> While I agree with Eliot that editorial consistency is a Good Thing in
> a car mag, one must bear in mind that the same staff members don't
> conduct every test nor are test conditions uniformly comparable.
it is possible and perfectly acceptable to have different staff
members come to different conclusions about a certain car, but i think
a magazine in general should have consistency in what's important to
them in a car.
at the very least, consistency in one particular class of car.
> Also, there are lots of awfully good cars out there these days
> (hooray!); it often boils down to shades of difference.
i found that perfection does not equal nirvana. i never liked the
"perfect" LS400 from day 1 and it's only now with sagging sales
that one is finally starting to see criticism for its antiseptic
the a4 is a wonderful example of a car doing everything right and
yet can still be delightful to drive....
> CandD, R&T, AUTOMOBILE, even MT all have their strengths and
> weaknesses. I second the gentleman who recommends CAR. It's usually
> a fantastic read if you overlook the editors' occasional flirtations
> with British chauvinism They do like most Audis. Better still, they
> appreciate cars with strong character and integrity.
i have subscriptions to CAR and autoweek... it was nice to see
that during the peak of Lexus fever, Setright declared in his
column that the audi v8 was a better car! nobody else had the
nerve to say that. CAR is also the only magazine i have come
across that constantly attacks f*** trucks.
if you read CAR, you will find that the vast majority of german cars
are reviewed by the resident austrian staff writer Georg Kacher.
mr. Kacher also writes for Automobile. most of the time, he tests one
car and makes 2 versions of the same writeup. the version in
Automobile is considerably watered down when it comes to criticisms.
read both and convince yourself that the auto media here serves the
industry first and the readers second.