Idiots of the Year - Car and Driver.

BlaxicanYIIK · #1 08-31-2002, 09:55 PM

Sorry I havent been here in awhile foks ( I was like one the first 100's or so members to join). I think? My has this site grown!! Almost 40K members!!! I bhave posted this in other forums, but I am trying to get more opinons the matter...

These guys have finally done it. I am through with their magazine, their laziness and...oh...just pic up the October issue and you'll see what I mean. No! I want to tell those who don't know or who won't go to see for themselves.

It's bad enough that they give the Infiniti G35 4th place (already discussed somewhere on here, I know) whereas the competition (MT, etc. gave it 1st palce honors). BMW bias? Yes? No? Maybe?
OK
Well they also say that it took 7.1 seconds to run 0-60. The Acura did it in 7.6 (which this fact will tie into this whole mess real soon). On page 148, writing about the 6 - Speed Maxima (they got 6 flat 0-60 out of that), they say in a sentence the Altima got 7.3 seconds to go from 0-60. Everyone else got 6.6 out of the auto Altima, but they got 7.3!? Sorry, that is a little off track but I had to mention it. These guys lack of driving and their differing storiss in the same magazine has gotten way out of control.

What differing stories are you speaking of you may be asking? Same article..sentence says the Acura 3.27TL Type-S does 0-60 in 6.2 (and the Infitini does it in about the same time). WTF! The comparo results on page 88 (the comparo they gave the G35 4th place) says the Acura 3.2TL Type-S does 0-60 in 7.6! A 1.4 second difference in the same magazine!! Both were automatics, so dont think one was the 6 speed. They say the G35 does it in 7.1 (they just said on that same page with the Acura, the G35 took 6.2 seconds to reach 60) - almsot a a full second difference, again in the same magazine. Pathetic. Now we all know the G35 manual is not out yet, so there is no mistaking the two here, they even say they were autos.

They even say the Maxima is now "battling it out with a faster herd" (not word for word). Adn that the Subaru Impreza WRX does 0-60 in 5.4! On the other side of that VERY PAGE their tests yielded that the WRX did 0-60 in 5.99 (new and in long term tests)!!

Argh! This is so irritating.
I will never buy these mag again. Idiots!

S Brake · #2 08-31-2002, 11:00 PM

Welcome back!

primera man · #3 08-31-2002, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BlaxicanYIIK
Sorry I havent been here in awhile foks ( I was like one the first 100's or so members to join). I think? My has this site grown!! Almost 40K members!!!

Nice to have one of the founders of AF back then

taranaki · #4 08-31-2002, 11:32 PM

those who can build outstanding cars,do.....those who can't ,write about them.Some of the idiots associated with motor mags deserve a good hard slap.Or better yet,send them to do the base-model budget car reviews....y'now.....where they whine about the tacky vynil dash,etc,etc...

Ssom · #5 09-01-2002, 12:09 AM

Wow, you ARE a blast from the past

Heep · #6 09-01-2002, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
Wow, you ARE a blast from the past

Even older than me!

Anyways, I hate it when magazines do that, I've seen it before, and not just with C&D. I find there is no way to avoid it, so I just deal with it. Actually that's not true, I read the British "EVO" magazine almost exclusively now, but I still reach for one of the mainstream American magazines now and then and deal with their idiocy.

Ssom · #7 09-01-2002, 12:19 AM

Like Heep said- I used to like the American mags too, but I got sick of them, they are full of bias, I just stick to my local ones ie NZ Autocar, twice the read, half the price

shadowboy · #8 09-01-2002, 10:34 AM

altho i have not gotten many issue or subscribed.. from what i have seen of it.. grassroots motorsports is pretty damn unbiased

they profile everything from camaros to 911s to civics in there.

of course they dont really have the same niche as C&D, or MT and the like...

Focus2000 · #9 09-02-2002, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Heep

Actually that's not true, I read the British "EVO" magazine almost exclusively now, but I still reach for one of the mainstream American magazines now and then and deal with their idiocy.

A fellow EVO reader

It's a top magazine, written by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts, not by cynical hacks with monthly sales targets to reach.

Heep · #10 09-02-2002, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Focus2000

A fellow EVO reader

It's a top magazine, written by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts, not by cynical hacks with monthly sales targets to reach.

