By on May 3, 2009

Even the most even-handed comparison tests reflect a specific set of specifically weighted criteria. Then there are those that aren’t even-handed. Car comparison tests don’t come much more tilted than the “Camaro vs. Genesis” comparison test in the June 2009 Car and Driver.

Let’s begin with the cover, which shows the Camaro nosing ahead of the Hyundai on a track and includes three bits of information on each car. The first, base prices: $23K for the Chevrolet Camaro, $26K for the Hyundai Genesis Coupe. Open the magazine and you’ll find that C&D rejected a Camaro LS for its awful upholstery and mediocre tires. Upgrade to the LT, like they did, and two-thirds of the Camaro’s price advantage goes away. Adjust for remaining feature differences, and the cars’ prices are generally only a few hundred dollars apart.

Next on the cover, fuel economy: 29 MPG for the Camaro, 26 MPG for the Hyundai. EPA highway figures, of course. The city figures are an identical 17. In C&D’s testing, the Hyundai went slightly farther on a gallon of gas.

The third bit of information, horsepower: 304 for the Camaro, 306 for the Genesis Coupe. Not as potentially misleading as the other two bits. And yet, unsaid on the cover: the Camaro is over 300 pounds heavier. The Hyundai has a significantly better power-to-weight ratio.

In the actual comparo, the Camaro wins (as suggested by the cover photo). By a single point. Actually check the details, and you’ll find that, despite the connotations of that cover photo, the Camaro trailed the Genesis Coupe in every track test—acceleration, handling and braking—sometimes by a substantial margin. Moving to the subjective scoring, C&D rated the Genesis Coupe more “fun to drive” by a not insignificant two points. They note a few times that the Camaro feels too big because of its size, mass, and small windows, and that it doesn’t invite precise steering inputs.

So how did the Genesis Coupe lose? First, ride quality—affected by the optional Track Package on the car C&D tested. The buff book notes that they cycled through three Camaro test vehicles before settling on the one they liked best for the test. Why, then, didn’t they also evaluate the Genesis Coupe without the Track Package?

Even the four point spread in ride quality––a huge difference as scoring in these tests tends to go––wasn’t enough to fully erase the Hyundai’s lead in nearly every other category. To give the Camaro a one-point victory, C&D resorted to the score of last resort: “gotta have it.” The reviewers gave the new Chevrolet Camaro a monstrous six-point advantage. That’s 22 vs. 16, out of 25 in a 110% subjective category.

To put it bluntly, the Camaro won this comparison test because, in C&D’s estimation, people want it more. Chalk one up to the power of a name and an effective PR campaign. [ED: Or ad revenue.]

Even if we grant that “gotta have it” belongs in the scoring table at all––and I don’t, since I’d rather a test compare what the cars are like to look at, sit in, and drive and not the model name or the PR––the Hyundai’s 16 is crazy low for a car that offers so much performance for a price in the mid-$20s.

The issue includes one other comparison test, between the BMW 328i, Infiniti G37, Audi A4 2.0T and Acura TL. The TL, the least “gotta have” car in that test, with far more faults than strengths, received a 16. The Infiniti and Audi both received 20s. In the context of these scores, the Genesis Coupe’s 16 doesn’t hold water.

And the Camaro V6’s 22? Yes, there’s a lot of interest in the new Camaro, but generally for the V8. Maybe that’s why they couldn’t go all the way to 25, and so had to dock the Genesis Coupe’s “gotta have it” score to carve out the desired margin?

No disrespect meant to the Camaro. If it handles anything like the Pontiac G8 with which it shares a platform, it’s a fun car, and it looks great. I’ve driven neither car yet myself and have no predisposition in favor of either. In other words, I’m no fanboy or hater.

My focus here has been strictly on the fairness of the test. And this is the most tilted comparison test I’ve come across in a long time. In the end, “gotta have it” is like the “reviewer’s tilt” score used by gamespot.com when reviewing games. It’s being used to ensure that the car the reviewers want to win actually wins, despite what the other scores happen to be.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

82 Comments on “Editorial: Between the Lines: Car and Driver Camaro vs. Genesis Comparo...”


  • avatar
    Stu Sidoti

    A buff-book making up a result not based upon their own scoring system? Gee what a surprise.
    Quite frankly, I don’t see why these two vehicles are being compared…Call it my flawed logic, but I would suppose that a Camaro-Challenger-Mustang comparison and a Genesis-G37-RX8-360Z test would make a lot more sense, but what do I know? Maybe Camaro buyers are cross-shopping the Hyundai coupe?!?!? Maybe Hyundai Genesis Coupe buyers are cross-shopping the Camaro? Somehow, I just don’t think so.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    That’s why Car and Driver doesn’t do well on my “gotta have it” scale. I haven’t looked at one for years.

  • avatar
    Detroit Todd

    C&D says the Camaro won the comparison, so of course TTAC surmises that the test was rigged/unfair/biased/the testers are lacking in sufficient intellect to speak to the issues of both cars.

    And water is wet.

    I know! How about TTAC tests both cars head-to-head instead of whining about other publications?

    Anyway, some may not like the Camaro (more specifically, the very idea of it), but it will sell very well.

  • avatar
    golf4me

    That you write for this site predisposes you to hate on anything GM. According to Peter D.L. anyway. But seriously, why didn’t you hold back on this editorial until driving both back to back. I don’t care too much for the Camaro, mostly due to it’s size/weight, but I think picking on someone else’s opinions without having any basis is a little suspect…

  • avatar
    rehposolihp

    C&D says the Camaro won the comparison, so of course TTAC surmises that the test was rigged/unfair/biased/the testers are lacking in sufficient intellect to speak to the issues of both cars.

    Actually, I thought the several paragraph long description (see above) of how the test was flawed was why TTAC surmised that the test was rigged/unfair/biased

  • avatar
    ajla

    This is nothing new for C&D. In January 2005 they ran “21st-Century Muscle Cars: Goat and Pony showdown”, which was a 2005 Pontiac GTO versus the 2005 Ford Mustang GT. The “10 Best Winner” Mustang won the comparo, but it was the same way the Camaro won this test. Here is the .pdf chart: Mustang vs GTO results chart. From this you can see that the GTO was winning by six points until the “gotta have it” score came along. They gave the GTO 18, but the Mustang a perfect 25- Just enough for the Mustang to win by one point.

    Because this was a GM car getting screwed, and in the Camaro case the GM car won, I don’t think C&D does this crap because of ad revenue. Rather, they just have their heads up their collective asses.

