I for one believe they are not…. My proof is based solely upon the February issue of 4-wheel ATV action. I recall reading a thread not too long ago about the shootout where the Rubicon won and a ton of people said that's only because Honda spent more advertising dollars in the publication.

Guess what folks? There is not one Honda advertisement in the entire issue and the Rubicon still won. How do you imagine that happened?

My intent for posting this is not to bash anyone's ride. I like all quads not just Honda. It's only to disprove peoples that complain about the articles in the "rags" as someone put it.

If these magazines are truly biased, it seems to me that the losing manufacture would not advertise in that particular publication again. And the publication would not receive any quads from that manufactures for testing.

 

It could be that they WANT Honda advertising and that's why the Honda got top billing. Check next months issue and see if Honda isn't on every page. You might also notice that in general the quad of the day gets good reports. If it's new it's the best. When people go out and buy hundreds of them then the truth comes out that the quad is a newer version of something old and isn't really faster or better than what you got rid of to get it. All of us like to get new things and to some, the fact that something is new is worth a certain amount of money. However the manufacturers have not made the awesome improvements that they are capable of making and the prices for "new" quads is rediculous compared to other machines and the improvements that have been made in those machines. I think if the quad riding public boycotted the magazines for 1 months worth of issues the message would come across that we are tired of status quo.

 

I agree with holyman, he makes a good point. Often times if something is new, it gets the most press and is deemed "the best". For instance, i believe that our acclaimed Dirtwheels could be guilty of some bias. In the past few months, they have repeatedly compared the raptor and the ds650. They claim the raptor is better because it is smaller and handles better in the woods due to this. That the suspension is better designed and doesn't throw you around like the long travel ds does. However, notice that all the articles they do on hopped up raptors include modifications such as +2 or greater a-arms, +4 rear axles, long-travel suspension all the way around. The only thing i haven't seen yet is a longer swingarm to lengthen the wheelbase, but i'ms sure it is coming. If the raptor is so great, why are they trying to change the so called 'better than factory' version to compare more closely to bombardier's specs? I would hate to accuse them of this, i love dirtwheels. But also in their most recent issue covering the Baja 2000, which vehicle got more press from them. The losing raptor with mechanical failures and junk trannies, or the champion of the race the DS650? And who's advertisement is on the back cover? Though i'm sure it's just a case of misunderstanding.
...Freddie

 

There is no doubt in my mind that DirtWheels magazine lives and dies off the profits of advertising. But I don't think that the ATV manufactures make or break them. It's all of the mail-order parts distributors that advertise on every-other page throughout the magazine that rake in the green stuff for DW. You can't even read an article on two consecutive pages without having too flip through all of the aftermarket parts ads. Even the last 10 pages of the magazine are all small ads.
No doubt(Honda, Yamaha, Polaris, etc)all have ads in ATV magizines. But I think companies like DG, Rocky Mountain ATV, WhiteBrother's, Golden West Cycle, etc, all have more of an effect on DW than anything else does.

Just my opinion.

 

i think they are biased... i mean whens the last time you heard an BAD atv review? the worst one i ever heard was in dirtwheels and it was for the kasea skyhawk 150. it even that wasn't that bad of a review.

 

I would have to say that the riders are more biased than the magazine itself. Remember it is the riders that are doing the testing. I don't think the magazine tells them how to rate the bikes. (I could be wrong).

It just blows my mind that all the other companies come out with big improvements to their machines (listening to the consumer) and yet Honda doesn't change a thing and they still win the shootout???? Go figure...
You take a look at the Honda machines they are all air cooled while other manufactures have gone to either an oil or liquid cooled machine. Honda has drum brakes. Others have gone to disc brakes which are much better at stopping you and require less maintenance. Polaris even put stainless steel braided brake lines on their 2001 models. This is a $200 upgrade to any other machine. Honda has the shortest suspension travel of almost any machine out there. Honda has done nothing to improve on their 4 wheel drive system while other manufactures have come out with a selectable system. Honda has some of the smallest gas tanks while others have installed a 5 gallon tank. Honda has only one automatic transmission while other manufactures offer an automatic in several sizes. Oher manufactures machines are wider and longer than Honda's offering a safer ride for the consumer. The only thing testers brag about on the Honda is its erganomics.
With all the better quality stuff the other manufactures offer on their machines for a lower price than Honda. Honda still wins the shootout. You can sit there and tell me that, that isn't being biased!!! Well, tell me what is!!!! What makes a machine great!!! certainly not the things that I have mentioned because Honda is lacking in all the above categories, yet they still are on top when it comes to shootouts.
I guess ergonomics is what makes an ATV. Well not for me.
Every manufacture makes a quality machine. I just feel the other companies offer a bigger bang for your buck!!! With the Honda you are buying a name, Everyone else your buying the goods!!!
Just my two cents worth!!

