Road & Track Is Retarded

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by 84FordMan, Dec 6, 2007.

  1. Dumbasses probably though that everything FWD is reverse rotation because some honda 4 bangers are.
  2. R&T goes all out for test results, I'll give em that, but C/D and MT sit back and expect their name to sell millions of copies every month. Plus, Automobile has Jamie Kitman and now Ezra Dyer... both excellent writers. And Cumberford may be a hardass with designs, but he writes hella good pieces on automotive art.
  3. R&T and C/D have the exact same tests. R&T just has better writers and photographers.

    And the fact that some drivers at one magazine may be able to run a 0-60 time .2 seconds faster than another is completely worthless.
  4. No one cares about your disgusting Fieros. Quit posting about them.
  6. I read Sports Car International.
  7. I've not read any american car magazines, but I'm still going to say that EVO is the best
  8. I just did a search on GM's media site, and there isn't one single picture about Fieros.
  9. Someone does, AutoWeek just did an article on them this month.
  10. GM has them on display in their Tech Hall, the #55 Huffaker IMSA race car, the silver 2+2, the yellow and black formula drag car, and the 1990 prototype.
  11. Fieros are cool, just admit it to yourself. Stop all the hate for a car you have probably never driven.
  13. C/D does some of the most rigorous testing in the business. It was THEIR testing that relvealed that both Mazda and Ford overestimated the output of their cars. As for the writers...R&T has the names, and they do write well in an English professor sort of way, but they are drier than the Sahara Desert stylistically.
  14. If you had, you wouldn't say that. Other than the fact that Evo gets some insane cars for their long term test fleet (Porsche CGT, FTMFW) they really aren't any better than Automobile, to be honest. For the extra $5.75 (!) you pay for Evo, you only get ~30 extra pages, and the quality of photography and paper is no better. From a purely journalistic perspective, the writing isn't any better either. C/D is admittedly the cheapest feeling and looking, but it IS the cheapest to buy, by $0.49

    For a categorical breakdown that is completely unnecessary:

    C/D (January 2008) $4.50/144pp
    MT (December 2007) $4.99/185pp
    Automobile (November 2007) $4.99/160pp
    Evo (November 2007) $10.75/194pp
    R&T (December 2001) $3.99(has probably increased to about the same as C/D [they share publishers])/156pp

    Personally, I like C/D the best. The physical quality isn't there, but as a read, it puts the others to shame.
  15. R/T is very cut and dry, little TOO professional for my taste. I like flavorful writing myself. Which Ford and Mazda though for C/D?
  16. they shouldn't even be answering questions like that, the only technical support they can give is how to check if your oil is bad
  17. One of the early 2000's SVT Cobras and a similar vintage Miata.
  18. how is motor trend consistently shitty
  19. The writing is terrible, the layout is protracted, and the the photography is middling.
  20. Autoweek isn't even a real magazine.
  21. <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/disappointed.gif"></A> Then what is in your opinion?
  22. only Blitz is allowed to hate on this car.

    and yah, driving one makes all the difference. it's a blast, even if it's slow. and it's reliable. only the 84 could be considered dicey. It had completely indie suspension, 4 wheel discs, a rust-proof body, was quite lightweight, it's extremely responsive, and had an interior right out of the starship enterprise..from the 80s.

    It was like a corvette..
    with a flux capacitor!
  23. EVO > Automobile > C&D > R&T >>> Dogshit > MT >>> Autoweek
  24. EVO is euro garbage for photos and people that want to hear VW is the best thing ever.
  25. Despite their iffy fanbase I like Fieros.

Share This Page