Biased reviews. Please read!
April-7th-2002, 09:50 PM
#1
WiCky=))
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 883
Biased reviews. Please read!
I was just flipping through a Popular Science magazine that my girlfriend gave me because the P5 was in a comparo. So I look through the magazine and got extremely upset afterwards, not because the P5 came last but because of the absurdiness of the writer's, Ted West of Popular Science, comparo.
First and foremost he writes the least on the P5, and of it its mostly negative. Firstly, he says the P5's design is conventional, I disagree. Before the P5, there was no car that even looked alike. Wagons were full length wagons, and never hatchback the hybrids you see today.
Then it goes on to say that the P5 is a compact car, and the Focus ZX5 and the Matrix are mid-sized. Again where is the evidence? All are classified by the EPA as compact cars, and all are based on compact cars. being the Protege, Focus and Corolla respectively. To be this is just a sign of inadequate research on his part and therefore a unfounded statement.
Thirdly, he says that the "no-nonsense, enthuistic" Focus engine's 130hp arrives at 5500rpm compared to the Protege's "less vigorous" engine which makes that power at a higher 6000rpm. Okay, so theres only a neglible 500rpm difference,nothing significant really. This creates the impression that the writer has a preference for lower revving engines. Thats fine. Then he goes on to say that the Matrix's "red hot 1.8L four cylinder delivers power at 7600 rpm-a road rocket". By this statement he contradicts himself, by saying he like high-revving engines again, where is the logic in that?
In addition he writes, that the Protege is the least useful and practical, despite fitting a bike easily in it. The Focus on the other hand, can only"sqeeze" a bike in, but it got second for usefulness and praticality.
He then goes on to say, that the "Focus was a looker, but were put off by the unusual design."Another statement that cancels out its own meaning.
It also says that the Matrix from opinions of his evaluated group, a bunch of design students, stated that the Matrix looks the best. Any normal person will say the Matrix even in top trim looks bad. I heard alot of classmates, many of which I don't know, talk about the ugiliness of the Matrix. Whereas the P5 knows what it is. The Matrix doesn't. The Toyota marketing scheme is even emphsizes this, that the car does not adhere to any category, and doesn't know what it is. I think its a bad marketing plot altogther. But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lastly, there's the POPSCI index-a review mechanism of the strengths and weaknesses of the car which contain the common subcategories such as ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN, SUSPENSION, SAFETY, etc. It says the Matrix has the "best" suspension, but sorry I disagree on this point comepletely, maybe they could give the honor to the Focus but the Matrix with its front MacPherson setup and its rear Torsion beam setup, is both to me, very inadvanced, and a cost cutting measure. But nowhere, in tha article does it mention the Matrix's front/rear suspension setup, so how come they could make a judgement on the suspension performance of the vehicle?Beats me. Nowhere in the article does it state that this writer took these cars to drive, how a car should be tested. Instead he made all these "assumptions" on manufacterer specifications. (He did however fold the seats back,LOL)
Its sad enough to see illiterate idiots write on the net basing their claims on unfounded assumptions but a professional (I assume) writer in Popular Science? Ted go do some tests before you write such rubbish in a respectable magazine.
First and foremost he writes the least on the P5, and of it its mostly negative. Firstly, he says the P5's design is conventional, I disagree. Before the P5, there was no car that even looked alike. Wagons were full length wagons, and never hatchback the hybrids you see today.
Then it goes on to say that the P5 is a compact car, and the Focus ZX5 and the Matrix are mid-sized. Again where is the evidence? All are classified by the EPA as compact cars, and all are based on compact cars. being the Protege, Focus and Corolla respectively. To be this is just a sign of inadequate research on his part and therefore a unfounded statement.
Thirdly, he says that the "no-nonsense, enthuistic" Focus engine's 130hp arrives at 5500rpm compared to the Protege's "less vigorous" engine which makes that power at a higher 6000rpm. Okay, so theres only a neglible 500rpm difference,nothing significant really. This creates the impression that the writer has a preference for lower revving engines. Thats fine. Then he goes on to say that the Matrix's "red hot 1.8L four cylinder delivers power at 7600 rpm-a road rocket". By this statement he contradicts himself, by saying he like high-revving engines again, where is the logic in that?
In addition he writes, that the Protege is the least useful and practical, despite fitting a bike easily in it. The Focus on the other hand, can only"sqeeze" a bike in, but it got second for usefulness and praticality.
He then goes on to say, that the "Focus was a looker, but were put off by the unusual design."Another statement that cancels out its own meaning.
