Edmunds is back to bashing again..

[static]

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/longterm/articles/44024/page020.html

One a-hole after another. These guys live on the moon. End of story.

[TeeAreDeaGeeTeeEss]

Those morons need to learn how to drive.

I especially like these comments:

"I had a hell of a time finding reverse"

"its just plain ugly looks and the touchy clutch ..."

I wonder what they drive

[Chumpchiggy]

Pretty simple if ya ask me, these idiots don't know how to drive a manual tranny....

[quote] Originally taken from Edmunds.com

"I had a hell of a time finding reverse, and really found it nearly impossible to shift between any gears without giving myself a minor case of whiplash. Luckily, I only went into the wrong gear once

[WillyK]

I think a chimp could drive better than some of those idiots. I have never felt any of these problems that they whine about. I don't have any problem with the clutch or shifter (other than syncros). Those guys suck

[yakkosmurf]

You guys kill me. Edmonds is praised on this site when they say things you agree with and bashed when they say things that you don't. Just take it as the semi-constructive criticism it is. The comments from different people are going to be....different. So this guy didn't like the looks. Big deal. Neither do I. It's all subjective.

I made similar comments about the Celica clutch after the first time I drove it. It's got it's good and bad points. The shifter is not as smooth as a Honda one. That's how it goes. The car isn't the greatest at everything.

The reverse in the GTS takes some getting used to, but I didn't find it as bad as this guy. Yes, the GTS is hard to shift smooth. But so is the Type R. It's the nature of a light car with that much HP. My GTS friends that have driven the Type R have complimented the clutch and shifter. Edmonds has done tests on the Type R in the past. They also drove the RSX. I would guess this is where the comparisons are being made.

The reviewer clearly stated the Celica was a car meant to be driven on the open road. It's not very good in traffic. I agree. How can you get upset at that remark? My friend hated having to shift his GTS in traffic. He said the clutch wasn't traffic friendly. He missed the clutch and torque of his 5-speed V6 Tacoma.

Basically quit letting this stuff upset you. I've read some bad reviews of cars I enjoyed driving. It didn't mean I took it personally. I simply disagreed. Grow a little guys...please.

[Chumpchiggy]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf
You guys kill me. Edmonds is praised on this site when they say things you agree with and bashed when they say things that you don't. Just take it as the semi-constructive criticism it is. The comments from different people are going to be....different. So this guy didn't like the looks. Big deal. Neither do I. It's all subjective.

I made similar comments about the Celica clutch after the first time I drove it. It's got it's good and bad points. The shifter is not as smooth as a Honda one. That's how it goes. The car isn't the greatest at everything.

The reverse in the GTS takes some getting used to, but I didn't find it as bad as this guy. Yes, the GTS is hard to shift smooth. But so is the Type R. It's the nature of a light car with that much HP. My GTS friends that have driven the Type R have complimented the clutch and shifter. Edmonds has done tests on the Type R in the past. They also drove the RSX. I would guess this is where the comparisons are being made.

The reviewer clearly stated the Celica was a car meant to be driven on the open road. It's not very good in traffic. I agree. How can you get upset at that remark? My friend hated having to shift his GTS in traffic. He said the clutch wasn't traffic friendly. He missed the clutch and torque of his 5-speed V6 Tacoma.

Basically quit letting this stuff upset you. I've read some bad reviews of cars I enjoyed driving. It didn't mean I took it personally. I simply disagreed. Grow a little guys...please.

Yakko,

1st, I'm not gonna argue with you. But don't lump me in with a generalization of "You Guy's" because you'd be hard pressed to find a statement I've ever made, praisng any magazine review on the Celica. If it's a good revue fine, I still don't believe in Mag reviews to gain any "real" knowledge on any automobile.

The reviewer clearly has no idea what a performance gear-box is supposed to feel like, if he wanted comfort, and easy city driving, buy an auto... My car was made for me to have fun with, city driving and all. I love my car in the city, and Las Vegas is as congested as you can get. If your gonna cry about driving a stick-shift in the city, don't buy a manual tranny as a daily driver. Otherwise, you're a pansy with no foundation to argue your point. You shoulda bought the auto, point blank.

I would assume you of all people would agree with that, as tired as you are with people pissing and moaning all the time?

I don't understand the logic of bagging on the car you chose to buy? You should've taken a test drive first...

BTW, the first Paragraph was directed at Yakko, as well as the third... all the rest is just me rambling :gap:

[static]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf
You guys kill me. Edmonds is praised on this site when they say things you agree with and bashed when they say things that you don't. Just take it as the semi-constructive criticism it is. The comments from different people are going to be....different. So this guy didn't like the looks. Big deal. Neither do I. It's all subjective.

