2020 Toyota GR Supra Revealed!

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Mr.ac

10k miles and they felt it was a milestone? Bitch please.
All the more reason to hate these lame ass car "journalists"

Yea, I agree. I mean does ANY car routinely need non-maintenance repair in its first 10,000 miles? If so, you can be damn sure that won't be a car model around very long. Add a zero to that, and you are getting around my expectations. A car shouldn't need non-routine service within it's first 100,000 miles at minimum.

When they start testing to that, get back to me.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Yea, I agree. I mean does ANY car routinely need non-maintenance repair in its first 10,000 miles?

Most serious testers have long term vehicles. Car&Driver's are for 40,000 miles, and some do need unplanned repairs (other than accidental damage), so there is some value to the reader about reliability. Based on the typical ownership period of a car, it's a decent compromise to long-term test a car for 40,000 miles - most people who buy new cars don't keep them very long, and once a car is a few years old and used there are plenty of other sources of information for reliability on the internet (forums, blogs, Consumer Reports, etc.).

If testing to 100,000 miles means Car&Driver would test 2.5 times less cars, would you still be reading it? It would also take 2.5 times more time to review (they take around a year to rake the 40,000 miles).

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

If testing to 100,000 miles means Car&Driver would test 2.5 times less cars, would you still be reading it? It would also take 2.5 times more time to review (they take around a year to rake the 40,000 miles).

Well, frankly I don't read C&D, or other magazines/TV magazines for their "long-term" reviews anyway because most don't keep them long enough to be meaningful in my opinion.

If they did away with the feature all together, it could have zero impact on my readership/viewership.

Even at 40,000 miles how many real repairs have they had to have done? Yes, it happens on occasion, but is likely covered by warranty and is related to a defective part or some cosmetic item covered by B2B warranty. And since it's one car out of thousands, it really has no true meaning since your experience is very likely to be different. A better service to their readers would to be able to report on fleet wide repairs in the first 40,000 miles, not that they have that information..

About the only useful information that comes out of it is real-world fuel economy, and that is available from multiple sources.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Well, frankly I don't read C&D, or other magazines/TV magazines for their "long-term" reviews anyway because most don't keep them long enough to be meaningful in my opinion.

You're falling into the common fallacy of "it not important to me, hence it's not important to anyone". Most people who read new car reviews are interested in buying new cars, not used. And most new car buyers (and especially leasers) don't keep the cars for 100,000 miles. Hence doing a 40,000 miles long term test, where the strength and weaknesses of a car can be much more thoroughly tested than with a two day 500 mile test.

An interesting approach would be to long term test used cars - take a 100,000 miles car and test it for 20,000 miles. Sadly that's not what most reader want (although it's what most readers need).

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

A better service to their readers would to be able to report on fleet wide repairs in the first 40,000 miles, not that they have that information

That's what Consumer Reports and J.D. Power attempt. We can debate their methodology (which I consider to be pretty flawed), but it's information that's hard to compile and analyze objectively.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

You're falling into the common fallacy of "it not important to me, hence it's not important to anyone".

Didn't say it wasn't important to someone, just saying it provides no real value to me in response to your comment about whether I would continue to read it if they changed their method.

I mean, the Kardashians aren't important to me either, but I won't deny that they obviously are important to a lot of people for some weird reason. This basically fits in the same bucket.

I do believe you are underestimating how may people keep a new car for more that 40,000 miles though.

[Lantanafrs2]

40k in the hands of low salaried know it alls with chips on their shoulders could be equivalent to 100k for the rest of us.

[e1_griego]

Doesn't Car and Driver do 40,000 mile long term tests? This is just a check-in on the progress, not the end of the long-term test.

I drove one 3 weeks ago for 20-25min of backroading and a little bit of city traffic. Love the way it looks, don't love a few things about it, but ultimately I can't afford it anyway without liquidating a few cars so it's mostly moot.

[alphasaur]

Oof.

Looks so good in that blue.

Lots of salty people in this thread.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by alphasaur

Looks so good in that blue.

Lots of salty people in this thread.

To continue the saltiness...

I like the blue as well but I do think it exaggerates one of the parts I'm not fond of, the hips. In the second picture view in particular it has that same look as a Goldwing someone has turned into a trike, almost like they were added on as an afterthought.

It's not as bad in person, but even then not crazy about it.

[Red-86]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

And since it's one car out of thousands, it really has no true meaning since your experience is very likely to be different.

Exactly this. The plural of one anecdote is not data. A good or bad test in one car doesn’t tell you much about the reliability of a fleet of cars.

A better service to their readers would to be able to report on fleet wide repairs in the first 40,000 miles, not that they have that information..

Yeah, the more data they can collect on each model, the more millions of miles of data they have, the more reliable the picture of the car. Even website/forum reports based on mass numbers of owner reports are a bit biased, as people tend to self select to report about cars with faults, but not so much the ones that go fault free. It’s the nature of the beast, people are more likely to report bad news vs good.

Manufacturers probably have really useful info on the reliability of their cars, based on warranty claims and dealer repair data, but they are not likely to want to share such commercially sensitive data with the market. Especially if it paints a less than rosy picture.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I mean, the Kardashians aren't important to me either,

I wouldn't consider driving a Kardashian.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Red-86

Manufacturers probably have really useful info on the reliability of their cars, based on warranty claims and dealer repair data, but they are not likely to want to share such commercially sensitive data with the market. Especially if it paints a less than rosy picture.

This website from the UK. It is from a warranty crowd so they don't have a vested interest in the brands, just the data.
Under blog they give reliability/unreliabilty for brands which isn't all that helpful.

Where as this crowd (also a warranty business) gives a reliability index for particular models.

[beltax90]

Have seen 3 in the wild. one right next to me when driving. definitely has presence!

[beltax90]