It also says that the Matrix from opinions of his evaluated group, a bunch of design students, stated that the Matrix looks the best. Any normal person will say the Matrix even in top trim looks bad. I heard alot of classmates, many of which I don't know, talk about the ugiliness of the Matrix. Whereas the P5 knows what it is. The Matrix doesn't. The Toyota marketing scheme is even emphsizes this, that the car does not adhere to any category, and doesn't know what it is. I think its a bad marketing plot altogther. But then beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Lastly, there's the POPSCI index-a review mechanism of the strengths and weaknesses of the car which contain the common subcategories such as ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN, SUSPENSION, SAFETY, etc. It says the Matrix has the "best" suspension, but sorry I disagree on this point comepletely, maybe they could give the honor to the Focus but the Matrix with its front MacPherson setup and its rear Torsion beam setup, is both to me, very inadvanced, and a cost cutting measure. But nowhere, in tha article does it mention the Matrix's front/rear suspension setup, so how come they could make a judgement on the suspension performance of the vehicle?Beats me. Nowhere in the article does it state that this writer took these cars to drive, how a car should be tested. Instead he made all these "assumptions" on manufacterer specifications. (He did however fold the seats back,LOL)
Its sad enough to see illiterate idiots write on the net basing their claims on unfounded assumptions but a professional (I assume) writer in Popular Science? Ted go do some tests before you write such rubbish in a respectable magazine.
Last edited by leungwingkei; April-8th-2002 at 12:01 PM.
April-7th-2002, 10:47 PM
#2
Use this to install stuff
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 1,069
That is one shitty review man. You mentioned that Popular Science is a respectable mag, which I guess it is, but I would not read it for car reviews. I may be wrong, but I don't believe that PS has the ability to fully test a car. 3 major car magazines, Automobile, Sport Compact Car, and Road and Track all gave the Protege5 a great preview. In the April or May issue of R/T, the editor gave the P5 a short summary of what it can do. He made small gripes about the engine, but commended it on its excellent handling. This was not a full test of the car but It was a good write up on it.
Try not to let Magazines **** you off with their reviews. Like everything else its just somebody's opinion, even if his own opinions contradict each other.
Try not to let Magazines **** you off with their reviews. Like everything else its just somebody's opinion, even if his own opinions contradict each other.
April-7th-2002, 10:56 PM
#3
Cripple Fight!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,944
I smell a 'tainted' review...
Just wondering, how many TOYOTA ads are there in that issue of Pop Sci?
Wasn't there a recent issue of Pop Sci where Toyota had a full 10-12 page advertising section showing their full passenger car lineup?
Sounds like whoever dumped the most marketing $$ got the most favorable reviews...
Pop Sci is great for reviews on various tech gadgets, but NOT cars
Just wondering, how many TOYOTA ads are there in that issue of Pop Sci?
Wasn't there a recent issue of Pop Sci where Toyota had a full 10-12 page advertising section showing their full passenger car lineup?
Sounds like whoever dumped the most marketing $$ got the most favorable reviews...
Pop Sci is great for reviews on various tech gadgets, but NOT cars
April-9th-2002, 12:36 AM
#6
Cripple Fight!!!!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 1,944
I read the Motor Trend comparison...
(I posted this opinion on Edmunds, I think I'll email it to Motor Trend as well and give them my $3.50 )
it's a pathetic comparison article. Blatant marketing $$ at work. Just a few pages before the comparison article, and right before their midsize sedan comparo, there's this full 2-page spread ad for the Matrix. Gee I wonder who the editors/writers will take care of first?
What's the point of having 2 180+hp cars compete against the Pro5 that has only 130hp (that orange-to-apple analogy)? Their preface that they want the most powerful engine from each vehicle automatically puts the Pro5 in a deep hole, since the only performance category the Pro will even have a chance against the other 2 would be the slalom. The Pro got busted in all the HP-related tests, gee I wonder why
And then they bashed the Pro5 in the comparison chart for having yellow paint like there's no other choices available...
That whole article is biased in wording and selective in features for comparison, so that in the end the Matrix will be shown as the 'best' of the 3. Objective comparison it is NOT.
SHAME ON MOTOR TREND
)it's a pathetic comparison article. Blatant marketing $$ at work. Just a few pages before the comparison article, and right before their midsize sedan comparo, there's this full 2-page spread ad for the Matrix. Gee I wonder who the editors/writers will take care of first?
What's the point of having 2 180+hp cars compete against the Pro5 that has only 130hp (that orange-to-apple analogy)? Their preface that they want the most powerful engine from each vehicle automatically puts the Pro5 in a deep hole, since the only performance category the Pro will even have a chance against the other 2 would be the slalom. The Pro got busted in all the HP-related tests, gee I wonder why
And then they bashed the Pro5 in the comparison chart for having yellow paint like there's no other choices available...