Exactly

My favorite part is the buyers guide, which is pretty stupid really since very few of the featured car can be actually bought over here in North America

Focus2000 · #11 09-02-2002, 11:33 AM

Ah, the buyer's guide. I can't decide if it's a work of genius or one of Satan's greatest torments. I spend too much time reading through it picking out what I'll get for my next car

only to realise that I can't afford it to buy it/insure it/run it (delete as appropriate)

It's sooooo frustrating, but I just can't help myself

Heep · #12 09-02-2002, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Focus2000
Ah, the buyer's guide. I can't decide if it's a work of genius or one of Satan's greatest torments. I spend too much time reading through it picking out what I'll get for my next car only to realise that I can't afford it to buy it/insure it/run it (delete as appropriate)

It's sooooo frustrating, but I just can't help myself

I know the feeling

One guide I particularly liked was the Lotus Carlton/Mercedes-Benz E500 one...those are my type of cars

JD@af · #13 09-02-2002, 02:02 PM

Wow!!! I haven't seen you on AF in... quite a while. Nice to see an old face around here :sun:

Anyway, anyway, I know that the lack of consistency (TRY EDITING?!) is irritating. I keep my Car & Driver subscription because it is very cheap, and I get to stay on top of lots of automotive industry news. But sadly I must admit that it is much easier for me to palate their clear BMW bias, since I am such a fan of the company myself. All in all, I think its worth keeping the subscription for all the news that you get (and there are some good aftermarket product reviews; like a review of aftermarket brake systems for the Subaru WRX, which they published a couple months back).

replicant_008 · #14 09-02-2002, 10:38 PM

Moss mentions NZ Autocar magazine...

I picked a copy up mainly because they did 'modified' a Mondeo ST.

They added a cold air intake, a muffler and played around with the exhaust routing (I wonder if the cat was still on - it isn't illegal to remove these here, yet). They also added some 18inch rims and 20mm wider rubber all round.

They then claimed a 15kw increase at the front wheels (even though the dyno chart printed on the next page showed 10% - 109.90kw less 99.90kw = 10kW, well it did when I was at accounting school - maybe someone at the magazine worked at ENRON). Incidentally, the dyno runs were done on different days too - atmo pressure/temperature notwithstanding!

They then did some acceleration runs and compared them to ones they'd done in April 2001 (WTF!). Seems the acceleration time for 0-100kph was down from 9.7 to 9.0 seconds but the 80-120kph rolling increment was the same (they claimed that this was probably due to rolling resistance of the wider tires)...

Now call me the old cynical B'stard but you can't compare two different cars on different days - there are too many variables!

Also the modified car had wider rubber which give it more traction off the line for a standing start which could explain the 0-100 time.

However, in a rolling increment the traction ceases to be a factor - so I'm unconvinced that all those changes made any difference.

They also suggest that the wider rubber made a 10km/h difference to corner speed. Uh-huh... where are the lap times to substantiate this? I've seen telemetry logs that show absolute corner speed advantages but been slower around the track (entry and exit speeds being more important than a peak absolute lateral-g reading or corner speed).

The article goes to say its obvious that the mods made a difference in driving. Apart from being noisier - none of their data supports this. And I know a lot of folk can be quite subjective to noise and their perception of response... also the mod company is a major advertiser and helped them out with a prize for last year's subscription...

As a prospective purchaser I remain unconvinced - it seemed like a lot of dough for not much real-world difference (apart from more induction and exhaust noise). I'm thinking I might get someone to dyno my car, change the airfilter and advance the ignition so it will only take 98 octane and see what difference that makes...

It would be a lot cheaper (about $100 in parts + dyno run) and it would interesting to see if it makes much difference...

BlaxicanYIIK · #15 09-04-2002, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JD@af
Wow!!! I haven't seen you on AF in... quite a while. Nice to see an old face around here :sun:

Yea, it's been awhle.. I see you and Igor (I believe the two that put AF together, yes?) have quite a following on here. One of you actually linked AF from FA (Fresh Alloy), and that is how I found out about this place. I was a little worried at first, no one would come. I see I was VERY wrong to think that. lol Please don't think I was one of those people!

This site is kicking much bootie now, I see. You all have done well daniel son(s).

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD