How I review cars

I describe the basis of a car article as clearly as I can. A full road test means I've spent time driving the vehicle. A first drive is a shorter encounter, often at a launch. A static preview covers a car I've seen but not driven, while a first look or buying guide may be informed by official specifications, prices and other published information.

I don't treat a press release as proof of what a car feels like on the road. If I haven't driven a particular model, I won't invent driving impressions or present predictions about ride, handling or real-world efficiency as personal findings. Older reviews may not have every journey detail recorded, and I won't fill in those gaps from memory without supporting notes.

Cars can come from manufacturer or agency press fleets, launch events, personal access and other legitimate sources. Where a vehicle was loaned or an event hosted, I explain the arrangement when it is relevant. A press loan on its own does not mean I was paid to recommend the car.

My main job is Group Marketing Manager at Rivervale, a vehicle leasing and fleet services business. This is my personal website, but some links lead to Rivervale and I may write about subjects connected to my professional work. I identify those connections and label advertising, sponsorship, gifts or affiliate arrangements appropriately. A commercial relationship doesn't automatically make a car good, and it shouldn't stop me discussing its faults.

Manufacturers publish useful figures, but official WLTP range, claimed fuel economy and estimated charging speeds aren't the same thing as the results of an actual journey. I distinguish official figures from observations I made myself, and I explain conditions such as weather, route and motorway driving where they make a difference.

Prices and finance offers change quickly. When I include a cost or leasing comparison, I aim to give the relevant date and assumptions, including the contract term, mileage, initial rental and VAT treatment where applicable. A figure from a particular day shouldn't be read as a permanent quote.

I start with the version of the car I'm discussing and the questions somebody choosing it would reasonably ask. How much space does it have? Does the technology help or get in the way? What are the compromises? And who would I recommend it to, or advise to look elsewhere?

A review isn't improved simply by giving everything a score. I use a final rating only when there's enough experience to justify it, and the written verdict should explain the reasoning. Where time with a car has been brief, my conclusions should reflect that.

For factual market, legal and technical claims, I prefer official manufacturer documents, government information and recognised industry data, and I link to the source where it helps readers check the claim. I use other publications for context and comparison, while keeping their reporting separate from my own observations.

If I've made a meaningful mistake, please let me know through the contact form. I'll check the evidence, correct the article when necessary and add an update note for substantive changes. Publication and update dates should reflect editorial work, not simply an automatic site refresh.

Research, notes, recorded observations and my own judgement are the starting point. I may use digital tools to help organise, proofread or edit a draft, but that doesn't replace checking the underlying facts. I won't invent test drives, quotations, interviews, photographs or measurements to make an article sound more convincing.