Verdulken

I just think this is ludicrous at best, it's like saying a Porsche comes short on climbing rocks, and off road capabilities. We all know the JK suffers from all of this "low points" they mention but that's not the reason we drive them. I guess some people just don't get it

The disappointing dozen: Cars that fail our tests - Yahoo! Autos

junoh

well they did say "cars". If I wanted a car I'd buy a car, but I didn't buy a car I bought a JEEP.

yeahbuddy

WTF is access?

Toyota Tacoma got dinged for high step-in. Kind of hard to get ground clearance without a higher "step-in". Maybe they are into low-riders.

moe jk

I like the second one down, smart car for two, the low point is it only sits two.. Wtf kind of report is that! Stupid...

Verdulken

shockwaveaz

To their defense. ..The review is accurate. We just don't care about that crap.



Sent from my Galaxy Note 2

helnbk

Great, I have two of the vehicles mentioned :-(

BigSteve

I once met a lady who bought a 2000 Camaro SS and within a couple of months complained that the doors were too long and heavy, there was not enough cup holders, poor visibility, ride height was too low and got poor gas mileage! There are really stupid people out there....obviously. The problem is there is a lot of them and they buy cars. So in turn the auto industry caters to it. Why do you think muscle cars are getting more refined and better gas mileage? Why do you think manufacturers are loading the cars with more useless do-hickies than an ice cream truck? Becuase 90% of the public just want to get from here to there and look cool doing it. They don't want to have to do anything other than put gas in. Enthusiasts like it or not are the small niche market. Let face it if they catered to us the Wrangler would come with Dana 60's, Hemi/Diesel, long arm suspension and at least 37's. Vehicle comparisons and evaluations are BS and typically monetarily backed by someone.

TheQuiet1

Amen to all of that Big Steve'O

RUF/NEK2

True that!