God I can't stand the worthelss, biased, WRONG, incomplete car reviews coming out of these jokes of publishers! They have the most inconsistant reviews I could ever imagine. From reviews that tank one example of a car with certain traits, yet in another issue tout the same traits as a benefit - to the lamest performance testing and cataloging possible! I honestly think they have no CLUE how to consistantly and accurately test a car. It's almost like they have a professional race car driver do some tests/reviews, and on the next feature, it's by some 70 year old grandma who only drives to church and bingo!

This rant is spurred from the REDICULOUS performance review Car & Driver has just passed on as legitimate professional testing. It doesn't take much more than a total moron to figure out they have idiots testing/writing, if these are the results they are publishing!



"It doesn't stand to reason, but despite the slight weight penalty, this convertible is the best-performing Mini we've ever tested: 0-to-60 mph arrived in just 6.6 seconds. The narrow 195/55R-16 Dunlop SP Sport 3000A tires held on for 0.87 g, 0.02 g better than any previous Mini. And braking from 70 to 0 mph required just 155 feet, an astonishing 14 feet better than the next-best Mini."


It's so good to know that the automatic convertible is faster, stickier and quicker to stop than a manual S. Unbelieveable. The saddest part is, most readers are so stupid, they believe it, too.

Hey Car & Idiot - here's your reasonale explanation: YOUR TEST DRIVERS SUCK!

 

its been happening for awhile, i find japanese publications like best motoring, or evo, or even CAR magazines all do real reviews... if it sucks it will let you know....

 

Maybe they use "student Test Drivers"?

Maybe they just want to be "nice" and sell cars.

Maybe they got paid off!

Maybe it's about as critical (and useful) as reading the funnies.

I heard the National Enquirer was also looking for "test drivers".

 

The MCSC that Car & Driver tested was a 6 speed manual. I think it is more than reasonable that the increased HP & Torque working in concert with the revised for '05 gear ratios account for the improved acceleration in spite of the slight weight penalty.

Most car magazines test a fully loaded model. This car had the 16" tire/wheel combo. They are significantly lighter than the 17" wheels on earlier test cars. Reduced rotational mass could help account for better acceleration (and braking). Another possibility is that the Dunlop 16" tire may yield better traction than the Pirelli or Continental 17" tire. The only way to be sure is to test all the wheel/tire combos on the same car on the same day.

Another factor could be the testing venue. Are they doing the testing in the same place as the previous road tests? Has the surface been re-paved? Was the surface recently cleaned off by rain one time and slippery from dust another time?

The .02 difference on the skidpad could be due to repeatability/reproducability problems. The 14' difference in 70-0 stopping looks to be a significant difference. My guess is that some combination of factors caused that particular car to stick to that particular track on that particular day better than during their previous testing.

Car testing isn't as exact a science as we sometimes wish it was. There are far too many "lurking variables" to contend with to expect laborotory accuracy from these tests.

I know it's frustrating, but it's nigh impossible to get the precision we all want. Target shooters who reload their own ammo are often comfounded when two identical guns (except for serial number) achieve their respective best performances with different ammo. One may "like" Hornady bullets and the other "likes" Sierras.

Rawhyde

Rawhyde

 

So true; so sad for enthusiasts.

It's been a long time since I have actually READ a car magazine, but I glimpse them when I go to the big supermarket for paper goods. A few years ago, Thomas L Bryant, publisher(?) of Road & Track opined about how a civilian gets to be a motoring journalist. Top of his list of attributes was writing skills honed from having been immersed in literature. Upon reading the articles I assumed he meant that his staff had been weened on vast quantities of teen or car magazines. Quality of writing was embarrassing. From the few MINI articles I skimmed in the past months I believe conditions have not improved.

I agree that CAR (I think that's it--a slick UK publication) is far superior. Not only do they really seem to drive the cars, but the punchy, contrarion writing style is knockabout entertaining. Very London. I also appreciated articles on "affordable" cars that were really accessible--not $20,000 cars for the blossoming graduate, but $5,000 cars for folks who don't have much more. They included 15 year old Jaguars or Hondas and concentrated on what an owner might have to put up with. Whenever I am in the Virgin store I look it up.

Some claim that magazines reflect what the consumers want to see. Perhaps that is true. Maybe Road & Track writers have dumbed it down so as not to alienate its audience. Perhaps Sam Mitani also publishes as Don DeLillo. Or Car & Driver believes its readers prefer fantasy figures (I am old enough to remember C&Ds original road test of the 1966 427 Cobra). One journal that seemed credible was Autoweek & Competition Press, but I have not encountered it in over 20 years.

 

When the New Beatle came out, Motor Trend picked it as their ICOY over the newly introduced e46 3 Series. I canceled my subscription and have never looked back. Well, I'll pick up a copy of MT or C&D or R&T--if I want a good laugh.

 

I think Autoweek is pretty descent. It's geared more towards the enthusiast than the others.

But I agree that every time I go overseas and read CAR, it reminds me what a true car magazine is....

 

I was at Borders today and they have so many more car magazines then a supermarket does. I don't even bother with C&D or any of those other mags anymore, unless it's free on the Internet.

 

I stay away from the US magazines as well. Go British; EVO, CAR, Top Gear

 

EVO is my favourite with CAR second. Compare EVO's review of the MCSa, which I found really succinct and accurate on the car's pros and cons:

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/driven/...er_s_auto.html

 

As Rawhyde stated, it's a 6 speed manual they tested. I prefer AutoWeek or some of the British mags - but I think the rant is unwarranted in this case....

 

I agree...and Consumer Reports is very much on my list, too, by the way. Such a pity, such a waste.

 

I'm sure this is a sign of getting old, but I get tired of the "needs another 30 HP" comments, even if the car they tested has 600 HP.

 

I guess I sould have bought a MCSC for my track days and auto-xing

 

I agree. Car and Driver has gone to considerable lengths documenting their testing procedures, and they are state-of-the-art. $10,000 GPS-based equipment is used for all of the performance data, and they correct that data by averaging runs in opposite directions and they go a step further to correct for temperature and other factors. I doubt anyone else is doing a more thorough job of testing.

And besides that, C/D is funny!

 

I dont care how they gather data....It is how the REPORT the data. The rant is valid! They are a lap dog to the car manufacturers and only seek to paint a rosy picture of the HOT NEW products.

The rant is valid because How do they print what they printed KNOWING the diffrences between the model tested and previous models

 

If you're comparing an '05 MCS vert to an '02 MCS, there is the difference. They simply stated that it performed better than previous models. It was discussed over on www.motoringfile.com

If they put up an '05 MCS against the '05 MCS that would probably make more sense, am I correct in this thinking?

 

FWIW - kaelaria's rant was based on misinformation - the model tested was not an automatic. THAT is where I felt the rant was a bit over the top...

 

The thing I like best about British Car Magazines is that they're not scared to speak their mind! If a car sucks they'll be brutally honest about it - ever read a Jeremy Clarkson review in BBC's Top Gear (or better still seen his TV show)?! I always buy a copy when I travel to the UK.

My favorites:

http://www.topgear.com/content/roadtests/latest_tests/

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/nav?page=car.magazine

http://www.whatcar.com/