When evaluating automobiles, or rather when we should evaluate them, fundamental criteria such as comfort, handling, and refinement (in other words, NVH—noise, vibration, and harshness levels) are somewhat subjective and difficult to measure. This leads to a lot of misinformation in this area. During my time testing cars for Otopark, I always tried to visually support every experience I shared, showing the same corners taken with different cars and the same camera angles, driving over the same bumps, and using measurable data like decibel readings to substantiate my claims.

If someone has:

• Not pushed the limits of speed, handling, and suspension of a car,
• Not driven the car's competitors in the same manner,
• Lacks the training and objectivity to evaluate their experiences,

even if they’ve owned the vehicle for years, they likely cannot provide reliable feedback on the above aspects. This is why opinions about the same car vary so much, and those who haven’t even driven it often parrot the common prejudices about that brand or model. The result is a chaotic and unproductive noise.

For this reason, consumers often prefer to evaluate cars based on more tangible and easily verifiable factors like equipment levels and price. However, when we base our judgments on just one or two of the dozens of criteria that distinguish a good car from a bad one, we risk unfairly criticizing a structurally excellent car or, conversely, overpraising one with weak engineering.

Here are some clichéd arguments often used to pass judgment on cars, which are frequently misleading when taken alone:

"The car is X years old"

In the used car market, assessing a vehicle solely based on its age and mileage has become a bad habit. These factors merely measure the level of risk you’re taking: an older and heavily used car is simply more likely to have issues. However, this doesn’t define whether the car is good or bad. A vehicle’s true value can only be determined by considering its brand, model, class, and the other criteria mentioned earlier. Without dedicating the necessary time and care to finding well-maintained, quality vehicles on the market, or researching models known to be reliable, one is bound to settle for mediocrity.

"It has Y Euro NCAP stars"

Until the early 2000s, a car's Euro NCAP rating indicated its structural strength, and a low score meant a higher risk of fatality in an accident. But since 2009, the organization has started including active safety systems in its evaluations, and their weight in the criteria has been increasing. Today, it’s nearly impossible for a car to achieve five stars without offering these systems as standard. Take modern Dacias as an example: the Duster is criticized for its three-star rating, but a closer look at the test results shows four stars for adult occupant safety, five for child occupant safety, and good pedestrian protection. It would be unfair to label a car as “unsafe” simply because entry-level models lack features like lane-keeping assist or speed warnings—systems that often distract more than they save lives.

"It doesn't even have Z equipment"

Similar to the active safety systems mentioned above, many modern car features don’t function properly or aren’t essential. While there are exceptions, such as CarPlay, parking sensors, or air conditioning, dismissing a car just because it lacks certain features is unreasonable. Almost every car can be upgraded to higher trims if you pay the price, and if a car lacks some equipment compared to similarly priced rivals, it simply means it’s relatively “expensive,” not “bad.”

"The rear brakes are drum brakes"

We expect rear disc brakes in cars with higher weight and performance, as they offer greater stopping power and better heat dissipation compared to drum brakes. However, rear brakes account for only about 30% of total braking, and manufacturers don’t omit rear discs purely to cut costs—they do so when they aren’t necessary. For example, models like the VW ID.3 and ID.4 feature rear drum brakes because their regenerative braking systems are so effective that rear discs aren’t required. While most internal combustion cars from the C-segment upward now come with rear discs, in real-world usage, drum brakes on smaller A/B-segment cars with under 100 hp and 1200 kg don’t make much difference as long as the front brakes are sufficiently large.

"The rear suspension is torsion beam"

Theoretically, torsion beam suspensions are associated with reduced comfort and handling and are often linked to “cheap” cars. However, not all torsion beam setups behave the same way. A prime example is the Golf Mk7: as I’ve often mentioned in publications, the 1.6 TDI models I tested impressed me more with their ability to absorb bumps than the 1.4 TSI models with independent rear suspension, and their handling limits were similarly unproblematic. Likewise, in the current Ford Focus lineup, lower-powered models use torsion beams at the rear, but the difference in driving dynamics compared to higher-end versions is minimal. Plus, not every torsion bar is built the same: for instance, the rear of a car like the Opel Astra J is described as having a torsion beam, but it actually features a highly complex system known as a Watt's linkage, with cross braces that enhance its stability and provide an excellent balance of handling and comfort. On the other hand, certain older PSA Group torsion beam models (10+ years old) clearly exhibit distinct responses from their front and rear ends when navigating bumps or corners.

In summary, while it’s natural to expect independent rear suspension as prices and segments rise, cars with torsion beams shouldn’t be condemned without driving them or consulting reputable international reviews.