That whole article is biased in wording and selective in features for comparison, so that in the end the Matrix will be shown as the 'best' of the 3. Objective comparison it is NOT.
SHAME ON MOTOR TREND
April-9th-2002, 10:21 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 106
in the motor trend comparo, the one with the pro5, the matrix, and the WRX. I am guessing its the Matrix XRS right?? the one with the 180hp celica engine??? I am just curious cuz my buddy just got a Matrix XR. It has the 130 hp engine (i believe its from the Corolla S), and he wants to drag race me, who do you think will win?? Both 5 spd. both 130hp, both right around 2700lbs., but i got 135lb/ft, and he has 125lb/ft. Think I can take him in my Pro5??
-Andrew
-Andrew
April-10th-2002, 01:22 AM
#9
a.k.a. spydermonkey
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,413
Originally posted by Gro Harlem
i don't know about scanning it....its like copywrited and **** (i'm saying for my site)
as for scanning it just so you can read it...well....my scanner takes 5 minutes per page (literally) so it would be a major pain in my *** to scan the article (which isl ike 5-8 pages or something).
i don't know about scanning it....its like copywrited and **** (i'm saying for my site)
as for scanning it just so you can read it...well....my scanner takes 5 minutes per page (literally) so it would be a major pain in my *** to scan the article (which isl ike 5-8 pages or something).
. Ill go read it at Walmart P.S. Five minutes per page, looks like you might need a new scanner. Check out this site www.bensbargains.net . They had a scanner deal for $20 bucks after rebate.
April-10th-2002, 07:15 AM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 106
So the P5 was faster than the WRX in the slalom??? thats sweet!!! WRX is looked at as one of the better handling cars out there, and the P5 beat it. YES!! anywho, i was wondering if they said how much better the P5 suspension was than the Matrix??
April-10th-2002, 02:14 PM
#12
WiCky=))
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 883
I highly doubt that the Matrix can outslalom the Protege5 due to its higher center of gravity, and the soft springs. I took one for a test drive once, the base version and it seems to handle more like an agile minivan. Its limits of adhesion are less as well as body roll is much more noticable.
I don't think that the Protege5 should not be compared engine wise to the Matrix or WRX, since they cost so much more.
A better comparison would be between the Subaru's 2.5TS wagon, the Toyota Matrix XR w/o 4wd preferably and the 130hp engine. Other contenders can include the Suzuki Aerio, and the Focus ZX5. Such a comparison would be much more fair because of the price range of the vehicles being more close to each other. I would like to see how the Protege5 fares in that. No one would compare a Audi S4 with a Mazdaspeed Protege, despite similarities such as both are powered by turbocharged engines, and both are tuned by the performance arm of a company. The differences in price are just too vast for any fair comparison
I doubt Motor Trend's comparison. The overall impression of their magazine is that it praises cars way too much. IMO Car and Driver and Road and Track are much better automotive magazines. C and D especially since they are very critical about cars. They do however have a preference to sport car chractersitics in most cars.
And praising the better suspension setup of the Matrix is pure nonsense. Maybe sportier tuning although I doubt this also, but the setup of the Matrix outdated, consisting of McPherson struts up front (Okay, this is not outdated) and a Torsion bar in the back (This is). The 4WD version has a double wishbone setup in the back like Celica's but FWD which is the only way a 180hp Matrix is available in has a Torsion beam setup like the new Corolla, quite outdated since many cars today use multilink, double wishbones, and trapeziod link setups.
I don't think that the Protege5 should not be compared engine wise to the Matrix or WRX, since they cost so much more.
A better comparison would be between the Subaru's 2.5TS wagon, the Toyota Matrix XR w/o 4wd preferably and the 130hp engine. Other contenders can include the Suzuki Aerio, and the Focus ZX5. Such a comparison would be much more fair because of the price range of the vehicles being more close to each other. I would like to see how the Protege5 fares in that. No one would compare a Audi S4 with a Mazdaspeed Protege, despite similarities such as both are powered by turbocharged engines, and both are tuned by the performance arm of a company. The differences in price are just too vast for any fair comparison
I doubt Motor Trend's comparison. The overall impression of their magazine is that it praises cars way too much. IMO Car and Driver and Road and Track are much better automotive magazines. C and D especially since they are very critical about cars. They do however have a preference to sport car chractersitics in most cars.
