Car and Driver Comparo (Corvette ZR1 Vs. SL65 AMG Black Series, Murcielago LP640, Viper SRT10) Writes Itself
January 28th, 2009 10:50 PM Share
Now that Csaba Csere has left Car and Driver– hang on. Has he left? I forgot that buff books have a two month lead time. Two months? Can you imagine TTAC (or anyone else) trying to write anything even remotely relevant about automobiles two months in advance? Anyway, now that Csere has left C and D, nothing. No change. Seriously. I could summarize this supercar comparo without reading it. Here goes. Viper – fast, rough, dangerous. Mercedes – heavy, expensive, OMG thrust, handles better than it should. ZR1 – Shitty interior but mind-blowing fun. Such a deal. Lambo – Insane! Let’s have a look. Yup. Nailed it. OK, I thought the Lambo would win. But who cares? Does the fact that I find these articles interminable mean that I’m finally entering the “get off my lawn” phase of my life? In any case, can Car and Driver please stop all that “don’t hate us for loving fast cars” crap? In fact, I’m beginning to do just that– if not for the reasons they suggest. I swear I’ve been reading the “we heart dinosaurs” routine for twenty years now. Enough.
Published January 27th, 2009 8:59 PM
Join the conversation
4 of 50 comments
Jack, I never said no one could put themself in a position in life to track an exotic. I was simply pointing out that it isn't a possibility for the average or even above average person. The core issue is a lack of realistic vehicles being reviewed in C&D. There aren't many that are willing to put themselves in a position to track exotics and if that is their readership they should just fold now. Now Jack, correct me if I'm wrong, you totaled a Neon ACR at Mid Ohio (I don't read C&D, but I do subscribe to GRM) that was not owned by you. That is very different from crashing an LP640 you own. These cars are even more expensive than a Boxster or Phaeton (20-50k used) that you tracked. There is a reason that NASA does not have an SL65 series. Realistic is Spec Focus or Spec E30. As an aside, I checked the magazine rack today. The Vette ZR-1 in on 3 covers(R&T,C&D,Automobile) and two also have the LP640 and Viper SRT10.
Sanman111 : "Magoo, I have to disagree with you. Of course the corvette is more livable, but who cares. I have yet to see anyone daily drive a Lamborghini (except maybe Jeremy Clarkson). Yes you buy a Vette if you want a supercar you can buy everyday. You get the Lambo to take home the supermodel. Honestly, who cares which toy is more sensible. That like saying Matchbox cars are better than Hot Wheels because they are more realistic. If you can afford one of these, you can afford a Camry to drive to work. I think I respect Top Gear more for saying that their choices are completely unrealistic and have no basis ,but they don’t give a f*ck because supercars are about what makes you feel good." You misunderstand. Buy any of the cars you like. I simply said I found the CandD comparison useful and credible. If you read it objectively it can aid your decision. You needn't arrive at the same final conclusion. Top Gear may be entertaining to some, but it is not really about cars. It's a "reality show," with the same hokey premises, insipidly scripted gags, etc. I can see how the www/ritalin generation loves it but personally, I can't make myself watch it.
Magoo, I don't disagree that the information in the article is useful and credible. I simply find it to be a bad comparison. In truth, I think it would have been better to have four seperate articles. Other than 600+ horsepower, I find these cars to appeal to different people with different budgets and the comparison seemed pointless. But, if you are going to compare supercars, I don't think that price and daily driving manners are what should dictate the winner. As for Top Gear, the show has definitely moved away from cars, but the magazine still seems to be staying on point. Either way, the reason I brought them into the debate was that they speak of these cars as toys and that is what they are. For the life of me, I can't understand why these buff books factor in daily drivability in a supercar comparison and then forgive breakdowns in a BMW 3 series comparison that most people would use everyday. It is bass ackwards.
Well, one of the lies all car mags tell about the exotics is the planted inference that these vehicles are in any way real cars. If you want reliability and genuine build quality, you are better off hitch-hiking to the local buy here-pay here lot and throwing down $700 for the rusty Taurus wagon in the back row. Lacking a misanthropic bone in my body, I would never call any human being "Euro-trash," but the term describes the typical exotic sports car to a T. The main difference between a $300K exotic and a $1.5M exotic is five times as much ill-conceived, poorly validated crap that will never, ever work right. Meanwhile, you can forget any fantasies of what one might call consumer satisfaction. Yes, the exotic dealer will indeed treat you like the pillar of the community you clearly are -- while picking your pocket clean. Great for the ego, not so good for your wallet or your ultimate self-esteem. All this goes unreported in the buff books mainly because not in their wildest dreams will journalists ever be able to afford these cars. They don't have to live with them. They fly in, drive them, and leave. Which is about as long as anyone should have to put up with them. Just as there are ideas so gloriously and profoundly stupid that only geniuses can believe them, there are objects so useless that only rich people will buy them.