siwatkins
06-15-2002, 06:47 AM
Not often I get fired up, but I thought I'd share... (Warning, long....)
Dear Sirs,
I write in disgust at the recent Erin Riches review, and clearly inaccurate, biased Road Test on the 2002 Saab Aero. In brief, I believe the article to be full of factual inaccuracies, comments that would indicate that the reviewer hasn't actually tested the car in reality and tactical omissions that make one wonder at the credibility of Edmunds car reviewers. One wonders whether the article was posted by Edmunds as counter to an allegation made on the very active Saabnet forum:-
"A while ago someone from the Edmunds boards came here and posted a negative message about the 9-5 and then started to post negative replies using different names. I caught the IP in the logs and when I brought it up to the Edmunds admin over there, they quickly suppressed the fact - didn't want anyone to know about it.
-Scott"
Regardless, my comments about the review: http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/r...75/article.html (http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/roadtest/64475/article.html)
are shown below.
>Saab hasn't enjoyed a significant increase in sales over the last decade
Errmm, sorry, but I think Saab would have something to say about that!
>As always, though, numbers are only part of the story: if you're a turbo fan, you'll probably like the Aero's engine — it feels and sounds great above 2,000 rpm, and even better above 4,000 rpm, and it revs more smoothly than most high-pressure turbos.
Probably revs more smoothly than all high pressure turbos! Has your reviewer understood the concept of twin balancer shafts?
>But if you merely want a fast luxury car for $30,000 to $40,000, we think you'll prefer the more even power delivery of a six-cylinder engine.
Doubt it - show me a V6 (*at the same price*) that has a smoother engine!?
>You can get a V6 in the 9-5 Arc (albeit with a light-pressure turbocharger attached to it), but the G35, TL Type-S and 330i (not to mention the Audi A4, I35/Maxima and Chrysler 300M) all provide substantially more naturally aspirated power than the Arc for less money — in some cases, far less.
The v6 is not the engine to go for in the Saab 9-5 - the Aero engine offers more of everything - Torque AND Power - why didn't they mention that?. Guess your reviewer didn't do much research before writing this article. Can your reviewer use a Browser? Try www.saabnet.com (http://www.saabnet.com) .......
>Take the Aero out on public roads, and you'll enjoy perhaps the most refined suspension ever offered by Saab. In the larger context of entry-luxury sedans, however, it's nothing special.
Has your reviewer actually tried anything else? The above comment suggests not....
> If this is the way you drive most of time, the Aero will certainly suffice, but you could save yourself some money by going with the less sporting Linear model.
LOL - credibility meltdown. The Aero has SPORTS suspension! It will "suffice"? - get real - how about an unbiased road test Edmunds!?
>In spite of Saab's efforts to position the 9-5 Aero as an athletic entry-luxury car (since its introduction for the 2000 model year), we still wouldn't define it as such, even with the 2002 model's suspension upgrades — stiffer springs, retuned shock absorbers and thicker antiroll bars. When we pushed our test car into tight curves, we noted excessive body roll, as well as a strong predisposition toward understeer when exiting turns.
Guess Edmunds have a different view to pretty much every other road test. Could it be that the reviewer lacks credibility?
>Most drivers found it necessary to deactivate the system in order to give the Aero a serious workout, but in case your enthusiasm impairs your judgment, Saab made it tricky to turn ESP off: According to the owner's manual, ESP cannot be shut off at speeds above 35 mph, and even when it is turned off, it is always operative during braking.
Excuse me? "Most Drivers"? Can you back that up with how many drivers you polled to make the claim "Most Drivers"? Absolute tosh. Never had to deactivate it yet! It does it's job.
>As we eagerly pressed the throttle to power out of turns or glide down empty two-lane straightaways, our steering inputs and our gusto were immediately checked by heavy amounts of torque steer (not unusual in high-power front-drivers but especially pronounced in Saabs), the drive wheels veering outside of our intended path.
Ahh, so the reviewer didn't drive the car at all! There is practically no perceptible Torque Steer on the 2002 Aero. What car were they driving?