  • avatar
    Paul Niedermeyer

    @Detroit Todd and golf4me,

    Did you actually read this editorial? It’s a review of C/D’s review, not of the cars. That’s why it’s called “Between the Lines”. That’s why the writer says: “my focus is strictly on the fairness of the test”. He’s not trying to pre-judge the cars themselves, just C/D’s methodology. Fair enough.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    I can’t remember which magazine, but one recently had two seperate reviews of the Genesis Coupe and the 2010 Mustang GT. Basically they said that Ford forbid them to test the Mustang directly against the Hyundai, but if they had, the Mustang would have won hands down.

    The Genesis Coupe has the potential to be a great vehicle, but there are some major weaknesses. First off, the name. The Genesis named debuted on a full size luxury sedan, and now gets moved to a budget sports car with which it shares no styling or design cues? Who’s idea was that?

    Second, the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, 370Z, RX-8, hell, pretty much anything in the affordable sports car segment look a hell of a lot better than the warmed over Tiburon exterior and ‘Hey it works for the Corvette’ interior of the Genesis Coupe.

    Finally, the majority of people buying any of these cars are buying it for image and style more than performance, 99% of these cars will never see a track or a dragstrip. The Genesis sedan would be selling four or five times as many units if it had a Lincoln, Cadillac, Lexus, or Infiniti badge.

    The same snobbery with a different flavor effects the Genesis Coupe. While theoretically aimed at a younger market a ton of people who buy Mustangs/Challengers/350Zs are middle aged well to do people trying to recapture something from their youth, and the Genesis just doesn’t have that.

  • avatar
    PJG62

    OK,, lets just let the Camaro win,,, they need it. As far as C & Ds’ objectivity goes, if it doesn’t say BMW or Honda on it,forget it. Their 10 best issue always gets me into postal mode when a Honda Fit can beat out any Mercedes.

  • avatar
    mikeolan

    Ok, so you’ve got a car that objectively is superior, but subjectively falls flat, and it loses the comparison test. It happens all the time. I think “gotta have it factor” is stupid in determining the overall result, but frankly this article is the pot calling the kettle black- you can only be so objective in a car review.

  • avatar

    The Genesis should lose solely by the fact that is both very pedestrian and very ugly rolled up into one car. It also got trounced in Edmunds comparison to the 2010 Mustang GT Track Pack. Also, the big draw of the Camaro isn’t only it’s jaw-dropping looks but also the performance of it’s V8 which soundly whips the Genesis.

    If a car wins because people want it more then maybe that really is saying something. Plenty of people want Camaros. Just as the LSX GTO lost to the 2005 Mustang GT because the buff books said the Mustang had “Gotta have it factor” though the GTO had nicer interior and better performance, more people wanted the Mustang.

    The Genesis is a nice car I’m sure, but it’s nowhere near the legend of the Camaro or Mustang nor does it come close to rivaling their V8 performance. There’s no denying that.

  • avatar
    gottacook

    The name of the Genesis Coupe may not be a weakness at all. Perhaps Hyundai is choosing to emulate Honda’s model structure; the Accord sedan and coupe are visually related at the front end but otherwise have separate exteriors, and this has persisted (apparently with some success) for three generations now. By contrast, Toyota made more of an effort to differentiate the Solara from the Camry, but in its second generation the Solara is on shakier ground – in fact the Toyota website offers information only on 2008 Solaras. Moreover, buyers of Accord coupes are offered a manual transmission with a V6 motor, whereas buyers of V6 Solaras (if there are any) can only get an automatic. So in giving its large performance coupe the Genesis name, Hyundai might know exactly what it’s doing and whom it’s targeting.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Wow, Car and Driver has lowered itself to using a “gotta have it” category.

    Thank you for reaffirming my decision not to pay $6 a year for this fallen magazine to clutter my mailbox.

    Car and Driver: your “gotta have it” score is 0.

  • avatar
    mrJon

    I think you just need to think about it a little bit differently. I think there is a pretty good argument that the “gotta have it” category is the only category that should matter. I think most of us would like to believe that it is entirely possible that after you’ve compared two cars, you certainly might for whatever intangible reason like one of them more, despite the fact that it loses every measurable category. It just happens, and I think “gotta have it” captures that intangible idea. After that you might say then that you should just get rid of all the other categories, which would be true, but I believe that it provides the reader the ability to adjust the weighting of the various categories so that they can determine their own winner.

  • avatar
    dwford

    The Genesis Coupe is a nice car with a lot of nice features, but for me it doesn’t come together as a whole. It has a great chassis, but the transmission is very notchy to shift. The car looks great in parts, but less so when you can see the whole thing. A photographer could shoot for days, but the sum is less than its parts – especially the weak front end styling.

    At my dealership, the Coupe hasn’t generated nearly as many gawkers as the sedan did last year. We call them “Genesis Molesters.” The ones that come in just to look it over, fondle it a little, just to convince themselves to keep overpaying for the luxury badges.

  • avatar
    f8

    Haha, C&D is such garbage. Let’s see them try to quantify that “gotta have it” bullshit with a statistic that could at least be meaningful, maybe do a survey among a few hundred people where they ask what they would prefer – a top of the line V6 Genesis or a base model Camaro sans V8.

  • avatar
    TZ

    This isn’t the first time that they’ve done something of this nature, but it appears to be the most egregious.

    That being said, in the other comparo mentioned in the TTAC editorial (A4 vs 328, etc.), they all but admit that the numbers were fudged to place the BMW on top, simply because they all felt it should win anyway.

    Why have a rating system if you aren’t going to use it? Just pick a winner and leave it at that.

  • avatar
    Happy_Endings

    If the test was anything like the Mustang/GTO test, roughly 25% of the points are based on purely objective categories (front seat, rear seat, trunk, features, engine, and performance). Everything else is either mostly subjective or totally subjective. So if the results are going to match a preconceived notion, it’s pretty easy to do.

    Since this is supposed to be largely a performance test (they’re supposed to performance cars after all), shouldn’t more points be given for objective performance categories? As it stands with the Mustang/GTO calculation, not even 10% of the points available are for objective performance (20 of 235). I think making objective performance results 20% of the total score is a better ratio.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    Gottacook –

    When I see an Accord coupe I instantly recognize it as an Accord, and even more so, as a Honda. Hyundai made a lot of effort to make the Genesis sedan not look like a Hyundai, but with the coupe, they might as well have stuck a Koren pride sticker on the back. The Genesis sedan is a good looking car inside and out, and while I don’t believe it is the luxury game changer that some proclaim it to be, it is at least desirable at the price point, and an intriguing option for those who don’t want what all the neighbors have.

