[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

OT: C & D and other magazines



I'm going to have to side with Larry on this one.   Of the "Big 3" (C/D, 
R&T, MT), I think C/D is the most technical, and that's what appealed to me 
after I outgrew R&T.  I also liked their wit and seeming indifference to 
slam any car.

Of course, this was many years ago (started subscribing in 1987 at age 
11).  Of the 3, I still think that C/D is the least *obviously* driven by 
advertising revenue.  In fact, they've had several manufacturers pull ads 
from their rag due to nasty comments about their products.  They all come 
back eventually, but I can't say the same of any other magazine.

The other thing that I used to love about C/D is their accuracy.  I seldom, 
if ever, caught a mistake; and when I did, it almost always showed up in 
the corrections section.  Now, they make so many damn mistakes that I don't 
pay attention to them...  and they can sometimes be quite serious -- like, 
for example, in 1994 they tested a "Toyota Corolla DX" and hated it.  Road 
and Track also tested the DX and basically ejaculated all over it.  Look 
one level deeper, and Car and Driver didn't indeed test the DX, they tested 
the base model, simply the "Corolla".  The DX added all kids of shit -- 
including a different engine/tranny, different suspension, brakes, interior 
materials, toys (clock, tach, power thingies, etc).  These mistakes seem to 
happen all the time at C/D lately, and it's a shame.

Motor Trend is just fucking stupid, sorry.

Road and Track, a sister mag to C/D, is almost as good, but what I don't 
like about them is their lack of instrumented testing.  They have always 
estimated top speed, for example, which, despite the death of Don Schroeder 
last year, is something that IMO should not be estimated.  The fact of the 
matter is that I wrote a computer program that can more realistically 
estimate top speed than whatever algorithm R&T is using... but there is no 
substitute for hard data.   And more often than not, their other tests are 
not in-line with other magazines -- take the Scirocco 16V.  7.7s to 
60?!  When every other magazine saw 8.0 or 8.1?  It's doubtful that they 
got a faster car; chances are they didn't correct the number to standard 
atmospheric conditions.  And lastly, they don't have C/D's ingenious 
"Street Start 5-60" acceleration test.  'Nuff said.

Automobile is a very good magazine, with an emphasis on styling and 
subjective experience (IMO) rather than hard technical stuff.  AutoWeek is 
also good, but too brief and non-technical for my taste (at least it was 
the last time I looked at one).

I recently joined the SAE for the sole reason of being able to subscribe to 
their publication, Automotive Engineering International.  Having read 
through half of my first issue, I'm absolutely titillated!  It's been a 
long time since I've read an automotive publication where I have to slow 
down my reading to comprehend the technical details of what's being said -- 
it's like being in a classroom with the best automotive engineering 
instructors in the world.

YMMV of course.
Jason



At 10:53 AM 1/21/2002, Larry wrote:
>Interesting comments, John.  You are correct in that they ALL got "glossy"
>over the years (I started subscribing to C&D in 1963), but I think C&D was
>the least affected.  They still retain their irreverency towards all things
>powered by engines/motors....I like that.  Who else would "road test" a
>guided missle destroyer or a oil well fire truck from the USSR (I know, I
>know, the USSR doesn't exist...)
>Literally everything connected with "the media" is less than perfect these
>days, C&D is less imperfect than most.  IMHO
>(my biggest complaint is that they feature far too many $100K vehicles)
>
>enjoy the ride
>
>Larry   sandiego16V
>
> > I swore it off when I was in my 20s.  I'm almost 50 now (although that may
> > have little to do with my maturity level) and still can't stand it.  I'll
> > pick up a copy of R&T once in awhile, but only actually subscribe to one
> > rag: Autoweek.  I barely have time to read it.  Maybe I'd be better off
> > with a monthly again, but they scare me.  They got all glossy several
>years
> > ago and, quite frankly, I'm surprised they're not full of food ads and
> > recipes.  I guess they still know who their target audience is.  I wish
> > they were a little more discriminating with their advertising and the
> > influence of that advertising.  Cars getting reviewed tend to be
> > accompanied by big ads from that cars manufacturer (a marketing department
> > hard at work, I'm sure).  Oddly enough, the reviews are never mediocre
>when
> > this occurs.  I firmly believe the adjectives change when dollars are
>spent.
> >
> > In conclusion (!), I believe that C&D is an acquired callousness, not
> > anything to do with taste or maturity.  If you can stand it, you have
> > thicker skin than I. :)
> >
> > John
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Sign Up for NetZero Platinum Today
>Only $9.95 per month!
>http://my.netzero.net/s/signup?r=platinum&refcd=PT97