JUDGEMENT DAY:

[RichardJensen]

I tell ya, these cheerleaders are a hard group to please.

I don't like TTAC. Some years back I made the mistake of relying on their analysis of GM's cash flow, only to discover that it was incredibly screwed up; ever since then I've watched them wallow in their journalistic incompetence.

[P71_CrownVic]

I don't like TTAC. Some years back I made the mistake of relying on their analysis of GM's cash flow, only to discover that it was incredibly screwed up; ever since then I've watched them wallow in their journalistic incompetence.

Your right. How incompetent of them to give a positive review of a Ford product.

[RichardJensen]

Your right. How incompetent of them to give a positive review of a Ford product.

IMO, if you're right for the wrong reasons it's the same as being wrong.

 

That article -at least- featured a decent comparison with a competing vehicle (the Highlander) that makes it superficially a better review than their Focus review which did not compare the Focus with -any- other vehicles.

 

However, the Highlander is not the only vehicle in the Taurus X segment. Not only that, do we, as potential consumers, really care what the reviewer thinks of Ford's marketing strategy for the Taurus X? Or what the reviewer thinks of Ford in general? Do you want me to do a word count on how much of the review is germane to the Taurus X, and how much of it is just fill?

 

It's a crap review.

[P71_CrownVic]

It's a crap review.

 

Your right. How incompetent of them to give a positive review of a Ford product.

 

/echo

[RichardJensen]

Actually, I did a word count (File > Properties in Word).

 

The review is 845 words long as posted. Chop out the attempts at humor, broadsides at Ford (and other crossovers), and you're left with 507 words. That's right folks, 40% of this review is bumf.

[RichardJensen]

Your right. How incompetent of them to give a positive review of a Ford product.

No. More like "How incompetent of them to waste 40% of the review on blather."

[P71_CrownVic]

Actually, I did a word count (File > Properties in Word).

 

The review is 845 words long as posted. Chop out the attempts at humor, broadsides at Ford (and other crossovers), and you're left with 507 words. That's right folks, 40% of this review is bumf.

Is this bit included in the latter?

 

Even as Ford’s SUV stable swells to bursting, the mpg Taurus X is the best of the bunch: reasonably frugal, perfectly practical, wonderfully comfortable and thoroughly modern.

 

Those bastards!

Edited December 24, 2007 by P71_CrownVic

[RichardJensen]

(of) Even as Ford’s SUV stable swells to bursting, the mpg Taurus X is the best of the bunch: reasonably frugal, perfectly practical, wonderfully comfortable and thoroughly modern.

What's in bold is relevant. What's not in bold is either a non-sequitur or bumf.

Edited December 24, 2007 by RichardJensen

[jpd80]

Go through and knock out all of the crap, it's actually a positve review

but only about 4 short paragraphs long, LOL.

 

Helps if you read it in reverse from bottom to top.

[RichardJensen]

Ford’s crossover is well worth a second look. the Taurus X wears tidy, tallish proportions topped with a tastefully anonymous greenhouse. Call it a hemmed-out Outback, or a slim-fit Explorer. The Taurus X avoids the bulbous look [seen on] many vehicles in its class.

 

The X’s cabin exhibits similar restraint. It’s an easy step into the wide, elevated driver’s seat. The raised helmspot combines with thin pillars and a generous glass area to provide a widescreen windscreen. The no-nonsense dash is clean and conservatively curved, comprised of barely-pliable plastics and parts-bin switchgear. A thick, rubberized grab bar perches atop the glovebox.

 

The Taurus X’s low, flat floor and tall ceiling provide van-like space in the second row, with two properly propped-up “captain’s chairs” ready to quell complaints on long trips. A cavernous console bin with two deep cupholders separates these comfy thrones; a conventional three-across bench seat is a no-cost option.

 

Then there’s Taurus X’s piece de resistance: the third-row seat. the X’s “way-back” is a packaging marvel that offers a wide, easy step-through to a mini-bench sized for real humans.

 

It’s difficult to overstate the importance of a decent third row, as anyone who’s done much crossover cross-shopping can attest. In this class, only GM’s Lambda triplets offer such magnanimous space for seven, and the Enclave, Acadia and Outlook are nearly one thousand pounds [heavier]– each– than the Taurus X. The Toyota Highlander’s third row, by comparison, is [tight].

 

The Ford and Toyota go tit for tat when it comes to hauling luggage. Each offers huge floor space in back; the Toyota offers a bit more of it, while the Ford boasts a lower liftover. The Highlander exceeds the X’s 2,000 lbs, tow rating; [however] the Ford['s] front passenger’s seat [folds].

 

Here’s another X feature that’s missing from the Toyota: steering feel! While offering more feedback than most of its rivals, the Taurus X’s power assisted helm still feels gummy and a touch light around the straight-ahead. But it carves linear, reassuring arcs in curves. And that means the X drives smoothly, easily, and, well, no differently than the four-door Taurus. It ought to, considering that the X sits only six inches taller than its sedan stablemate, with the same driver eyepoint.

 

Performance? Yes, there’s some of that, too, as the Freestyle’s badge and grille weren’t the only things Ford swapped out for 2008. There’s also a new 3.5-liter V6, weighing in at 263 horsepower, mated to a six-speed automatic. This combination provides a steady, seamless supply of oomph; albeit delivered in that distant, detached manner endemic to quiet, high-riding vehicles. The auto occasionally dithers when asked to downshift, magnifying the impression. But then, no three-row crossover is a street scorcher.

 

Of Ford's SUVs, Taurus X is the best of the bunch: reasonably frugal, perfectly practical, wonderfully comfortable and thoroughly modern.

 

The review, as trimmed of its blather. Reduced to relevant and non-insulting prose--careful comparison will show that insults directed at the Lambdas and the Highlander have also been removed.

 

Granted, there's not much character in -this- review, and it still misses comparisons with the Lambdas, CX-9, and Pilot; but -this- review, if posted on TTAC would do them far more credit, IMO, than the 40%+ blather that they usually post.

 

Just for kicks, I should dig up their Focus review, if only to discover that the insults and faux humor occupy over 80% of the 'review'.

Edited December 24, 2007 by RichardJensen

[P71_CrownVic]

What's in bold is relevant. What's not in bold is either a non-sequitur or bumf.

Your such a cry baby.

 

TTAC gives a positive review on a Ford product and you whine about it.

 

Do you play these same games with your wife?

[RichardJensen]

TTAC gives a positive review on a Ford product and you whine about it.

I'm only supposed to kvetch about reviews critical of Ford products? Their writing standards are abysmal. End of story.

Edited December 24, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Noah Harbinger]

Your such a cry baby.

 

TTAC gives a positive review on a Ford product and you whine about it.

 

Do you play these same games with your wife?

 

P71 is a fine example of why the media is in a downward death spiral. Far too many people consider "good news" to be "news that tells me what I already believe and want to be true," rather than "accurate and insightful."

[Sporko]

P71, what's wrong with you?

[RichardJensen]

BTW, a quick review of TTAC's review of the Focus shows it to be 89% bumf.

 

Here was all that was worth reading:

 

Yes, the Focus’ 2.0-liter Duratec is a smooth and parsimonious mill

 

On the positive side, the Focus’ steering rack is a delight, with perfect weighting, a well-judged turning ratio and more-than-merely adequate road feel. Whether you’re crossing four lanes of highway traffic or fighting for supremacy in the supermarket parking lot, the car goes exactly where you point it. The Focus’ eight-year-old chassis’ motions are also well controlled, with minimal body lean or nose dive. As a result, the sedan isn’t entirely corner-aversive.

[rmc523]

I believe that they are now advertising them with product placements. I saw one given away to a family on one of those swap shows. I am beginning to see more of them all the time.

 

I too am seeing more and more of them around. I assume sales are finally beginning to pick up.

[pcsario]

Actually, I did a word count.

 

The review is 845 words long as posted. Chop out the attempts at humor, broadsides at Ford (and other crossovers), and you're left with 507 words. That's right folks, 40% of this review is bumf.

 

You're such a dork.

 

I can't believe you have the nerve to call us a bunch of whinners.

 

This was a positive review, but of course here you are acting like child who didn't get what he wanted for Christmas.

[RichardJensen]

This was a positive review, but of course here you are acting like child who didn't get what he wanted for Christmas.

It would've made your day if, after tearing up TTAC for their review of the Focus, I slavered praise on them for this review...........

 

But I won't. Bad practices are not justified if they occasionally produce conclusions I agree with. They are simply bad.

 

TTAC's writing is juvenile and that's being kind. The creation of an 'award' that is also a vulgar word (their "Ten Worst Automobiles Today") is merely the most visible and obvious instance of their self-satisfied rejection of any kind of professionalism, any kind of higher standard, any kind of standard whatsoever in what passes for writing in their establishment. TTAC is feculent journalism at its finest.

[Edstock]

It was a positive review, but it was so clumsily written, it was painful to read.

 

Fair review, the dude needs to learn to write, that's all.

 

He needs to excize the paragraphs of goo and drivel and irrelevance that are so trying with this kind of literary cow-pie.

[Michael Reynolds]

This is exactly what I meant when I posted early on. Instead of addressing the real issues, everything turns into a personal attack. Cheerleader this, dork that.......get a grip folks.

[suv_guy_19]

This is exactly what I meant when I posted early on. Instead of addressing the real issues, everything turns into a personal attack. Cheerleader this, dork that.......get a grip folks.

 

You ended up getting an XC90, nice.

[Michael Reynolds]

You ended up getting an XC90, nice.

 

Yeah, we had to have something to shove the dog in and the occasional oblong object.

[rmc523]

Yeah, we had to have something to shove the dog in and the occasional oblong object.

 

It's nice having a vehicle that you can do pretty much anything to, in, around, etc. My family has an Expedition, my mom loves driving it, she can do anything w/ it, run over anything that's in the way, haul anything--people, large items, etc. She loves it. It's our second one as well.

[silvrsvt]

It's nice having a vehicle that you can do pretty much anything to, in, around, etc. My family has an Expedition, my mom loves driving it, she can do anything w/ it, run over anything that's in the way, haul anything--people, large items, etc. She loves it. It's our second one as well.

 

 

Then get attacked by people who think you don't need it (well 90-95% of the time you don't IMO)

[Michael Reynolds]

Then get attacked by people who think you don't need it (well 90-95% of the time you don't IMO)

 

Well those people can SUCK IT!