    The BMW 6 series looks like a 2 door 5 or 7 series, the Mercedies C class looks like a 2 door E or S class, the Solara looks a lot like a Camry, and the Altima coupe has a front end that is a lot like the Altima sedan. Granted, the Genesis coupe is about as similar to a Sonata as a 350Z is to an Altima, or a Mustang to a Fusion, but that is the point – don’t give the car a name that infers that it is similar to another car in the lineup with which it shares nothing. I am not even sure if the V6 from the Genesis Coupe is the same V6 as the Genesis Sedan. Hell, at least make the Tau V8 an option in the Genesis Coupe if it is going to share the name. A 2 door version of the Gensis Sedan with lighter weight, sportier suspension, dual-clutch or sufficiently intelligent automatic gearbox, all the leather and wood, and the Tau V8, possibly even offered in higher output or forced-induction versions, would be a car I would be very very interested in.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @mrJon:
    I agree that a comparo shouldn’t go purely by the numbers.

    However, C&D already includes the subjective categories of “Styling”, “Engine NVH”, “Driver Comfort”, “Transmission feel”, “Steering feel”, “Brake feel”, “Ride”, and “Fun-to-Drive”. (FWIW, both the Genesis and GTO were rated as the more “fun to drive” car in their respective tests)

    So what else could the “Gotta-Have-It” score entail that means it needs to be a separate category?

  • avatar
    Oregon Sage

    ajla

    I think the implication is along the lines of “it makes my heart beat faster”. As far as I am concerned this is a useless catagory.

    I can see and drive and figure out if it makes my heart beat faster, or makes my ‘ego’ grow, or if I think it is pretty (styling is in the eye of the beholder) or if the seats fit me right. What I cannot do is spend enough time driving both cars in a variety of conditions to get an accurate assessment of their performance. CD could do this, but instead focuses on gaming a winner.

    When the tester obscures the information they can provide, that I cant get myself, with opinions that anyone can generate then they are not serving any useful purpose to me. (And I stopped reading CD, RT other than Egan, and Automobile a long time ago because of this nonsense).

    The same standards can and should be applied to anything read here or at Edmunds, etc.

  • avatar
    Dave Skinner

    From PJG62:
    “when a Honda Fit can beat out any Mercedes.”

    A Honda Fit does beat out any Mercedes in the Fit’s price class, given that the number of Mercedes nameplates in the under $30k price class number, umm, zero.

  • avatar
    gottacook

    NulloModo –
    All fair points. I was only trying to speculate on the marketing aspect and why Hyundai might have gone the way it did with its nomenclature. (Heck, I myself would prefer the Genesis sedan over the coupe for a number of reasons.)

  • avatar
    niky

    PJG62 :
    May 3rd, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    OK,, lets just let the Camaro win,,, they need it. As far as C & Ds’ objectivity goes, if it doesn’t say BMW or Honda on it,forget it. Their 10 best issue always gets me into postal mode when a Honda Fit can beat out any Mercedes.

    Have you even driven a B-Class back to back with a Fit? I’d rather drive the Fit. The 10Best isn’t about the 10Best luxury cars, but covers a variety of market segments. That said, I’d still rather buy a Fit over any Smart/Mercedes below the top-of-the-line C-Class. And even then, the Fit’s plastics aren’t far off from the Merc’s.

    C&D’s scoring system has always, always, always been scwewy. Incredibly, stupidly screwy. They do a good job of evaluating, get the numbers, do a very thorough comparison… and then… oh, my, this car actually won?

    I just love their tests… I remember the performance tire comparison test… where they had the best performing tire come third behind one of the worst performing tires because said worst performing tire “isn’t so bad in the wet” and is cheap. Whoopee. Most of American picks tires for their trackday cars based on those two characteristics, obviously. Even they were shocked by their math.

    As compared to Grassroots Motorsports, who did a similar test on similar tires (including two from C&D’s test) and did double-blind autocrosses involving two separate drivers, did statistics and awarded first, second and third to the best performing tires, regardless of price, and noting price only afterwards.

    C&D’s system is good… or would be if they didn’t keep screwing with the scoring.

  • avatar
    merlynbrit

    I can think of a half dozen car companies that rely solely on the “it” factor to sell cars. VW, Mercedes, Jeep, Jaguar, Land Rover; they all are notoriously problematic.
    Hyundai is still trying to change brand image. Kudos to them for throwing their hat in the ring and playing with the big boys. For the past few years Hyundai has been building good cars. Its a shame too many people remember the Excel, C/D included.

  • avatar

    Some commenters seem to have entirely missed the point. This editorial isn’t really about the Camaro and the Genesis. If it had been, I would have mentioned my surprise that they said very good things about the steering feel and handling of the Genesis, and also gave it a higher “fun to drive” score. I haven’t driven the car yet, but haven’t been expecting it to do well in these areas.

    ajla and Oregon Sage, on the other hand, nailed what this piece is about. If the Hyundai had won the objective tests but the Camaro had won the “fun to drive” category, I could see tilting the score. But it didn’t. A car can have the best scores and be the most fun to drive, and still lose? Not in my book.

    I’m even fine with the tilt, as long as they explicity acknowledge it. What I don’t like is the pretense of having a systematized scoring system, which they then game. I preferred the old system.

    Also, as explained in the piece, the bits on the cover suggest that they’re going out of their way to repeat the manufacturer’s cherry picking. Much lower price…but not really. Better MPG…but not really.

  • avatar
    toxicroach

    The Gotta Have it Category is crap, for the simple reason that its the one factor that the reader can decide for himself, based on the rest of the reviews and his personal situation.

    You got the guys who think the Genesis is a blob of crap, you got the guys who think the Camaro is a redneck mullet car, you got the guys who think the Mustang is guys with a bit of a midlife crisis, blah blah blah. Gotta have it is basically how cool it is, and the reader can figure that out for himself, thank you very much. And having “cool” as such a critical deciding factor that it can overrule every other aspect of the comparison.. c’mon. That’s just not C&D’s job.

    P.S. I’m one of those nonexistent people who are cross shopping the Mustang GT and the Genesis. The 2010 GT is a great car to drive. The Genesis is a great car to drive. I’d give the edge in “fun to drive” to the Mustang, with a few gotta have it points taken off for the fact you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a base Mustang, which kinda kills the mojo.

