Consuming Interest
Cars and People
By LESLIE ADRIAN
I DON'T need to announce the great advance in test- ing and reporting for the benefit of consumers that has just taken place, but I am delighted to welcome it. Yesterday the Con- sumers' Association brought out its first report on motor cars as a supplement to the January issue of Which? For the first time in this country it is possible for anyone considering buying a car to read a really effective, comparative report on a number of cars. Moreover, the report means that you can make a decision based on thorough tests uninfluenced by advertising or a possible threat to withdraw advertising.
When Which? announced that it planned to report on cars—comparatively, critically and after running the cars foi. over 10.000 miles in- stead of the usual 2,000. miles or much less-- there was some consternation among interested parties, the motor traders, the manufacturers and the motoring correspondents. Among the re- actions was that of Mr. Courtenay Edwards in the Sunday Telegraph, who thought that the cars to be tested in the first report—Austin A40, BMC Mini Car, Ford Anglia, Ford Popular, Morris _Minor, Renault Dauphine, Triumph Herald S and Volkswagen—were 'of widely dif- fering price, engine capacity and design charac- teristics. To make comparisons of any real value which are really honest will be difficult.' i he answer to this is that it may be difficult but it is possible and has now been done. CA covered itself in advance on this point, anyway, by doing a survey to find out which cars people considered together as possible cars of their choice.
Mr. Edwards went on : 'Even more tricky is the risk that individual test drivers may bc per- sonally prejudiced--even without realising it— in favour of, say, the rear engine formula.' Might this not be equally true (or untrue), one feels entitled to ask, of motoring correspondents? In any case, CA took on eight qualified testers to allow for just such feelings in any one of them.
'Will the CA testers,' Mr. Edwards wondered, 'drive all the cars an equal distance over the same test route in similar weather. with the same load and with the car in precisely the same con- dition?' Mr. Edwards is asking for very high stan- dards and very careful testing—far higher ;has have so far been applied by motoring correspon- dents and far higher than any potential buyer can apply himself—but the answer, as near as makes very little difference, is yes.
Mr. Edwards's final point is that 'on the face . of it the Association's decision to buy its test cars at random seems eminently fair. But in these
days of quantity production, when it is possible for a below-standard car to slip by final inspec- tion, the CA may get hold of one of these "duds" and use it for unfavourable comparison with other makes.' CA, like many another private buyer, did get a dud. It spent £567 16s. on buying a second sample and about as much again on further testing and the report covers, very fairly, both the dud and its replacement.
And for heaven's sake, doesn't the very ex- istence of duds in itself justify what Which? has done? Has any motoring correspondent ever reported with the same objectivity on a car bought by him from an ordinary dealer, rather than on one provided and prepared for him by the manufacturer? Which? lists all the defects found on delivery of each car, the main defects during the test and the condition of the car after the test and feels 'justified in making a general complaint about the state in which all the cars were sold. With even the most trouble-free—the Volkswagen—there were leaks, and the spare wheel was buckled. Two cars, the Morris Minor (string inside the right front hub grease cap) and the Renault Dauphine (insufficient water in the cooling system and a loose fan belt), had stupid faults which if unnoticed, as both might have been by a private owner, could quite likely have caused considerable damage to the front wheel bearings and engine respectively. Even if all these early faults are repaired without cost to the owner, he still has the anxiety and irritation of discovering the faults, perhaps in very inconveni- ent circumstances, and the inconvenience of not having his car while the defects are put right.'
What all this amounts to is that CA has ap- plied its normal standards of testing and com- paring to motor-cars with the difference that it carried out its own tests on cars 'as there are no independent laboratories, and no suitable test tracks available, that are not connected with the motor industry.' For products other than cars, CA uses independent consultants and experts to conduct tests to CA's specifications. The result is a forty-page report which covers the cars' efficiency, comfort, convenience, safety, econ- omy, reliability and likely secondhand value. It's all done in a down-to-earth, straightforward way unlike anything so far available elsewhere. Let's take an example or two.
The Motor in a road test of the Ford Popular, while pointing out that the Popular is in many respects old-fashioned, said that it 'offers a com- bination of roominess, performance and proven sturdiness which cannot be bettered at a com- parable price.' Which? sums up the Popular thus : 'The only reason anyone could have for choosing the Ford Popular is that it is a reason- ably reliable, comparatively cheap car. Other- wise it compared badly with all the other cars in the group.'
The Autocar had this to say about the Triumph Herald : all respects it meets the needs of many home buyers and the demands of over- seas territories. At its price, which includes all items now regarded as essential equipment, it is difficult to envisage it being anything but an outstanding success.' Which? says: 'The en- thusiastic driver might put up with the fairly rapid deterioration of the Triumph Herald S, for its major virtues on the road--good handling and comfort. But it costs over £100 more than the BMC Mini Car. Its advantages are probably not enough to offset the extra price.'
Now, let's be fair. The Motor and the Autocar do point out what they feel is wrong with the cars they are reviewing and so do some motor- ing correspondents in other magazines and papers—just as Which? indicates what is good about the cars it reports on. There is, however, a very great difference in tone and approach and, for this alone, CA's report is to be welcomed.
In advance of its publication it has already had some effect. I see that the January 3 issue of the Motor has tried to anticipate CA's report by devoting four pages to what it calls a 'Market Survey' and describes a little disingenuously as 'an unprecedented selection of "vital statistics" concerning the eleven cars which (including heater and tax) fall wihin the £625 limit of price.'
I also notice that the Motor is one of only two publications (the other is Motor Sport) to refuse advertising space for CA's report on cars. I hope and believe it won't make a ha'p'orth of difference and wish CA all the success it deserves.
Previous page
