wrote:Let us know what you think about the Edmunds article/review and why it was biased...peace
Anyway, I was reading their 911/Corvette comparison (for some reason I am becoming interested in a Corvette). They go on and on about how much better everything fits and works in the 911, and about how the driving dynamics are better in the 911. They do say the Corvette Z51 suspension is great for road course work, although they complain about it for a daily driver (while most people say if you like a sport suspension, you won't find it objectionable). At the end they mention the prices of the two cars. The 911 is about $85K while the Corvette is less than $55K. Now, to me, this is a HUGE price difference and should have some impact on the comparison. But, Edmunds simply mentions it and goes on to conclude the 911 is just in a different class than the Corvette. Well, yes, I would expect to get a much better car for $85K than for $55K. I would expect the materials to be better and the building tolerances to be tighter.
So, is Edmunds simply always concluding that the car which is more expensive does more things better than the less expensive car?
For anyone who has had 4 wheel steering, it is great for freeway or rush hour driving when you want to cut into a small opening quickly. For just road driving where fast response is not needed, it doesn't add much to the experience. But for quick response driving it makes the car move nimbly and quickly and it enhances the experience.
I had the HICAS steering on my 1991 Nissan 300z twin turbo. Loved it.
I had the HICAS steering on my 1991 Nissan 300z twin turbo. Loved it.