  • avatar
    Dragophire

    This shouldnt suprise anyone. CandD states during a comparo of crossovers that the Pilot won due the fact that it is the most TRUCK like.It lost everyone state except some interior room point. I dont get it and never will. Oh wait yeah I do. They like so many others suck.

  • avatar
    kipling

    From a TTAC Comparo:

    Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. To choose first place, I relied solely on my visceral gut response to each vehicle. In this case, the above numeric gyrations mostly confirmed how I felt.

  • avatar
    obbop

    “Thank you for reaffirming my decision not to pay $6 a year for this fallen magazine to clutter my mailbox.”

    Car and Driver wanted a mere five bucks from me for 12 issues.

    Moved recently with magazines forwarded for one month.

    I didn’t bother notifying C and D of my new address so am not receiving the few remaining months left in that 5 buck subscription.

    No loss.

    Will ignore the begging barrage asking for a renewal.

    I still buy the old copies when I see them in the thrift store for a dime each… the issues from back in the 60s to 80s when the magazine was worth reading, before the writers pointed their collective noses upwards and looked down upon the unwashed masses unable to afford the high-falutin exotic and luxomobiles the C and D staff luxuriates with today.

    Wonder how long until that worthless mag folds?

  • avatar
    ravenchris

    Karesh,
    As long as you don’t emulate C&D you’ll always make your point.

  • avatar
    kamikaze2b

    Good, fair review of the review I say. And FWIW I cross-shopped the 370Z, Mustang, Camaro, Genesis Coupe and a C6 vette. I ended up with the Z.

    And it’s too bad that this model Camaro didn’t have the exclusive tire weights stuck on the brake calipers, now that’s something I gotta have!!!

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    I get the feeling that this editorial is something along the lines of the pot calling the kettle black.

    I have seen way too many defenses made by writers and reader alike over the reviews here that also have been criticized as taking subjectivity over objectivity. The response to these criticisms was a shrug and a “so what?”

    So now then, why are we going after C&D for doing the same thing?

    I think it’s hypocritical for anybody on this staff accuse C&D of putting out a biased review when this site’s policy forbids its readers from doing the same thing.

  • avatar
    GS650G

    I’d rather have the Genesis.

  • avatar
    Juniper

    When TTAC writers have to defend each other you have already lost.
    So you sat on the crapper and read a magazine as your research for this article. Come on you can do better. any time TTAC asks for opinions many say don’t criticize other auto writers. You don’t listen.

  • avatar
    niky

    quasimondo :
    May 3rd, 2009 at 10:04 pm

    So now then, why are we going after C&D for doing the same thing?

    I think it’s hypocritical for anybody on this staff accuse C&D of putting out a biased review when this site’s policy forbids its readers from doing the same thing.

    All car reviews are subjective. And, if you read around, a lot of us have disagreed with some of the car reviews on here. TTAC forbids you from flaming its contributors, nothing more.

    The question, really, is not subjectivity. That’s a given in the test, and the scoring reflects it with subjective areas given.

    It’s that C&D feels the need to create a secondary subjective scoring category beyond the pre-existing ones to alter the results to their liking that’s the issue presented here.

  • avatar

    quasimondo,

    It’s not a matter of objectivity vs. subjectivity. It’s a matter of cheating your own scoring system.

  • avatar
    ambulancechaser

    A Genesis V6 with the track pack will run you the better part of $36k up here in Canada. I’d rather have a gently used 350z for $23k.

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    The Truth About Cars is where I go to get my daily dose of rabid domestic car bashing, and a loud chorus rising into a crescendo wishing all domestic automakers fail.

    At least TTAC is stunningly consistent. No one can take away the level of dedicated and often blind hatred they show towards Ford, Chrysler and, especially GM.

  • avatar
    kamikaze2b

    At least TTAC is stunningly consistent. No one can take away the level of dedicated and often blind hatred they show towards Ford, Chrysler and, especially GM

    I know right!! I mean the last two reviews posted here on the G8 GXP and the Shelby Mustang both got 5 out of 5 stars! I mean the blind hatred with a 5 star rating is soooo apparent!

  • avatar
    Power6

    It’s not a matter of objectivity vs. subjectivity. It’s a matter of cheating your own scoring system.

    C&D invented the “Gotta have it” category so they could avoid the “ooops surprise win” like they used to have from time to time.

    So it is just a tool for “tilting” as you say, so that they can effect the “desired” outcome. What is the problem with that? The alternative is unintended consequences for the editors when scoring semi-objectively.

    I fail to see the point of any concern over comaprison test “winners.” I can only think of two uses of such rankings: Purchasing a car or just casual enthusiast interest.

    Starting with the latter, the average enthusiast can poke holes in the editors reasonings, disagree with them etc. which is all in good fun.

    It is pointless though to argue about scoring systems. The whole system is still subjective, it still comes down to what a few writers think. Why argue about a semi-objective system, made up of subjective categories? How do you even know what “gotta have it” means? It sounds like you have assumed what that means Michael, and you know how that usually turns out…

    So we have the other use of comparison rankings, and I have a perspecitve having purchased two new cars in a row now after having read many of the car rags ahead of time. The fact is which car wins or how many wins it chalks up doesn’t matter worth a damn. Who cares if some guy on the other side of the country thinks some car rides too hard or another is too noisy. We already know from this site many of these guys don’t even own cars. I bought an SRT-4 Neon when it placed 3rd, and I just bought a WRX when it placed…well who knows I didn’t bother to remember, it doesn’t really matter.

    Not to say the Car and Driver article wasn’t without merit. John Philips has been around for a while, I like his writing. He does his job well enough, I can tell from the article that I would probably prefer the Hyundai.

    Michael you should have written an editorial about the insignificance of “comparison test winners” rather than this critque of a meaningless scoring system.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @Power6:
    C&D invented the “Gotta have it” category so they could avoid the “ooops surprise win” like they used to have from time to time.

    So it is just a tool for “tilting” as you say, so that they can effect the “desired” outcome. What is the problem with that?

    The problem that I have with those methods is it destroys the entire idea behind a comparison test. Why even bother to compare vehicles and break down the scores if the result is pre-determined?

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    I have this rule:
    When looking for the Truth about a car, you don´t find it if the car and the magasine/media is from the same country.
    British media favours Jaguar,Aston Martin,TVR etc.
    US media favours Cadillac, Chevrolet, Ford, Dodge etc.
    Swedish media favours Volvo and Saab.

  • avatar
    Paul W

    I recall a comparo between a 350Z and a BMW Z3 on Final Gear.

    The 350Z beat the Z3 in every conceivable metric, drag race, top speed, race against the clock, race head-to-head, handling, power sliding, etc. Conclusion: The Z3 was the better car.

    Fine, so you don’t want to be seen driving around in a mere Nissan and you love to rave about “German precision” (whatever that is). Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but be honest and declare the winner FIRST – and THEN show the clip of the cars on the track. Don’t pretend you’re trying to be unbiased when you’re clearly not.

  • avatar
    John R

    Memo to C&D. GM is toast. You don’t need to brownnose them for ad dollars for much longer. Time to start courting other suitors.

  • avatar
    SupaMan

    NulloModo

    I can’t remember which magazine, but one recently had two seperate reviews of the Genesis Coupe and the 2010 Mustang GT. Basically they said that Ford forbid them to test the Mustang directly against the Hyundai, but if they had, the Mustang would have won hands down.

    That would be Motor Trend.

    And when you write in, questioning the way the test was done, the C&D editors will write back saying:

    “Because we are the freakin’ experts, not you.”

    Riiiiight…..hey, didn’t a BMW 328i beat that sport sedan comparo test in the same issue? Their predication for BMWs is hoot.

  • avatar
    shaker

    The “Gotta Have It” score should be a one-point tie-breaker.

    There are a minority of buyers who would cross-shop these cars, but at least give these buyers a dose of objectivity if you hope to keep selling C/D.

    Did C/D mention GM’s pending bankruptcy as a ‘minus’ for the Camaro?

    It’s an article designed to “preach to the choir” (i.e. Camaro fanboyz), nothing more.

    Personally, I think that Hyundai dropped the ball on the styling; the front end is way-too-narrow to be muscular, but technically, it’s quite a car for the money.

    As to the Camaro, I love the base powertrain; it’s far beyond the “secretary specials” of the Stang and Chally, but the jury is out on where Chevy cut corners to have such a stellar base drivetrain available for 23k…

  • avatar
    Robstar

    IMHO starting this year they should have the following categories/rating:

    * % Chance parent company will be in business in 3 years to finish servicing warranty claims: where %/10 = a point score

    * Expected depreciation in 3 years…where %/10 = a – to add to the score.

  • avatar
    Ingvar

    “C&D invented the “Gotta have it” category so they could avoid the “ooops surprise win” like they used to have from time to time.

    So it is just a tool for “tilting” as you say, so that they can effect the “desired” outcome. What is the problem with that? The alternative is unintended consequences for the editors when scoring semi-objectively.”

    I do hope you are joking, but you seem to have misunderstood the concept of “testing”. First, there are no unintended consequencens, if the tests are done unbiased. May the best man win, and all that. Second, your rules only applies if you have an agenda. Because, if there were no agenda, there would be no reason to “tilt” the results in the “desired” outcome.

    So, the only times you need these kind of loopholes, is when you have a comparison between two cars, where you already from the start have decided who the winner should be, and you need some kind of rule-breaker to change the rules as you go, to get the intended outcome.

  • avatar
    mikey

    An American based magazine slanting thier test results toward the American based car company that thousands of Americans depend on for an income?

    Kudo’s to C/D

  • avatar
    highrpm

    Every month, C&D is getting more and more unreadable to me. They used to have professional writers there at one point. The reviews have gotten very tedious to read.

    Regarding the TL and its malfunctioning electronics, I remember at least three prior comparos where the BMW 3-series won. And each time, the 3-series had multiple electrical problems. This comparo is probably the first one I’ve read in years where a 3-series didn’t malfunction in some way.

    That didn’t stop the 3 from winning every single comparo though.

  • avatar
    dougjp

    Nice catch, Michael. I also found the review disgusting and grossly biased as in MSM, Detroit style. I also haven’t got a bias toward either one.

  • avatar
    windswords

    Congratulations C&D you have successfully emulated Consumer Reports in your scoring and evaluations. I always know which car is going to win in CR before reading the conclusion and, like Michael Karesh, I always ask “why did they rate this so category/feature so high/so important” or “why did they test this model against that model when they should have used this one”.

  • avatar
    ZoomZoom

    I have not bought an automotive buff mag in over 15-20 years. The only place I read them is in my doctor’s and my dentist’s waiting rooms; and that’s only because I’m not into Vogue or McCall’s.

    It’s an incestual relationship, this thing the buff mags and MSM have going with the auto manufacturers and now the government.

    But even before all this, I NEVER thought about buying an auto magazine so that I could prepare myself for an upcoming automotive purchase.

    Puh-lease!

    Come to think of it, I don’t buy mens’ magazines to prepare for dates, either…

  • avatar
    superbadd75

    Who really cares what CD’s testing criteria are, by which means a car wins or loses, or how fair the results of a test are? The bottom line is that in the end, everyone picks a car based on his or her own opinion. I don’t know anyone that takes a stopwatch to the car dealership to check 0-60 times, or test drives their car at the local drag strip. People go test drive several cars and pick what they like best. CD tested both the Camaro and the Genesis Coupe —don’t get me started on how stupid I think that name is, BTW— and liked the Camaro better. “Gotta have it” factors into most everyone’s car purchases.

    Regarding price advantage, I think it’s still relevant, even if CD did pass on the completely base Camaro. Some people want to know what they can get into the car for, period. Even if that means a slight performance or content difference. People know that most rags aren’t testing completely base cars, and they don’t expect them to. They just want to know what the base price is so they can decide whether or not it belongs on their shopping list. When my wife and I shopped for her car, We considered the Mustang partially because of where pricing started, but knew that the possibility of us buying the base model was pretty slim.

  • avatar
    Bridge2far

    I just think it is impossible to give a Hyundai any kind of “gotta have” merit. C’mon. Camaro or a Hyundai? I think C/D is spot on in their summation.

  • avatar
    Orian

    To be perfectly honest I’d bet the Camaro’s engine is much more durable than the Genesis coupe’s is…the 3.8 is an updated version of the 3.5 and it’s not what I’d call a durable engine based on experience.

    Not to mention that the Hyundai engine will require more routine maintenance – they were still using timing belts on their 3.5l V6 in a day and age when timing chains are the norm (on a V6), and they want you to change it at 60k miles.

    I still despise the Camaro’s interior though. Blech!

  • avatar

    Power6 suggested, “Michael you should have written an editorial about the insignificance of “comparison test winners” rather than this critque of a meaningless scoring system.”

    Well, the problem is I wrote that editorial a long time ago:

    http://www.truedelta.com/pieces/comparison_tests.php

    I’m pretty sure there’s a version of this article here on TTAC as well.

