When an automaker lends a car to a journalist, it comes with a sheet like the ones you see taped to the windows of cars at dealerships. You know the one; the fuel economy numbers are extra big and the options that have been taken are all listed in one column. The New York Times might as well have just posted that sheet as a review.
By our reckoning, only 254 of the review's 1,366 words (18.59%) were used to tell the reader how the car felt, and isn't that why we read reviews? Nobody reads a car review to find out how much horsepower an engine puts out or what the kerb weight of a car is; it's infinitely more efficient to read the manufacturer's spec sheet. Tell us how the 20" wheels affect the ride and handling, not just that they're there and cost $2,730.
Are we right or are we just screaming into the void with this one? When you read a review do you want the objective facts, taken straight from the manufacturer's spec sheet, or some knowledge of how the car feels?
Also, the whole theme of the article was "OMG the Boxster is sooooooooo much more expensive than it was 16 years ago!" It's not like the prices of everything but the Porsche Boxster have stayed the same. When was the last time you remember paying $1.23 for gas?
[via NY Times]