..

 

I found that the vast majority of the reviews (video or written) are provided by untrained automotive journalists. They are trained of course in journalism but not in knowledge concerning anything automotive. Some need dictionary to even read the technical terms from the cheat sheets not to mention understanding them. Mitsubishi in particular is under serious attack and the unjustified bullying is getting on my nerves. I am not working for Mitsubishi and the bad reviews work in my favor (better deals, lower prices). Reading the latest review by Edmunds, however, put me over the board and could not resist to insert my counter evaluation (at the bottom of the article). I used Edmunds own data to contradict their conclusions.
Here is the biased report and my extensive comments underneath:
http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/ou...road-test.html

 

Great points in your argument.
And, quite solid with your annotations.


By no means am I supporting their articles/reviews... However, I will bring up one fact -

>> Numbers on paper (even though scientifically calculated) does not give proper expression of what a human will experience or can perceive.
And, Sometimes those "numbers" may be exaggerated - with fine print of - ONLY achievable by "professional skilled drivers" and/or "under close-course conditions".


for ex:

1. Listed fuel economy = 30MPG highway

Not many of us are hitting those numbers even when we put in due diligence in trying.
(I'd be the first to say so, especially on our second O.Sport. < Well, maintained and everthing stock, NO Mods.)


2. Claimed 9.2s 0-60MPH.
Well, that may be so in a Lab... But not on regular pump gas and regular streets.

So, I'm just saying - to compare directly by the numbers "on paper", is only part of the equation.

 

These measurements were performed by Edmunds itself. Motorweek measured 9.5 s and 9.6 s for 0-60 mph for the OS and the 2.0 L CX-5 and breaking from 60 to 0 mph 125 ft and 129 ft, respectively.
The numbers are different by a hair but the trend is the same.
Similarly, the fuel economy numbers are also off for the other brands as well. Just go and visit for example Mazdas247 (CX-5 forum) for real word fuel economy numbers.
In terms of the importance on how a human perceives I beg to differ. It does not matter at all. Only sheer data will determine whether the car stops in time, accelerates out of a dangerous situation, or rolls over or not. However, I fully agree that the enjoyment factor could entirely be different if human senses can connect the usual sound and visual observations to the actual data. That has nothing to do to the performance of the vehicle though. I think this lack of connection is why a lot of people hate CVTs for example. Human pride cannot accept that an unpleasant sound can be coupled to the same acceleration as the one coupled with a well known rev increase and drop. Amanda Lear in the 70s became a star singer (disco queen) regardless that her bariton/base voice was not what anyone would have expected by looking at her. People will get used to CVTs in few years and will learn to establish the coupling between the sound and acceleration. We are not there yet as many CVTs are currently equipped with an auxiliary gearbox (e.g. Jatco CVT7) just to please people by mimicking traditional shift points and returning the familiar sound effect. I think this defeats the real purpose and advantage of the CVT.

 

A critical and entertaining opinion about why many online reviews are biased.
The host is from Australia and uses the example of Mercedes C class launch but his points are so valid for many automakers. After watching this you might understand why Mitsubishi car reviews resemble rather bullying than praise.

If interested you may find the next part in his channel, where he compares the Mercedes C class with the Mazda 6.

 

You got to love it!
This is simply Capitalism at its Best > If you have the mean$$$$,$$$$, create your own worth/value by **paying**, I mean 'lobbying' a select group of journalists to an exclusive vehicle launch.


I'm sure most everyone knows any report/review by these Automotive outlets are paid for by the auto industry. So to pretend they are not biased in some way, is just silly.


Plus, if you ONLY knew what goes on behind close doors at some of these dealerships, you'd be amazed what's offered to push one of these cars "out the door".
The same goes for just about every major retail consumer goods that's offered here in the States.






********************


I'll take the word of the owner - of a vehicle/product - over any of those official "reviewers" any day.

 

Got a new one today. Did great as always. I really want to buy my parents one when I save up enough money

 

Last tank - 70/30 hiway/city. 29.4 mpg Just saying.

 

latest 2016 video review (But, I don't understand a word he's saying :P )

 

Disregard. Damn mobile site showing completely unrelated threads at the bottom of the page.