  • avatar
    tedward

    Yes they cheated the scoring system…and yes it kind of makes the scoring system stupid and silly. Still, I actually like C&D as they test manual transmissions and blatantly favor cars that are fun to drive. Outside of EVO and CAR I really don’t see many publications with access to fleet cars and priorities I respect.

    They probably just chickened out on panning the Camaro b/c they were afraid it might contradict later comparison tests or generate a little too much fanboy rage. Who cares? Two obviously good cars from the perspective of a driver, and if you were to pick one without driving the other (nevermind solely based on a C&D review) I’d have to consider you kind of dim.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Congratulations C&D you have successfully emulated Consumer Reports in your scoring and evaluations.

    I’d atually say this is completely the opposite of what CR is often accused of. The standard CR complaint is a satire of one of their reviews:

    “Both the Boxster and Camry have V6 engines, but the Camry is more comfortable, seats five, costs less and gets better mileage. Thusly we prefer the Camry”

    CR could be said to place too much emphasis on the objective qualities of a vehicle, which is why they’re perhaps not a great choice for enthusiast reviews, and why you end up with the Subaru WRX, Ford Mustang, MazdaSpeed 3 and Honda S2000 in the same category. What C&D did was basically say that, despite the Genesis being better in every way, they’re allowed to use their completely subjective “Gotta Fudge It Factor” to hand the crown to the Camaro.

    CR has surprised me on occasion: VW consistently tops the performance ranks, and the B5 Passat was their best-scoring sedan despite it’s terrible reliability (which CR was up-front about). C&D has never, ever surprised me: they fawn over any car in a preview release, fawn a little less in the first road test, and then wait until it’s “safe” (eg, the ad campaign money is no longer an issue, or a new model is released) before they let it get it’s ass kicked in a comparison.

    That this happens should surprise no one: CR doesn’t take ad money, while C&D depends on it. Cutting the Camaro ad campaign’s hamstrings with a second-place showing would be suicidal, especially when C&D’s own finances are in deep trouble.

  • avatar
    Nedmundo

    I’ve been reading C&D since about 1980, and its decline has been a huge disappointment. The condescending, obnoxious tone became intolerable, so I canceled my subscription for several years. But I re-subscribed, largely for the comparison tests, despite their flaws. I agree with Michael Karesh’s criticism of the Camaro v. Genesis comparo, but at least C&D openly reveals its methodology and biases, so a critical reader is free to draw his or her own conclusions. I still find the comparos informative.

    And, while nebulous, the “gotta have it” factor prevents them from annointing a “winner” in the test, only to say the majority of testers actually preferred the other car. As we know, performance numbers aren’t everything, and for decades C&D has defended its results from the “how can a BMW be better when my Cobalt SS is quicker to 60 and corners faster?” crowd. They still get bizarre results, as when the GTI ended up on this year’s 10 Best list, while in the very same issue, it lost to the Mazdaspeed 3 in a comparison test. But that just highlights the subjectivity inherent in these tests, as many have observed.

    Road & Track used to present each tester’s ranking, and one mag presented each tester’s rankings including and excluding price as a factor. I prefer those approaches, rather than a group’s collective “conclusion,” which is somewhat oxymoronic. At the very least, C&D could use its “Counterpoint” feature with comparison tests.

  • avatar

    Physician, heal thyself!

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    They still get bizarre results, as when the GTI ended up on this year’s 10 Best list, while in the very same issue, it lost to the Mazdaspeed 3 in a comparison test

    That happens all the time. The reason is because 10Best is a marketing sop: you can’t be 10Best if you’re not a new model, or once you drop off list. It exists purely to give people something to crow about (eg, “The _____, C&D 10Best winner four years running”).

    The Focus—which was a decent car—was a 10Best’er for years despite not winning a single comparison test and being a reliability nightmare for the first few years of it’s sale. The Protege beat it every year, but because the Protege was never a “new model” it never got to kick the Focus off the platform.

    Ever notice that CR never lets manufacturers use their scores in advertising? That should tell you something about their relative credibility, and who really pays the bills at either organization.

  • avatar
    golf4me

    Yes, I did Paul. And, I know what the editorial was about. I stand by my comment, even more so. Why not drive the cars side by side and THEN pick on another review? Frankly, maybe the “gotta have it” thing might not seem as silly as you think. I’ve seen both vehicles, and I’d have to say that the Camaro (style-wise) is much more desireable. The Hyundai looks like a stretched old Celica, which is to say hardly noticeable. Not good for a sport coupe.

    Also, as a rule, doesn’t subjectively rating subjective ratings somehow disturb the time-space thingamagig? :)

  • avatar
    bjcpdx

    Car & Driver. Are they still around?

  • avatar
    Lumbergh21

    Detroit Todd:

    Anyway, some may not like the Camaro (more specifically, the very idea of it), but it will sell very well.

    Very well compared to what? Other GM products? Camaro sales won’t even make it to 1/3 of Mustang sales.

  • avatar
    Power6

    The problem that I have with those methods is it destroys the entire idea behind a comparison test. Why even bother to compare vehicles and break down the scores if the result is pre-determined?

    What is “pre-determined?” You are assuming the agenda is devious I think. What if you were the editor, and you ranked all of the cars in the neat little boxes and then the car that you hate wins? Why does this “destroy” the idea of a comparison test? Are you compelled to like the winner, or agree with the editors? Is it harder to defend your favorite on a message board? I guess I don’t see the significance, it is their system, you can choose to subscribe to it or not.

    So, the only times you need these kind of loopholes, is when you have a comparison between two cars, where you already froms the start have decided who the winner should be, and you need some kind of rule-breaker to change the rules as you go, to get the intended outcome.

    Again you assume there is some sort of advertiser funded, backroom deal agenda going on to “fix” the results. Riddle me this: is it possible that any two people will drive both the Genesis and the Camaro and one might prefer the Chevy, and one might prefer the Hyundai? In your world this is not possible because one must objectively be “better.”

    I think I am understanding the other side a bit more now. They do have a scoring system to live by to maintain some credibility. But they only instituted this system after years of angry letters from those who didn’t understand the old system. Too bad because the old system was better. They gave you the category rankings so you could see which car was better at which particular tasks, and then in the end they picked what they liked the best. They are still doing the same thing now, they just had to add the “gotta have it” category to appease those that insist on an objective mathematical formula to define what is still, ultimately, a subjective evaluation.

    Well, the problem is I wrote that editorial a long time ago:

    Thanks Michael, I think I do remember that one.