 

I think the magazines would love to blame the over zealous reviews on the riders but then again the riders work for the magazines! There's an old saying "you don't mess where you eat". None of these guys are gonna...A- overly critisize their meal ticket and ...B- overly critisize the advertisers small or large. If the manufacturers made a decent product a person would not need the pipes, reeds, heads, radiators, tires, suspension etc to make it worth riding.
We keep buying the inadequate stock quads and then we pour thousands of dollars into them to make them into what we want. The only ones getting the dirty end of the stick is US, the consumer, not the mags, not the aftermarket products makers. The magazines run a business namely to sell magazines. They get paid from advertisers. The advertisers get charged per the market they appeal to. If we buy the quads and the mags we perpetuate our own victimization.

 

ABSOLUTELY !!!!
In one article, they will complain that the Polaris Scrambler is too wide, too long of wheelbase, etc. and on the next page, another article by the same author, telling about how the Banshee or TRX 400ex wasn't stable enough.
GUESS WHAT THEY DID !!! They put longer A-Arms and swingarms on the quad !!! and made it just as long and wide as the Scrambler !!! ATV Sport magazine seems about the best of the other rags when it comes to being impartial. The worst case in ATV Sport of putting the screws to Polaris was on their Glamis shootout article they took a Banshee, a TRX 400ex, a DS650 and a 500 Scrambler 4X4 !!! What's the matter guys, couldn't you find a 500 Sportsman to drag out to the dunes. The SC 500 4X4 is an outstanding woods quad when mud and poor conditions are expected. The Scrambler 400 2X4 would have been a much better choice for the dunes.
It's nice to see responsable reporting in the media....

 

I know all of the print magazine Editors and speaking for them, as well as for our magazine, I can tell you that IN MY PERSONAL OPINION I don't believe what you read is biased by advertising. I believe that you see varying levels of knowledge reflected in the articles in the print mags and thus you may wonder about certain reviews. Also, opinions will change as you gain more experience with a particular machine. So if you read something written three months ago and compare it with a current article the author's views may have changed.

Our only bias in regards to advertising is related to product reviews. If we are reviewing a PRODUCT (not the quad) such as, for example, a pull-behind plow, we would choose to pull the plow with a Honda over a Yamaha if Yamaha is not an advertiser. Since in this situation the ATV is NOT the focus of the story, we can help our advertisers without sacrificing our journalistic integrity.

When we review an ATV, we print honest opinions (not influenced by advertising) of the machine. I would hope, and would like to assume, that the print rags do the same.

 

One addendum in regards to why you may not often read a bad review of an ATV. The quality of all ATVs has gotten to the point where it is sometimes difficult to find something bad to say about an ATV. And we look for bad things to report!

We try to do non-typical things to find out weaknesses in a machine. For example, wind the quad out at full speed in third gear then slam the shifter into second and see if the tranny does anything weird. Most people won't downshift that hard, but it is generally the non-typical stresses that permit weaknesses to surface.

Also, when you own an ATV and you ride it day in and day out, you'll find some of the things you don't like just because of the amount of seat time you have with the machine. If we're at an intro and have, say, 7 hours to test a machine, we may not have enough time to really discover problems. Or, if the ride location doesn't offer a good testing ground we may not find some things. Our best reviews are the in-depth reviews where we have a machine for a month to put it through it's paces.

Anyway, the above is my personal opinion for what it's worth.