Occasionally when reading automotive reviews you run across an article that at first seems like a well-written, non-partisan review, only to discover later that the author does in fact harbor some predetermined feelings towards the vehicle in question.  Such is the case with the San Francisco Chronicle's 2007 Mercedes E350 review. 

At first, the author describes candidly Mercedes' use of ambient lighting in the E-Class, dedicating three full paragraphs to the insignificant-yet-aesthetically pleasing feature. He then goes on to discuss at length the E350's various technical highlights and driving characteristics, both of which he accomplishes quite well.  But then, just as the review is drawing to a close, there it is:  the question of Mercedes' reliability.  After a brief sentence describing how the E350 roughly shifted into first gear with what he described as a loud "BANG!" (an event that occurred once throughout the week-long review), the author takes the liberty of dissecting the E-Class' reliability, stating in the story's title that "reliability is a serious question mark" and referencing the fact that Consumer Reports ranked the E-Class once of the least reliable vehicles of 2007.

While I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion, bringing into question the E350's reliability based on one rough shift is simply ludicrous.  I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever the author knew beforehand of Consumer Reports' rankings, and I have no doubt the author spent the entire week searching for anything that would help validate Consumer Reports' prediction.  The result is an article that while on the surface appears to be an impartial, informative review, ends up being nothing more than Consumer Reports' quintessential tripe wrapped in a pretty, new package.

To learn more, head over to the San Francisco Chronicle for the full review.