    Now beyond that, the REAL disturbing trend I see here (and has been going on for some time) is: C&D picks the new Camaro because it is the underdog, and everyone really wants to see the Camaro succeed and it makes great buzz. Then 6 months from now in a big RWD comparison test the Genesis will top it and they will admit the Camaro is junk. I think they had the blinders on in this one, but who knows you have to have a little faith to buy the Hyundai too.

  • avatar
    carguy

    There is no point in getting into the relative merits of the Hyundai or the Camaro, but C&D clearly never had any intentions of giving the Genesis Coupe a fair shot. Whatever you may think of the cars, using an arbitrary “gotta have it” scoring number to make up for the other subjective and objective test is no way to do a comparison. Nor is printing misleading specs on the cover that are clearly picked to favor one car over the other.

    Even if you are a Camaro fan, this is not good news as C&D will do this for any other car maker who will spend money on advertising with them. And since new models generally are backed by more advertising dollars than existing ones, rest assured that C&D will turn on the Camaro as soon as a newer competitor comes along.

    This just confirms the sad truth that most print publications will do whatever their biggest advertisers want, even if it undermines whatever integrity they have left.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    the reason i want to read these articles is i want to know what a car is good at and what it is bad at

    i’m not interested in ‘hype’ or ‘gotta have it scores’ because that’s not what car enthusiasts want to read about

    to write about abstracts like that brings the magazine down to levels of the Womens’ and teen girls’ rags…

    i’m not even interested in a direct comparions because i doubt people will cross shop a Camaro and a Hyundai

    a Challenger vs. Mustang vs. Camaro? Fair enough

    Right now the Camaro is in the limelight but it seems to me that their marketing department has told them that to have a Camaro on the cover AND winning a comparo means XX,XXX extra sales this month so they’ve written an article around a predetermined winner. People aren’t stupid enough to buy a mag with a winner already picked out.

    I get the feeling that the Big 2.8 gets the media and the press they deserve.

    You have a rancid corrupt bad business motor industry? You get a motoring press that matches that.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    Niky:
    All car reviews are subjective. And, if you read around, a lot of us have disagreed with some of the car reviews on here. TTAC forbids you from flaming its contributors, nothing more.

    To begin, I must first direct you to Exhibit A, where RF states TTAC’s posting policy: “No accusations of bias against the site in the comments section.”

    The question, really, is not subjectivity. That’s a given in the test, and the scoring reflects it with subjective areas given.

    It’s that C&D feels the need to create a secondary subjective scoring category beyond the pre-existing ones to alter the results to their liking that’s the issue presented here.

    To focus on C&D’s scoring system is to ignore the issue, that C&D is accused of letting their admiration of the Chevrolet Camaro cloud their judgment when comparing it against the Hyundai Genesis. The scoring system used is irrelevant. They liked the Camaro better than the Genesis, so they placed it accordingly. Would things have been different if they didn’t keep score?

    Again, I must ask: How is what they did any different than when TTAC lowballs a vehicle? There have been quite a number of vehicles that were given low grades because the tester didn’t like it for whatever reason, and some of those reasons were quit arbitrary. Critics called it bias, defenders called it “emotional intelligence,” and it was seen as acceptable and even necessary.

    You can’t hide behind some trivial gripe about a subjective category when the real gripe is that C&D showed bias in their comparison. Bias that this site has displayed, defended, and encouraged its readers and writers to engage in. If that’s what this site is about, then fine. Just don’t call out other folks when you’re guilty of the same thing.

  • avatar
    Jeff Puthuff

    Quasimondo: To begin, I must first direct you to Exhibit A, where RF states TTAC’s posting policy: “No accusations of bias against the site in the comments section.”

    Niky is correct: we welcome criticism of the site and do not “forbid” it. However, we ask that criticism be sent direct to RF via e-mail. There’s a good reason for this and it’s spelled out in the very link you included. RF usually responds unless the criticism is from a ranting lunatic.

    Posting criticisms in the comments sets the thread off on tangents unrelated to the posted story more often than not.

  • avatar
    f8

    There have been quite a number of vehicles that were given low grades because the tester didn’t like it for whatever reason, and some of those reasons were quit arbitrary.

    My favorite examples are Megan Benoit’s reviews of the Accord Coupe and Altima Coupe, where she spends most of the Altima review complaining about interior, ergonomics, and numb steering – more complaints than for the Accord.

    Yet in the end, Altima mysteriously gets five stars and Accord gets four because she very clearly liked one car over the other. It’s no different from any C&D review, and far from any sort of truth about cars. Not all reviews here are like that, of course, but that Altima review is still one of the worst ever written for this site.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    Niky is correct: we welcome criticism of the site and do not “forbid” it. However, we ask that criticism be sent direct to RF via e-mail. There’s a good reason for this and it’s spelled out in the very link you included. RF usually responds unless the criticism is from a ranting lunatic.

    Posting criticisms in the comments sets the thread off on tangents unrelated to the posted story more often than not.

    Your defense against their policy falls flat on its face when you read the multitude of news topics, editorials, and reviews that quickly deviate from the original topic. If that was the case, there’d be plenty of comments that RF and staff would have to delete.

    It’s a weird thing that TTAC has no problem firing off criticisms of other magazines and newspapers for their content, but is unwilling to publicly place themselves on the receiving end. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    some people are calling out TTAC for their occasional 1 star review (eg. the wonderful review of the GTR)

    i see this as COMPLETELY different… for that one person that car does not fit

    that is fine

    some cars do not gell with everyone

    and i think it is actually good journalism to say you don’t like a car but you can see how the car may suit another customer. Every time I see a 1 star review on TTAC I can see that they are generally not slamming a car just for the hell of it (Sebrings and Aveos aside).

    And besides, it’s not like TTAC are declaring a ‘winner’ (weiner?) just because it’s a GM…

  • avatar
    niky

    quasimondo :
    May 4th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    Niky:
    All car reviews are subjective. And, if you read around, a lot of us have disagreed with some of the car reviews on here. TTAC forbids you from flaming its contributors, nothing more.

    To begin, I must first direct you to Exhibit A, where RF states TTAC’s posting policy: “No accusations of bias against the site in the comments section.”

    The question, really, is not subjectivity. That’s a given in the test, and the scoring reflects it with subjective areas given.

    It’s that C&D feels the need to create a secondary subjective scoring category beyond the pre-existing ones to alter the results to their liking that’s the issue presented here.

    To focus on C&D’s scoring system is to ignore the issue, that C&D is accused of letting their admiration of the Chevrolet Camaro cloud their judgment when comparing it against the Hyundai Genesis. The scoring system used is irrelevant. They liked the Camaro better than the Genesis, so they placed it accordingly. Would things have been different if they didn’t keep score?