I made similar comments about the Celica clutch after the first time I drove it. It's got it's good and bad points. The shifter is not as smooth as a Honda one. That's how it goes. The car isn't the greatest at everything.

The reverse in the GTS takes some getting used to, but I didn't find it as bad as this guy. Yes, the GTS is hard to shift smooth. But so is the Type R. It's the nature of a light car with that much HP. My GTS friends that have driven the Type R have complimented the clutch and shifter. Edmonds has done tests on the Type R in the past. They also drove the RSX. I would guess this is where the comparisons are being made.

The reviewer clearly stated the Celica was a car meant to be driven on the open road. It's not very good in traffic. I agree. How can you get upset at that remark? My friend hated having to shift his GTS in traffic. He said the clutch wasn't traffic friendly. He missed the clutch and torque of his 5-speed V6 Tacoma.

Basically quit letting this stuff upset you. I've read some bad reviews of cars I enjoyed driving. It didn't mean I took it personally. I simply disagreed. Grow a little guys...please.


Cool man, but I believe that expressing my opinion about their sorry ass opinions isn't a sign of immaturity as you allude to. They talk about the shifter like it's the worst thing in the universe.. it's rediculous.. and their comparisons to BMW's and s2000's are ludicrus. They don't make any sense.. and last time I checked.. this is a bulletin board where u can express your opinions about things.. so I'm expressing mine about what I read. I think they are bumbling fools.. and that doesn't mean that I"m immature.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by Chumpchiggy

1st, I'm not gonna argue with you. But don't lump me in with a generalization of "You Guy's" because you'd be hard pressed to find a statement I've ever made, praisng any magazine review on the Celica.
I wasn't lumping anyone in particular, and my comments were not directly solely at those posting on this thread. Rather, I was referring to recurring response of people on this board to Edmond's reviews.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by static

this is a bulletin board where u can express your opinions about things.. so I'm expressing mine about what I read. I think they are bumbling fools.. and that doesn't mean that I"m immature.
But there is a difference between expressing ones opinion and whining because someone said something mean about your car. It doesn't take much intellect to sit there and complain. Instead of bashing the review, why not make constructive remarks about it as you did with your last post? It makes the board better to read and encourages more discussion. Pointless bashing is immature. That's the bottom line.

[WillyK]

I don't get this whole thing about not liking the Celica in traffic. I find it no more difficult to drive in traffic than my old Escort, my friends SI or my aunts Cougar. And yes I do drive in a lot of traffic, sometimes it can take 10 minutes or more just to move 1 block. I just don't see how anyone can say it is more difficult to drive in traffic than any other manual car.

[DigableGTS]

This tester totally fits the description of "you can't please them all"

I don't know why chooses to attack the Celica in that way, but he could have been a little more political in his statements...

[static]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

But there is a difference between expressing ones opinion and whining because someone said something mean about your car. It doesn't take much intellect to sit there and complain. Instead of bashing the review, why not make constructive remarks about it as you did with your last post? It makes the board better to read and encourages more discussion. Pointless bashing is immature. That's the bottom line.

Yeah.. I have already countless times though. I just got tired of being constructive about Edmunds.. and I decided to just post the post so everyone could read and give a brief statement. It pretty much summed up how I felt...

[t2000gts]

for reference, the ultimate torqueless wonder that is the auto GTS is a great traffic and commuter car. you can be as liberal as you want with the gas in traffic, get comfortable, and listen to some nice music. (altho my throttle cable is tightened, thank you dumb toyota dealer service people, so it jerks a bit from a stop when i'm not careful). plus it feels pretty racey and fast when you hit vvtl-i with the sportshift.

they should drive the GTS Auto around, and when it comes time to getting times and comparisons, whip out their 6-speed.

they should realize, that toyota offeres a 6-speed and a 4-speed auto for precisely these reasons. the latter being for people who make complaints like they did now, and the former being for people who like performance which they readily admitted in that comparison where the GTS tore up the competition.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by static


Yeah.. I have already countless times though. I just got tired of being constructive about Edmunds.. and I decided to just post the post so everyone could read and give a brief statement. It pretty much summed up how I felt...
Then why do you keep reading their reviews if you don't think they are very good or credible? Do you just want to find information to get others to rally in your bashing bandwagon? If they don't provide reviews you agree with, then ignore them.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by t2000gts


they should realize, that toyota offeres a 6-speed and a 4-speed auto for precisely these reasons. the latter being for people who make complaints like they did now, and the former being for people who like performance which they readily admitted in that comparison where the GTS tore up the competition.
To me it sounds like they are wanting a car that's got some torque for the traffic and performance for the open road. They seem to want a Porsche or BMW. I can see where you'd be disappointed if that's what you're used to or expecting.