>Overall, the cockpit has a cozy, almost cramped feel (as if you were sitting in coach class)
LOL. This is a car with MORE interior room than anything else in it's segment. I guess your reviewer knows how to spell "Hidden Agenda"
" in consequence, we found that there weren't enough places to stash small items like cell phones,"
Doh! Saab provide in their Accessories catalog a very nice Cellphone mount, not to mention door mounted pockets. Guess what? The Audio system is pre-wired to enable you take/make calls through the Stereo. As standard. Did that get a mention? No...
" garage door openers (HomeLink isn't available) and tins of mints."
Reviewer didn't find the seat pockets in the front of the seats then? Either they didn't drive the car, or they didn't do much research here. I suspect the former, picking up on out of date reviews by other testers of older models. It certainly wasn't a 02 they could have been testing.
> The cupholder situation isn't any better; you have your choice of a funky holder that deploys from the center stack or another that's only available when the center console lid is open.
A cupholder that has been acclaimed by more Designers than this reviewer has driven cars apparently. I suspect Saab have made more sales through the design of this cupholder than any other more important feature - such as Safety, safest in class.
"Still, we had a couple of small complaints: First, we wish the telescoping steering wheel provided a greater range of adjustment; and second, a sedan in this price class needs to provide height-adjustable seatbelts (which are already a staple among economy sedans)."
What a surprise. Again the reviewer shows a lack of research. What's wrong with the telescoping adjustment? It has plenty of range! And height adjustable seatbelts. LOL, the reviewer didn't note that they are height adjusting. And not only that, they automatically adjust!!!
"Getting in and out of the 9-5 was a little tricky for some of us."
As is reviewing a car impartially and accurately it would seem lol.
"The front doors seemed not to want to stay in their first hinged positions and swung back, bopping any heads and elbows that were in their way."
Perhaps the first, fair and accurate, very minor criticism. Nice use of artistic flair to make a mountain out of a molehill though - (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
> Opening the doors wider solved the problem, but this wasn't always possible in tight parking lots.
Noooo, really? And that's a Saab quirk is it?
> Also, the door sills are rather high in the front and rear, so extra attention is required to avoid tripping over them.
LOL. Absolute drivel. (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
>Editors were generally content with the visibility from the driver seat — helpful features include double sunvisors, an auto-dimming rearview mirror, memory for both outside mirrors and a built-in convex mirror on the passenger-side mirror. The latter feature was initially bewildering to a couple of editors, as images in the blind spot region (cordoned off from the rest of the mirror) appear distorted.
Convex mirrors - now incorporated by other luxury makers. Surprised (very) that your reviewers hadn't picked up on what is a very useful safety feature before. They do test drive these cars they write about don't they?
>Rearward visibility isn't great because of the 9-5's high rear decklid (a Park Assist feature was made available as part of the Touring Plus Package starting in March 2002)
Worse than on any other large luxury Sedan, thus worthy of comment? No. (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
> and we would have liked an auto-dimming feature for the outside mirrors.
And now we get onto things that didn't make the feature list. Show me a BMW that is as well equipped as a Saab at the same price? You can't? Oh. (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
>The rear seat is well-cushioned and supportive; a single-setting seat heater can warm up the entire bench on cold days. Leg- and shoulder room is about average for a midsize luxury car, but toeroom is tight.
Toeroom is tight? They did actually get in the back did they? Toe room extends the length of the seat in front. How the reviewer could possibly say it's tight, would suggest that they didn't actually review a real car.
> It's possible to put three kids back here,
Nice (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A) comment. It's possible to put 3 large adults back there in comfort. Try that in a 3 series. (Bumped heads anyone?)
>but the center passenger doesn't get a headrest and a hump limits legroom.
Show me any manufacturer that provides a centre Headrest as standard for the *same* cost as the Saab with all the other extras that Saab provide as standard. Also show me a German manufacturer that includes a 3 point belt in the centre as STANDARD. Show me any car where the centre console doesn't limit legroom for the centre passenger. Or do you want the centre console removed so you can criticise that? There is nothing that can be done by any engineer of any car - centre console will limit centre rear legroom. Period. Reviewer not been researching again? Tsk. Tsk. When you have only two passengers, they can take advantage of the fold-down center armrest, ...
>from which two flimsy cupholders deploy.
LOL. They are not in the slightest bit "Flimsy". Have we seen owners reports on Saabnet moaning about these breaking? Of course not. They've been around now for 4 years.... (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
>The only disappointment we found back here was the temporary-size spare tire under the floor.
Disappointing for the reviewer not to find more?
>The secondary controls were less impressive, as only the driver and passenger windows were auto-down from the driver door (with no auto-up feature whatsoever).
Saab safety feature. It can't be cost - the electronics already exist in the car.
>The control stalks (wipers on one, cruise and turn signals on the other) are cheap plastic.
What did the reviewer want? Forged Aluminium? They are not "cheap" at all. This is again makes me extremely suspicious that the reviewer actually even tested this car.
>When we pressed the foglights button on the left side of the wheel, we noted four other unused buttons — odd considering that our test car had all available options.
Really? How about sensible. Saab thinking ahead for model revisions, provision for user fitted accessories without having to drill the dash? Yet again, a positive turned into a negative for some kind of hidden agenda.
>Although we liked the handsome leather, thick-pile floor mats and soft-touch dash and door panels in the Aero, some of the materials were out of place in a $40,000 vehicle — vinyl sunvisors and scattered cheap plastics with mismatched grain patterns.
What did the reviewer want the sunvisors to be made from? Wood? Doh. What BMW/Mercedes uses other than vinyl for sunvisors? Did they mention the secondary, very useful sunvisors? No, funny old thing....
> Build quality was below average, as editors noted rough edges on the visors and various plastic panels,
Nonsense. Better built than many recent Mercedes. Have you seen the plastic used in them? Or in Japanese cars?
> loose interior trim pieces, misaligned headlight and taillight assemblies and rear doors that didn't fit uniformly.
Really? Well, 4 x 9-5's I've never noticed a single flaw in those departments. Strange that your reviewer did then....
>Aside from its turbocharged engine and unusual cabin styling, there is nothing to distinguish the 9-5 Aero from its competitors.
Really? Can the reviewer spell Performance? Can the reviewer understand the concept of value for money? Do a proper review of this car versus any of the major manufacturer's equivalent, at the same pricepoint. So you'd be looking at best, a base BMW, with tiny engine, and no options. Clearly the reviewer hasn't done their research very well.
>Consider that you can get a real sport sedan like the 330i with a sport-tuned suspension and leather for roughly the same price
Oh.. it's a "real" sports sedan? What does 250bhp, 0-60 in 6.7seconds, sports tuned suspension, and torque levels that blow away the competition make the Saab then? (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...).
Note that the 330i has MUCH less interior space. (some could call it cramped), and fewer extras as standard. Spec it to the same levels, and you are talking about a consiberably smaller car, with no performance advantage. And guess what, the 330i has sports tuned suspension LIKE the Aero, that will cause "rough patches of pavement tended to upset the chassis a little."
Enough dissection. It is clear that the reviewer has limited experience in driving and accurate reporting, let alone in driving the 2002 Saab Aero. It would be interesting to hear what Saab think, so I've copied this to their customer service departments, and to Saabnet, as I'm sure such a clearly biased, and non-impartial review will provoke lots of discussion as to Edmunds credibility as an automotive resource. I'm surprised that your editorial department didn't pick up on the gross inaccuracies in this article. Funny that the reviewer didn't pick up on the word "quirky" when they were amalgamating all their negatives about this car from other peoples reviews. Shame they didn't pick up on the positives too. Class leading Safety, Class leading performance, Class leading fuel economy for such high performance, superb ergonomics, practical common sense features, class leading reliability, class leading lighting equipment (funny the HID lights weren't mentioned), class leading value for money, class leading interior room, class leading comfort. It's not a perfect car, but compare it to anything else at the *same* pricepoint, and it knocks spots off the competition. Regardless of Class.
Disgusted at what was a clearly third-rate article about an A+ car. C- awarded to the reviewer with so little experience that they didn't even mention Twin Balancer shafts, amazing levels of torque, and outstanding fuel economy.
Suggest they might like to cut their teeth on something smaller and japanese....like a Nissan 240SX - they might actually be able to talk from a factual standpoint.
Simon Watkins (From the UK, 2002 9-5 Aero owner). And yes, I looked very closely at competition at the same pricepoint. Nothing else came close.
