Three rules of thumb I live
Three rules of thumb I live by when looking at reviews:
1) Consumer Reports is only good for expected reliability numbers. Everything else they write is likely heavily biased and they have an obvious editorial policy of always finding something bad to trump up.
2) Any review that does not specifically state the test period length, conditions, and other details is automatically suspect. Many reviewers (especially in today's e-publication market) review based solely on seeing the car at a show or (worse) just from manufacturer PR materials. A review of a prototype or next-MY that doesn't include a drive is fine, of course, but it should be stated that the car was not driven (at the very least).
3) Reviewers who consistently give nothing but good news about every car or every car from a specific manufacturer should also be avoided. No car is perfect and no manufacturer is perfect on every front. Even a Maserati or Rolls will have something wrong with it - at the very least the price tag. Further, reviewers who are harsh on some types of cars, but not others are also suspect. Every car made is made for a specific type of buyer. Nobody expects a minivan to have a great 0-60 time or "peppy" performance.
Your point about base models is spot on, John. Nobody buys the base model. Not even contractors looking for trucks.