Maybe we don't read the same car magazines. The ones I read test cars over a period of a day or at most a week. They occasionally test cars for a year or two(not exactly long term), and excuse problems with foreign cars as trivial while complaining about correctly functioning features of domestics that they just don't like. It would be pretty hard to come up with any real durability feedback from that, but of course it doesn't stop them from speculating and trying to state opinion as fact. The ones I read excuse engine surges, bucking, stalling, and excessive oil consumption in a BMW because it's so "sporty". And they chalk electronic or transmission problems with japanese cars up to one-time glitches or rare exceptions. They rave about a Lexus by saying it is "like a jewelry box" (yeah, that's real helpful) and bash American cars for having a readable clock (must be for all the old people who buy them). They complain about GM's personalization features because when 20 journalists try to switch cars every 20 minutes, it gets aggravating (apparently not enough to read the manual and turn them off, though). It is never a huge, obvious bias, but rather small subtle things like implying that domestics will fall apart (if this is actually the case, it shouldn't be hard to supply statistics rather than just pushing stereotypes). They review brand new Toyotas and say things like "you know the reliability is there" as if it is some universal truth that Toyotas don't break. They aren't concerned that they have zero evidence to back that up because it is a brand new model, but no reason that should get in the way of journalism. Hell, I've seen the Aurora get cricisized in a comparo for not costing enough, while a $40,000 cramped V6 Lexus Camry is considered the ultimate bargain. They are like the 60 minutes or Dateline NBC of the auto world. They have an opinion already and want to push it as fact. I eagerly await the day Fox News starts publishing a car magazine...