Dear Sirs,
I write in disgust at the recent Erin Riches review, and clearly inaccurate, biased Road Test on the 2002 Saab Aero. In brief, I believe the article to be full of factual inaccuracies, comments that would indicate that the reviewer hasn't actually tested the car in reality and tactical omissions that make one wonder at the credibility of Edmunds car reviewers. One wonders whether the article was posted by Edmunds as counter to an allegation made on the very active Saabnet forum:-
"A while ago someone from the Edmunds boards came here and posted a negative message about the 9-5 and then started to post negative replies using different names. I caught the IP in the logs and when I brought it up to the Edmunds admin over there, they quickly suppressed the fact - didn't want anyone to know about it.
-Scott"
Regardless, my comments about the review: http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/r...75/article.html (http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/roadtest/64475/article.html)
are shown below.
>Saab hasn't enjoyed a significant increase in sales over the last decade
Errmm, sorry, but I think Saab would have something to say about that!
>As always, though, numbers are only part of the story: if you're a turbo fan, you'll probably like the Aero's engine — it feels and sounds great above 2,000 rpm, and even better above 4,000 rpm, and it revs more smoothly than most high-pressure turbos.
Probably revs more smoothly than all high pressure turbos! Has your reviewer understood the concept of twin balancer shafts?
>But if you merely want a fast luxury car for $30,000 to $40,000, we think you'll prefer the more even power delivery of a six-cylinder engine.
Doubt it - show me a V6 (*at the same price*) that has a smoother engine!?
>You can get a V6 in the 9-5 Arc (albeit with a light-pressure turbocharger attached to it), but the G35, TL Type-S and 330i (not to mention the Audi A4, I35/Maxima and Chrysler 300M) all provide substantially more naturally aspirated power than the Arc for less money — in some cases, far less.
The v6 is not the engine to go for in the Saab 9-5 - the Aero engine offers more of everything - Torque AND Power - why didn't they mention that?. Guess your reviewer didn't do much research before writing this article. Can your reviewer use a Browser? Try www.saabnet.com (http://www.saabnet.com) .......
>Take the Aero out on public roads, and you'll enjoy perhaps the most refined suspension ever offered by Saab. In the larger context of entry-luxury sedans, however, it's nothing special.
Has your reviewer actually tried anything else? The above comment suggests not....
> If this is the way you drive most of time, the Aero will certainly suffice, but you could save yourself some money by going with the less sporting Linear model.
LOL - credibility meltdown. The Aero has SPORTS suspension! It will "suffice"? - get real - how about an unbiased road test Edmunds!?
>In spite of Saab's efforts to position the 9-5 Aero as an athletic entry-luxury car (since its introduction for the 2000 model year), we still wouldn't define it as such, even with the 2002 model's suspension upgrades — stiffer springs, retuned shock absorbers and thicker antiroll bars. When we pushed our test car into tight curves, we noted excessive body roll, as well as a strong predisposition toward understeer when exiting turns.
Guess Edmunds have a different view to pretty much every other road test. Could it be that the reviewer lacks credibility?
>Most drivers found it necessary to deactivate the system in order to give the Aero a serious workout, but in case your enthusiasm impairs your judgment, Saab made it tricky to turn ESP off: According to the owner's manual, ESP cannot be shut off at speeds above 35 mph, and even when it is turned off, it is always operative during braking.
Excuse me? "Most Drivers"? Can you back that up with how many drivers you polled to make the claim "Most Drivers"? Absolute tosh. Never had to deactivate it yet! It does it's job.
>As we eagerly pressed the throttle to power out of turns or glide down empty two-lane straightaways, our steering inputs and our gusto were immediately checked by heavy amounts of torque steer (not unusual in high-power front-drivers but especially pronounced in Saabs), the drive wheels veering outside of our intended path.
Ahh, so the reviewer didn't drive the car at all! There is practically no perceptible Torque Steer on the 2002 Aero. What car were they driving?
