Quote:
Originally Posted by superinflamo
im waiting for top gear to get ahold of a GTR
|
Same here. That's really the only review I truly care about.
Car & Driver don't really do "performance reviews". They review supercars the same way they review subcompacts, by factoring in everyday-drivability concerns as well as performance. Is this flawed? It depends on your perspective. If you want a good review of the cars as performance cars, look elsewhere. If you want a good review as all-around vehicles, then Car & Driver is a good rag. I can even agree with their opinions of BMWs as most of the time they do possess one of the best combos of real-world-useability, performance, and fun factor for their respective class.
But honestly it does upset me a bit because clearly anyone that's purchasing a car with performance as their first priority would take a GT-R over an M3 without a second thought, and unfortunately their reviews never seem to reflect this reality.
This isn't anywhere near the most ridiculous review outcome in recent history as far as I'm concerned though. C&D compared the Chevy Trailblazer SS and Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 a few years back. The SS won the comparo by less than a point if I remember right. Which wouldn't bother me at all, except for the fact that the difference in the two vehicles' "gotta have it" score was larger than the margin of victory, with the SS having a point or two higher score. That's right, a completely arbitrary and opinion-based metric decided the outcome. And the crazy part is that without a doubt the Hemi and SRT badges clearly carry more cred than the beyond-over-used SS badge right now, not to mention a Grand Cherokee is considered a more "cool" vehicle than a Trailblazer by every enthusiast I know. So how exactly did the SS have more "gotta have it" factor? Apparently only the C&D editors know. Now
that's bias for ya!