What you say may be true. But, maybe the vehicle shouldn't be so complicated to have to 'figure out' in the first place.
Gotta disagree with this too since they chose the Yukon AT4 as the winner. A vehicle with IFS/IRS and 4 corner air suspension at that. If they believed what you stated would they not have picked the Sequoia?
Totally fair critiques! I do think the vehicle is more complicated than it needs to be so I agree the vehicle should be easier to figure out and it should be more intuitive. The info in the review is suggesting that the only way to adjust off-road modes is by navigating through complex menus, which is the area I raised an eyebrow at because as far as I know, that's not true. It takes something that is a moderate problem and presents it as a big one -- and if a judge thought that the only way to switch modes was to go through the menu, I can see how the judge would think "This is a crap system". Switching drive modes CAN be a complex affair by navigating through menus, but it's also as simple as pushing a single button and turning a knob, and a quick read of the user manual would have addressed a good chunk of their critiques, I think.
As for the Yukon being the winner -- my comment about the judges' paradigm was meant a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I am surprised by how anti-tech the FourWheelNetwork article seemed to be with regards to the Defender. I went back and read the article about the Yukon, and they rave about the tech in that application. But again -- the way the tech is reported on as being problematic in the Defender seems to be more about the users than the rig. A great example of this difference is the rearview mirror they talked about -- they referred to their judges as being unable to get used to it, yet countless other reviews have spoken to the merits of the system, including folks like Scott Brady here on Expo, Doug DeMuro, the TFL guys, and more -- in other words, these are established and experienced vehicle people saying they think it's a good feature, it works super well, and there are lots of reasons articulated as to why that is: often the cargo area is full or the rear window is dirty, so the unobstructed rear view is safer. The spare tire obscures a chunk of the window so there's a bonus to that visibility too. And if you really don't like it, a flick of a switch makes it an old-school mirror again. There's literally no downside to the rearview mirror and I've heard in several reviews and from owners that the mirror should be a required feature. But, the FWN article says that it's not good because some judges were too old school and couldn't get used to it? Too old school to flick the switch and make it a regular mirror? That's not exactly a convincing counter argument to the suite of folks who have said it's fantastic.
I am surprised that the Yukon won -- good for GM -- but I'm not surprised that the Defender lost. But, there's a lot of legitimate reasons for the Defender to lose that have been reasonably consistently well documented so far. That article didn't convince me that they landed on those legitimate reasons very consistently.
www.fourwheeler.com