>Overall, the cockpit has a cozy, almost cramped feel (as if you were sitting in coach class)
LOL. This is a car with MORE interior room than anything else in it's segment. I guess your reviewer knows how to spell "Hidden Agenda"
" in consequence, we found that there weren't enough places to stash small items like cell phones,"
Doh! Saab provide in their Accessories catalog a very nice Cellphone mount, not to mention door mounted pockets. Guess what? The Audio system is pre-wired to enable you take/make calls through the Stereo. As standard. Did that get a mention? No...
" garage door openers (HomeLink isn't available) and tins of mints."
Reviewer didn't find the seat pockets in the front of the seats then? Either they didn't drive the car, or they didn't do much research here. I suspect the former, picking up on out of date reviews by other testers of older models. It certainly wasn't a 02 they could have been testing.
> The cupholder situation isn't any better; you have your choice of a funky holder that deploys from the center stack or another that's only available when the center console lid is open.
A cupholder that has been acclaimed by more Designers than this reviewer has driven cars apparently. I suspect Saab have made more sales through the design of this cupholder than any other more important feature - such as Safety, safest in class.
"Still, we had a couple of small complaints: First, we wish the telescoping steering wheel provided a greater range of adjustment; and second, a sedan in this price class needs to provide height-adjustable seatbelts (which are already a staple among economy sedans)."
What a surprise. Again the reviewer shows a lack of research. What's wrong with the telescoping adjustment? It has plenty of range! And height adjustable seatbelts. LOL, the reviewer didn't note that they are height adjusting. And not only that, they automatically adjust!!!
"Getting in and out of the 9-5 was a little tricky for some of us."
As is reviewing a car impartially and accurately it would seem lol.
"The front doors seemed not to want to stay in their first hinged positions and swung back, bopping any heads and elbows that were in their way."
Perhaps the first, fair and accurate, very minor criticism. Nice use of artistic flair to make a mountain out of a molehill though - (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
> Opening the doors wider solved the problem, but this wasn't always possible in tight parking lots.
Noooo, really? And that's a Saab quirk is it?
> Also, the door sills are rather high in the front and rear, so extra attention is required to avoid tripping over them.
LOL. Absolute drivel. (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
>Editors were generally content with the visibility from the driver seat — helpful features include double sunvisors, an auto-dimming rearview mirror, memory for both outside mirrors and a built-in convex mirror on the passenger-side mirror. The latter feature was initially bewildering to a couple of editors, as images in the blind spot region (cordoned off from the rest of the mirror) appear distorted.
Convex mirrors - now incorporated by other luxury makers. Surprised (very) that your reviewers hadn't picked up on what is a very useful safety feature before. They do test drive these cars they write about don't they?
>Rearward visibility isn't great because of the 9-5's high rear decklid (a Park Assist feature was made available as part of the Touring Plus Package starting in March 2002)
Worse than on any other large luxury Sedan, thus worthy of comment? No. (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
> and we would have liked an auto-dimming feature for the outside mirrors.
And now we get onto things that didn't make the feature list. Show me a BMW that is as well equipped as a Saab at the same price? You can't? Oh. (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
>The rear seat is well-cushioned and supportive; a single-setting seat heater can warm up the entire bench on cold days. Leg- and shoulder room is about average for a midsize luxury car, but toeroom is tight.
Toeroom is tight? They did actually get in the back did they? Toe room extends the length of the seat in front. How the reviewer could possibly say it's tight, would suggest that they didn't actually review a real car.
> It's possible to put three kids back here,
Nice (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A) comment. It's possible to put 3 large adults back there in comfort. Try that in a 3 series. (Bumped heads anyone?)
>but the center passenger doesn't get a headrest and a hump limits legroom.
Show me any manufacturer that provides a centre Headrest as standard for the *same* cost as the Saab with all the other extras that Saab provide as standard. Also show me a German manufacturer that includes a 3 point belt in the centre as STANDARD. Show me any car where the centre console doesn't limit legroom for the centre passenger. Or do you want the centre console removed so you can criticise that? There is nothing that can be done by any engineer of any car - centre console will limit centre rear legroom. Period. Reviewer not been researching again? Tsk. Tsk. When you have only two passengers, they can take advantage of the fold-down center armrest, ...
>from which two flimsy cupholders deploy.
LOL. They are not in the slightest bit "Flimsy". Have we seen owners reports on Saabnet moaning about these breaking? Of course not. They've been around now for 4 years.... (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...)
