I'm experimenting with a new "quick test drive" format -- one suited to cars that we've reviewed in the past and/or haven't changed much for the current model year, but are significant enough that consumers need to know about them. The first car I've chosen for this format is Mazda's mid-size Mazda6 sedan. With a new version expected soon, the current 6 hasn't undergone a whole lot of changes -- but it's still a very good car worth of any mid-size buyer's consideration.
The object of all reviews here at About.com Cars is to help consumers make informed decisions about what car to buy. (And if I happen to entertain my readers a bit along the way, all the better.) So please do me a favor -- check out the Mazda6 quick test drive, then let me know what you think of the format. Is it as informative as our full reviews? Does it convey enough information to help a buyer make an informed decision? Is it appropriate for vehicles like the Mazda6, or would a full review be better? Click the comments link below and let me know, and thanks as always for your feedback. -- Aaron Gold
Photo © Aaron Gold
Hey this is a good idea. It goes a long way toward addressing a problem I’ve noticed in automotive journalism; that while auto companies improve existing models in response to criticisms raised by the press, consumers, and other reporting agencies, the improvements are largely ignored. Thus, only first impressions matter. This is a problem since, over a car’s production life, there are often significant changes that a consumer needs to know about. While there is a fair amount of reporting of improvements on a per year basis, there aren’t many road tests that look at these improvements as a package; a major omission in cars that have been reworked in important ways. Finally, as a model ages, competitors release new models that can make one forget that there is still a competent and often less expensive option out there; One that is still competitive if a bit dated. So a current road test helps to address these issues. I like the format too. It is succinct and non-repetitive. Again, good idea!
I do think Mazda’s are very nice vehicles they cost too much for what you get, you can get a Hyundai Sonata with the more standard equipment for less.
Yes, I like the new format as long as the link to full review is provided.
I’m surprise about some things though. Like no rear headrests? Isn’t that a safety requirement? My 2004 ‘6 had them. Was there a place for them? Also a shame about dropping the manual tranny choices. That’s the reason I bought the ‘6 in the first place as it was the best of the three performance sedans available with a 6cyl, manual transmission combo (the others being Altima and Jetta).
Aaron, is it possible that those little blisters on the back seats are in place of real headrests? My 08 Altima has the same style of headrest. They are bigger but very similar. I don’t like them, though, because they make it impossible to tighten down the top LATCH anchor on child safety seats tightly. Odd safety oversight I think.
I agree with Mike that this shorter review format is a good idea for models that have undergone less than a full makeover by the manufacturer. The new format, though short, still gives room for your opinions and the rationale for those opinions.
Now, even though the new, shorter format does fill a need in the car review industry, I do think that the scoring system that you use could use some improvement. For example, I noticed that you graded the 2007 Mazda 6 as a four-star car, but the relatively unchanged 2008 got only 3 and 1/2 stars. I can only presume that you changed your rating because Mazda dropped the Mazdaspeed models, the manual transmission and rear headrests in the 2008 model.
But since those specific attributes are completely unimportant to me personally, your 3 1/2 star scoring loses its meaning for me. Instead of your current scoring system where you give only an overall score on a five-star scale along with “pros and cons”, how about adding a short table where you would give a score on each important attibute of the car.
For example, you might list fuel economy, drivetrain smoothness, acceleration, quiteness, safety equipment, fit-and-finish, etc. as your criteria for judging a sedan. Then, simply list those qualities and your score on each one, as well as your overall score.
Such a scoring table for the 2008 Mazda 6 might look something like this:
Fuel Economy ****
Safety Equip. **
Drivetrain
Smoothness ****
Fit and Finish ****
Acceleration *****
Handling *****
Quietness ****
Overall ****
With a scoring system like this, a reader (like me) that is primarily interested in fuel economy, hadling and quietness could get a better idea of which vehicles deserve consideration.
I like the shorter version as one of the comments stated, as long as there is a link to the original site. I disagree with the 1-10 scale of scoring because that is one man’s opinion and I would rather hear it described. I find a lot of descriptions accurate and some not, has a lot to do with what you are expecting when you drive the vehicle. The MazdaSpeed3 descriptions you gave on the 2007 got me to want to test drive one and I was sold. My wife was even impressed with the comfort riding in the back seat while I test drove. She said I didn’t need the power but when I cornered hard, she didn’t complain either. I bought the car and have had my second childlhood driving throught the mountains of N.C. into S.C with a TT trying to get away. Keep up the good work Aaron
Thanks for the comments so far, everyone — please keep them coming.
Steve – I didn’t put in a link to what the stars mean, but perhaps I should have. (It looked a little awkward in the short format.) You’ll find it here. Cars are ranked not by how well I like them — that’s what the extra half-stars are for — but by how well they compare to their competitors. In 2006, the Mazda 6 may well have been a four-star car — significantly better than the competition. But now that so many manufacturers have introduced new mid-size cars, the target has moved, and the Mazda 6 is no longer significantly better. (The fact that it ranks well among them, though, is saying a lot.) That said, I’d still give the Mazdaspeed 6 four stars — compared to other hot-rod sedans in the same price bracket, it’s much better. But the same does not hold true for the regular 6 compared to the workaday sedans against which it competes.
Mike: I have seen cars that have “blisters” in place of proper moving headrests– I think that’s what the 6’s are supposed to be. Problem is they aren’t high enough to provide proper head support. Bummer. — Aaron
I like the idea. As stated before, in automotive jounalism there is often so much attention given to the new models and all they have to offer, that some of the older cars, which have been improving slowly over their lifespan, end up largely forgotten by the general public. This can be an excellent way of keeping many of those vehicles in the forefront and in people’s minds.
Aaron,
The Quick Test format is a great idea! It provides the needed information for potential buyers and their influential car guy friends (like me). It keeps us informed of additional information tidbits that may sneak below our radar. Sometimes that information is part of the “make or break” selection equation. For example, when a particularly styling element is revised and improved(the Subaru Tribeca nose comes to mind).
Your mid- to late-life cycle review helps buyers know if a particular model has slipped, held its own or improved compared to its competitors. That helps keep them up to date on the ever moving target of automotive model improvement.
Keep up the good work!