Australia’s Softest Car Reviews: How the Big Sites Went from Test Drives to Testimonies

There’s a curious softness sweeping through Australia’s motoring media.

Every new car, it seems, is “a compelling package,” “a strong value proposition,” or my personal favourite “a well-rounded offering for Aussie buyers.”

Translation: another car the reviewer didn’t have the heart (or freedom) to criticise properly.

Don’t get me wrong, cars are getting better. Even the dodgiest badge now offers wireless charging, twenty airbags, and enough driver aids to make your grandma look like Max Verstappen. But when every car is “great,” something’s off. It’s like watching MasterChef where nobody ever burns the risotto.

The Big Five (and the Big Soft)

Let’s name names. Because if we’re going to talk about car journalism with a spine, we need to call out who’s gone limp.

These are the big five in Australia’s car-media landscape:

Carsales, Drive, CarsGuide, CarExpert, and WhichCar.

Each has their strengths, some brilliant reviewers, clever analysis, great testing videos; but let’s be honest: the tone across the board has become as neutral as a white Toyota Camry at a beige convention.

Why? Because most of these sites are living a double life. Half newsroom, half dealership. One moment you’re reading “news,” the next you’re three clicks deep into a “Buy Now” form for a brand-new SUV that just happened to score five stars in their latest “independent” review.

Coincidence? Please.

The Sponsored Elephant in the Room

Scroll to the bottom of any of these sites and you’ll find a polite euphemism like “Partner Content,” “Sponsored Story,” or my favourite, “Brought to you by our friends at [insert car brand here].”

That’s not journalism…that’s brochure copy wearing a press pass.

Let’s be clear: sponsorships aren’t evil. Media needs money. Test fleets cost money. Hell, I need money! So do drone shots and photogenic outback locations. The problem is when those sponsorships blur the line between a review and a press release.

On several of these sites (and I checked), you can literally buy “content placement” packages. In other words, pay the platform, get a feature. That’s not journalism, that’s advertorial theatre.

The Chinese Flood (and the Editorial Undertow)

Right now, Australian roads are being swamped by an incoming tide of Chinese manufacturers: BYD, MG, GWM, Chery, and a dozen others with names that sound like they were generated by an AI fridge. And you know what? Some of these cars are genuinely impressive if you’re in the bang for buck camp.

But the way certain media outlets talk about them, you’d think every BYD was hand-built by a Xi Jinping himself with titanium wrenches.

“Incredible value!”

“Game-changer!”

“Surprisingly premium!”

Sure. But where’s the honesty about resale value? Where’s the follow-up six months later when the software glitches, the app crashes, or the battery range falls faster than my patience in peak-hour traffic?

Nope. You’ll rarely see those stories, because nobody wants to upset the new advertisers. Chinese brands have marketing budgets the size of Gina Rinehart’s brunch tab, and Australian media outlets are all too happy to cash the cheques.

Let’s Call It What It Is: Puffery with Paint Protection

We used to have journalists who’d describe a bad car as…well, bad.

Now it’s all “mild shortcomings” and “quirky design choices.” That’s PR-speak for “the interior feels like a Happy Meal toy.”

Remember when a “cons” list actually had, you know, cons? Nowadays it’s:

“Not quite as fast as rivals.”

“Limited colour range.”

“May not suit all buyers.”

What next? “Steering wheel occasionally blocks the view of your face”?

If you’ve ever wondered why so many reviews sound like they were written by Siri after a wine tasting, it’s because the sharp edges have been sanded off in the name of brand partnerships and SEO.

A Quick Reality Check: The Business Model

To be fair, this isn’t just greed. The industry changed. Classifieds revenue collapsed. Publishers had to survive.

That’s how you get entire car portals owned by or partnered with dealer groups, running “independent” reviews alongside “Find this car near you!” buttons.

That’s how you get journalists flying business class to global launches “expenses paid”, then producing glowing write-ups before the jet lag wears off.

I’m not saying that every writer is corrupt, far from it. Most aren’t. But when the system itself rewards flattery, don’t be surprised when criticism becomes an endangered species.

Meanwhile…

Here’s where I stand.

I’m not here to make friends with PR departments. I’m here to tell you what I actually think. Sometimes I’ll love a car. Sometimes I’ll hate it so much I’ll need therapy. Either way, you’ll know exactly which is which.

I’m not chasing dealership ad revenue, and I don’t have a quota of “positive mentions per month.” If something’s great, I’ll shout it. If it’s terrible, I’ll shout louder, cos pissing and moaning is so much fun!

My reviews aren’t sponsored. My opinions are mine. And yeah, I’ll be wrong sometimes. That’s fine. I’d rather be wrong honestly than “right” with a cheque attached.

Integrity isn’t complicated: if you get something for free, say so.

If someone pays you, tell your audience.

If a car’s bad, say it’s bad, not “dynamically unique.”

The Road Ahead

Readers/viewers deserve reviewers who aren’t afraid to bite the hand that fuels their press fleet.

They deserve reviews that aren’t disguised infomercials, and opinions that haven’t been sanitised into click-friendly fluff.

We don’t need more “content.” We need honesty. A bit of edge. A bit of risk.

The kind of car journalism that drives like it means it, not one that idles politely waiting for the next brand partnership.

Because when everyone else is reading from the same press release, sometimes the only real voice left is the one that says, “Nah, that’s rubbish.”