And praising the better suspension setup of the Matrix is pure nonsense. Maybe sportier tuning although I doubt this also, but the setup of the Matrix outdated, consisting of McPherson struts up front (Okay, this is not outdated) and a Torsion bar in the back (This is). The 4WD version has a double wishbone setup in the back like Celica's but FWD which is the only way a 180hp Matrix is available in has a Torsion beam setup like the new Corolla, quite outdated since many cars today use multilink, double wishbones, and trapeziod link setups.
Last edited by leungwingkei; April-10th-2002 at 02:24 PM.
April-10th-2002, 10:55 PM
#13
Protege Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Palm Bay, FL
Posts: 163
Originally posted by Gro Harlem
THe protege5 got like a 8.5 and a 16.79 at 82.2 1/4 mile.
THe protege5 got like a 8.5 and a 16.79 at 82.2 1/4 mile.
April-10th-2002, 11:18 PM
#14
Use this to install stuff
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 1,069
I think that guy from Canada was stirring people up because his numbers did not add up, and then a whole Canadian Brigade along with an american Militia began to battle a little.
April-10th-2002, 11:25 PM
#15
Use this to install stuff
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: State College, PA
Posts: 1,069
Originally posted by leungwingkei
I highly doubt that the Matrix can outslalom the Protege5 due to its higher center of gravity, and the soft springs. I took one for a test drive once, the base version and it seems to handle more like an agile minivan. Its limits of adhesion are less as well as body roll is much more noticable.
I don't think that the Protege5 should not be compared engine wise to the Matrix or WRX, since they cost so much more.
A better comparison would be between the Subaru's 2.5TS wagon, the Toyota Matrix XR w/o 4wd preferably and the 130hp engine. Other contenders can include the Suzuki Aerio, and the Focus ZX5. Such a comparison would be much more fair because of the price range of the vehicles being more close to each other. I would like to see how the Protege5 fares in that. No one would compare a Audi S4 with a Mazdaspeed Protege, despite similarities such as both are powered by turbocharged engines, and both are tuned by the performance arm of a company. The differences in price are just too vast for any fair comparison
I doubt Motor Trend's comparison. The overall impression of their magazine is that it praises cars way too much. IMO Car and Driver and Road and Track are much better automotive magazines. C and D especially since they are very critical about cars. They do however have a preference to sport car chractersitics in most cars.
And praising the better suspension setup of the Matrix is pure nonsense. Maybe sportier tuning although I doubt this also, but the setup of the Matrix outdated, consisting of McPherson struts up front (Okay, this is not outdated) and a Torsion bar in the back (This is). The 4WD version has a double wishbone setup in the back like Celica's but FWD which is the only way a 180hp Matrix is available in has a Torsion beam setup like the new Corolla, quite outdated since many cars today use multilink, double wishbones, and trapeziod link setups.
I highly doubt that the Matrix can outslalom the Protege5 due to its higher center of gravity, and the soft springs. I took one for a test drive once, the base version and it seems to handle more like an agile minivan. Its limits of adhesion are less as well as body roll is much more noticable.
I don't think that the Protege5 should not be compared engine wise to the Matrix or WRX, since they cost so much more.
A better comparison would be between the Subaru's 2.5TS wagon, the Toyota Matrix XR w/o 4wd preferably and the 130hp engine. Other contenders can include the Suzuki Aerio, and the Focus ZX5. Such a comparison would be much more fair because of the price range of the vehicles being more close to each other. I would like to see how the Protege5 fares in that. No one would compare a Audi S4 with a Mazdaspeed Protege, despite similarities such as both are powered by turbocharged engines, and both are tuned by the performance arm of a company. The differences in price are just too vast for any fair comparison
I doubt Motor Trend's comparison. The overall impression of their magazine is that it praises cars way too much. IMO Car and Driver and Road and Track are much better automotive magazines. C and D especially since they are very critical about cars. They do however have a preference to sport car chractersitics in most cars.
And praising the better suspension setup of the Matrix is pure nonsense. Maybe sportier tuning although I doubt this also, but the setup of the Matrix outdated, consisting of McPherson struts up front (Okay, this is not outdated) and a Torsion bar in the back (This is). The 4WD version has a double wishbone setup in the back like Celica's but FWD which is the only way a 180hp Matrix is available in has a Torsion beam setup like the new Corolla, quite outdated since many cars today use multilink, double wishbones, and trapeziod link setups.
Very good pionts...
I don't think this was a good test either. The price range is so huge between a P5 and a WRX and I doubt a guy would go look at a P5 for 17,000 and say "Nah, I want to get 100 more hp for 10,000 more" and if he would he sucks.
Hows it go? Apples and Oranges?