[gtsaction]

The guy quoted in the article, "Scott Jacobs", is a photographay, who probably drives a Saab.

The bottom line is:

Maintenance Costs: None
Problems: None

[IGotRice]

those bastards........i bet they don't even know how to drive

[nick450hp]

Sometimes it's better to not listen to the magazines, and actually talk to the people who drive the car for a living as a daily driver. Those editors have the car for a day,and maybe a week at the most. Go on a forum and ask around, people are always willing to help if you ask nicely, especially when it pertains to how they enjoy their car. Those editors are always biased, some hate imports period, others hate manual trans., others like luxury. You're the best editor, go out and drive one yourself and then compare it with other cars, not what some wacko editor thinks!

As for Edmunds:puke:
I wouldn't trust Edmunds.com with reviewing riding lawnmowers!

[static]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

Then why do you keep reading their reviews if you don't think they are very good or credible? Do you just want to find information to get others to rally in your bashing bandwagon? If they don't provide reviews you agree with, then ignore them.

I read a lot of peoples work even though I dont agree with it... having an opinion about something doesn't make you ignorant, but not knowing anything about it does. Look, you're an intelligent guy, but you keep jumping from one shadow to another in your arguements and although you may think it coy, it just makes you seems like you're out to annoy the hell out of people sometimes. I came on here to inform other people about what they wrote, and no, I didn't agree with it.. and it's my right to express my opinion about it. Argueing with someone for the sake of arguement doesn't make you smart man, and arguing constantly to try to make yourself look better than someone just makes you come off as arrogant... think about it a little.. and maybe grow a little too.. you seem to have a hard time accepting that people have opinions in this world..

[rivvin]

They have the Celica in 3rd place for their sports coupe comparison test. You guys would probably disagree with edmund.com, but some of the things they are true in my opinion.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/47901/page011.html

and
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/47901/article.html

[Keyshawn]

Originally posted by rivvin
They have the Celica in 3rd place for their sports coupe comparison test. You guys would probably disagree with edmund.com, but some of the things they are true in my opinion.

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/47901/page011.html

and
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/comparison/articles/47901/article.html

Yet in this article, they name the Celica the MOST WANTED Sport Coupe under 30K: http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/mostwanted/2002/47593/article.html

Strange for a bunch of editors who dislike so many things about the Celica.

[Keyshawn]

Originally posted by gtsaction

The bottom line is:

Maintenance Costs: None
Problems: None

Great observation! That is most accurate, most objective thing to look at in their review. Incidentally, their test car is a little over the 30K mi. mark.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by static

I came on here to inform other people about what they wrote, and no, I didn't agree with it.. and it's my right to express my opinion about it.
I never said there was anything wrong with doing that. I simply stated you could do it in a more constructive way which might add to your credibility instead of detracting from it.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not arrogant at all. My friends tell me it seems that way online sometimes because of the language that I use. Much like someone with a British accent can be perceived as stuck up just because of the way they speak. I don't think poorly of anyone here. Posting the manner in which you did, however, makes it hard to find credibility in your statements. Around here, that's about all you have.

[yakkosmurf]

Originally posted by gtsaction


The bottom line is:

Maintenance Costs: None
Problems: None
I noticed this too. I also wondered if they had changed the oil at this point. Wouldn't that go under maintenance cost? What about the rim that needs to be fixed? It was probably the fault of one of the drivers, but where does that cost get added? I'm just wondering what types of things they categorize as "Maintenance costs." I would certainly think "routine maintenance" would be included.

[Maelfyn]

Originally posted by yakkosmurf

I never said there was anything wrong with doing that. I simply stated you could do it in a more constructive way which might add to your credibility instead of detracting from it.

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not arrogant at all. My friends tell me it seems that way online sometimes because of the language that I use. Much like someone with a British accent can be perceived as stuck up just because of the way they speak. I don't think poorly of anyone here. Posting the manner in which you did, however, makes it hard to find credibility in your statements. Around here, that's about all you have.

Geez what a snob :gap:

[yakkosmurf]

You know better than to get me started.... :D

[Chumpchiggy]

And I know better than to leave this thread open. Call it quits guy's...