>The only disappointment we found back here was the temporary-size spare tire under the floor.
Disappointing for the reviewer not to find more?
>The secondary controls were less impressive, as only the driver and passenger windows were auto-down from the driver door (with no auto-up feature whatsoever).
Saab safety feature. It can't be cost - the electronics already exist in the car.
>The control stalks (wipers on one, cruise and turn signals on the other) are cheap plastic.
What did the reviewer want? Forged Aluminium? They are not "cheap" at all. This is again makes me extremely suspicious that the reviewer actually even tested this car.
>When we pressed the foglights button on the left side of the wheel, we noted four other unused buttons — odd considering that our test car had all available options.
Really? How about sensible. Saab thinking ahead for model revisions, provision for user fitted accessories without having to drill the dash? Yet again, a positive turned into a negative for some kind of hidden agenda.
>Although we liked the handsome leather, thick-pile floor mats and soft-touch dash and door panels in the Aero, some of the materials were out of place in a $40,000 vehicle — vinyl sunvisors and scattered cheap plastics with mismatched grain patterns.
What did the reviewer want the sunvisors to be made from? Wood? Doh. What BMW/Mercedes uses other than vinyl for sunvisors? Did they mention the secondary, very useful sunvisors? No, funny old thing....
> Build quality was below average, as editors noted rough edges on the visors and various plastic panels,
Nonsense. Better built than many recent Mercedes. Have you seen the plastic used in them? Or in Japanese cars?
> loose interior trim pieces, misaligned headlight and taillight assemblies and rear doors that didn't fit uniformly.
Really? Well, 4 x 9-5's I've never noticed a single flaw in those departments. Strange that your reviewer did then....
>Aside from its turbocharged engine and unusual cabin styling, there is nothing to distinguish the 9-5 Aero from its competitors.
Really? Can the reviewer spell Performance? Can the reviewer understand the concept of value for money? Do a proper review of this car versus any of the major manufacturer's equivalent, at the same pricepoint. So you'd be looking at best, a base BMW, with tiny engine, and no options. Clearly the reviewer hasn't done their research very well.
>Consider that you can get a real sport sedan like the 330i with a sport-tuned suspension and leather for roughly the same price
Oh.. it's a "real" sports sedan? What does 250bhp, 0-60 in 6.7seconds, sports tuned suspension, and torque levels that blow away the competition make the Saab then? (H.I.D.D.E.N. A.G.E.N.D.A - spelt out for your reviewer...).
Note that the 330i has MUCH less interior space. (some could call it cramped), and fewer extras as standard. Spec it to the same levels, and you are talking about a consiberably smaller car, with no performance advantage. And guess what, the 330i has sports tuned suspension LIKE the Aero, that will cause "rough patches of pavement tended to upset the chassis a little."
Enough dissection. It is clear that the reviewer has limited experience in driving and accurate reporting, let alone in driving the 2002 Saab Aero. It would be interesting to hear what Saab think, so I've copied this to their customer service departments, and to Saabnet, as I'm sure such a clearly biased, and non-impartial review will provoke lots of discussion as to Edmunds credibility as an automotive resource. I'm surprised that your editorial department didn't pick up on the gross inaccuracies in this article. Funny that the reviewer didn't pick up on the word "quirky" when they were amalgamating all their negatives about this car from other peoples reviews. Shame they didn't pick up on the positives too. Class leading Safety, Class leading performance, Class leading fuel economy for such high performance, superb ergonomics, practical common sense features, class leading reliability, class leading lighting equipment (funny the HID lights weren't mentioned), class leading value for money, class leading interior room, class leading comfort. It's not a perfect car, but compare it to anything else at the *same* pricepoint, and it knocks spots off the competition. Regardless of Class.
Disgusted at what was a clearly third-rate article about an A+ car. C- awarded to the reviewer with so little experience that they didn't even mention Twin Balancer shafts, amazing levels of torque, and outstanding fuel economy.
Suggest they might like to cut their teeth on something smaller and japanese....like a Nissan 240SX - they might actually be able to talk from a factual standpoint.
Simon Watkins (From the UK, 2002 9-5 Aero owner). And yes, I looked very closely at competition at the same pricepoint. Nothing else came close.