    Again, I must ask: How is what they did any different than when TTAC lowballs a vehicle? There have been quite a number of vehicles that were given low grades because the tester didn’t like it for whatever reason, and some of those reasons were quit arbitrary. Critics called it bias, defenders called it “emotional intelligence,” and it was seen as acceptable and even necessary.

    You can’t hide behind some trivial gripe about a subjective category when the real gripe is that C&D showed bias in their comparison. Bias that this site has displayed, defended, and encouraged its readers and writers to engage in. If that’s what this site is about, then fine. Just don’t call out other folks when you’re guilty of the same thing.

    Accusations of bias are not the same as critiques of the article in question. I could sit here and say “that review was full of crap because you’re complaining about the interior of a vehicle that’s cheaper than anything else on the market” without raising Farago’s ire. I am often very critical of tests posted here of foreign models that disregard the market in which those models were sold.

    But if I said: “That review was crap because you’re all basically a bunch of import-loving, domestic-hating self-loathing Americans”, that is against TTAC policy as written, and is mostly untrue… given the stars put into TTAC’s system and the high scores some domestics have gotten versus the low scores some imports have gotten. It’s that off-tangent, flame-tastic discussion, which has been beaten to death elsewhere, that Farago wants to avoid.

    The issue for me isn’t the bias shown… it’s the cop-out. If you’re going to score a car purely subjectively, as with TTAC, or as EVO does it, don’t make a grand show of scoring objective criteria, or give objective and subjective criteria a set score with defined boundaries.

    If you have:

    Objective Criteria + Subjective Criteria + Additional Undefined Subjective Criteria, then it’s apparent that your system doesn’t work, and you don’t want to admit to having the less politically correct car as your winner.

    You can create a test that objectively weighs subjective criteria thusly:

    Driving: (Objective)
    1. Acceleration: (1-5)
    2. Handling: (1-5)
    3. Braking: (1-5)

    Driving: (Subjective)
    1. Acceleration (kick-in-the-pants): (1-5)
    2. Handling (ease-of-use, hooliganism): (1-5)
    3. Braking (braking confidence): (1-5)

    Comfort: (Objective)
    1. Space (1-5)
    2. Cargo Capacity (1-5)
    3. Interior Noise level (1-5)

    Comfort: (Subjective)
    1. Seat Comfort: (1-5)
    2. Ride Comfort: (1-5)
    3. Control Ergonomics: (1-5)

    Aesthetics: (Subjective)
    1. Interior (1-5)
    2. Exterior (1-5)
    3. Exhaust sound (yes, it is part of the aesthetics of a car): (1-5)

    There… you have the “Gotta Have it Factor” broken down into discrete entities… of course, brand-snobbery isn’t included… I suppose that’s the part C&D don’t really want to admit…

  • avatar
    Jeff Puthuff

    quasimondo: “Your defense against their policy falls flat on its face when you read the multitude of news topics, editorials, and reviews that quickly deviate from the original topic.”

    You didn’t read what I wrote. We (and I know because I’m “staff”) remove comments that question editorial stance, which happen to usually divert attention from the topic at hand. An e-mail is always sent to the user explaining and inviting them to dialog, air their criticisms, bitch and moan, etc. via e-mail.

    Occasionally, those comments are allowed when RF posts a “Take Your Best Shot (Against TTAC)”-style post. Therefore your argument, “It’s a weird thing that TTAC has no problem firing off criticisms of other magazines and newspapers for their content, but is unwilling to publicly place themselves on the receiving end. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?” is moot.

  • avatar
    quasimondo

    Just because Mr. Karesh was able to put this critique in an eloquent 800-word essay does not take away the fact that he is accusing C&D of being biased toward the Camaro.

    You didn’t read what I wrote. We (and I know because I’m “staff”) remove comments that question editorial stance, which happen to usually divert attention from the topic at hand. An e-mail is always sent to the user explaining and inviting them to dialog, air their criticisms, bitch and moan, etc. via e-mail.

    Occasionally, those comments are allowed when RF posts a “Take Your Best Shot (Against TTAC)”-style post. Therefore your argument, “It’s a weird thing that TTAC has no problem firing off criticisms of other magazines and newspapers for their content, but is unwilling to publicly place themselves on the receiving end. What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, no?” is moot.

    I disagree. Mr. Karesh had the luxury of faulting C&D over their comparison and scoring criteria almost immediately, while we as the reader cannot target TTAC over how they rate a vehicle, except for those occasional gripe sessions that come up infrequently enough that the reviews that we have issues with are no longer fresh on our minds.

  • avatar
    rpn453

    C&D has been hanging by a thread as the only car magazine I still subscribe to, but that comparison test broke the thread.

  • avatar
    gzuckier

    try subscribing to Autoweek.
    also, Grassroots Motorsports if you’re into that kind of thing.
    of the rest, Automobile is the best.

  • avatar
    gzuckier

    i think the “gotta have it” category was misnamed. what they meant was “heavily advertised by regular and viral channels”. camaro wins that one by at least 6 points. and that means a lot in today’s america.

  • avatar
    gzuckier

    a couple of years ago, one of the buff books (can’t remember which, one of the blue collar big V8 type books) compared the mustang with the subaru wrx; they had to grudgingly give the subaru the win in all categories, both practical and performance, except “personality” or something like that. at least they were pretty honest about it. but i knew at the time that was a sign of the apocalypse for detroit.

  • avatar
    wsn

    niky :
    May 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    All car reviews are subjective. And, if you read around, a lot of us have disagreed with some of the car reviews on here. TTAC forbids you from flaming its contributors, nothing more.

    ———————————————-

    Oh, really?

    Once I pointed out that the TTAC 5-star review system is inconsistent. (An SUV got a poor rating explicitly because it’s not fuel efficient, yet a more inefficient Lamborghini got 5 stars.)

    You know what? My comment was deleted for criticizing TTAC’s way of doing its things.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: “For starters, many government rides (particularly those used by the USPS) boast some of the...
  • dal20402: My younger kid’s bike got a hole in the front tube right by the valve, not patchable. I didn’t...
  • slavuta: Apple missed the message from Richard Branson – if you want to be a millionaire, invest a billion of...
  • EBFlex: “But if all you ever do is complain, and if the only tone you ever take is super-negative...
  • slavuta: I know how this will endup. ok? We’re going to run out of good ICE cars and will not have anything to...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber