So I sign up for free texts from multiple companies b/c you can get freebies and good info. Surely some of you do the same.

I get the Car and Driver texts and they usually are solid and unbiased info and a nice update or heads up during the day.

There are quite a few I have and am looking at now which shows info only, no opinion or a good opinion. Now understand I am not head over heels over the HS. I've clearly stated its opportunities, the biggest, the exterior styling.

So 5 min ago, I get a text from C&D...which reads;

Lexus launchs hybrid only HS250h; Its no more exciting than the Toyota Prius.

WTF? Do the biased rejects at C&D understand neither the Prius or HS are meant to be sporty? That is not their main purpose. The HS main purpose is eco, MPG, luxury, Lexus qualities. WTF does not being more exciting than the Prius have anything to do with this? Why not: more tech than the Prius? More luxury than the Prius? At least go that route

So I look and I can't find

I also did (damnit) but the recent issue of C&D b/c the RX is reviewed against the class BELOW it, where it finishes 4th. They also pick the Insight over the Prius b/c the Insight is more fun to drive but its still not that fun.

Here are other recent texts from these uselss bastards.

-Mercedes stuffs 11 more hp from 2010 E63 sedan, for 518 total. New styling and suspension too
-BMW M versions of the X5 and X6 pack 555hp, twin turbo V-8s and bolder styling
-New 2010 Baby RR adopts a historic nameplate, will be called the Ghost.
-The auto wins again: We hit 60 in 4.6 seconds with a slushbox 370Z, 0.2 quicker than the manual.
-President Obama mentions Car and Driver in a speech. We collectively blush.

 

I hate C&D and I get it for free too. lol

 

I'll gladly skip all texts from C&D.

 

I wish there was a big [DELETE] button that could erase C&D from existence

 

I stopped subscribing to C&D last year. Just not worth the cost. You guys had articles on here before the issue arrive in my mailbox (a big no-no in my book. Subscribers come first). I also disliked that IMO a majority of the articles were biased drivel focusing on "bench racers". They just didn't cover items that I found fascinating and more "in-depth", such as tire choice vs. actual braking/handling performance, big brake kits vs. not, wider tires vs. not, brake pads, oils, etc.... often enough. They have the platform to dispell many myths and they rarely use it because, IMO, it sells more mags not to.

Almost 1 yr C&D free and loving it.

 

i stopped buying this magazine (or even reading it at newstand) for a long time

 

You have to understand how the staff at auto-enthusiast mags think. In general, the quicker the 0-60 time, the sportier teh transmission feel, the shorter the braking distance, the higher the skidpad and g-cornering numbers, the quicker the steering response, the less chrome on a car, and the more highly bolstered the seats, the more they like it.

That's just how they think. It is not only true of C&D, but of similiar auto mags as well. The auto press is the main reason why ride comfort has been so neglected in many of today's cars in favor of sportiness.....they put pressure on the auto manufacters for more and more performance.

 

The new fuel standards must be their worst nightmare come true then, heh.

 

They certainly won't help. But, some new cars, in the meantime are going to be developed that don't use any petroleum fuels at all. And, even with petroleum-based fuels, new-generation diesel engines have a LOT of low-RPM torque.....and their high fuel mileage will help, at least part-way, meet the new standards.

 

That is not necessarily because the slushbox itself out-accelerates the stick. According to 370Z reviews I've read (not necessarily my own), it has to do with the rather short gearing in the 370Z's manual transmission, requiring multiple shifts at redline before 60. That extra shift, with the clutch pedal action and actual shift time, cuts into the 0-60 time slightly.

 

The crazier thing is the comparos are horrible. You get 3-5 small paragraphs about a bunch of nothing. THe only good data is the ones provided by the carmaker, the weight, tires, the specifications. You never get a feel on why they picked one. They then make a box with some numbers on the end trying to justify their picks.

Reading SCI (RIP miss u unbiased and 95% fair) or EVO, CAR, (you know they are biased but they admit it)Top Gear and they go in GREAT DETAIL with their comparos and findings. They make sense.

THis text is just another reason why its crap. Clear bias against a car NOT MEANT to be sporty.

I was a big supporter of the mag in the 1990s. They seemingly turned into crap overnight.

 

Yeah, I enjoy R & T much more.

 

Part of it was that, since then, they have lost some of their best people. Rich Ceppos left to go to Autoweek (why, I don't know.....that apparantly was a company secret). Brock Yates, who is also gone (I think he just retired), was, IMO, a complete idiot behind the wheel, but, as a journalist, like Pat Bedard, wrote some good editorials up front....he added a lot to the magazine. Csaba Csede, another good automotive writer, got promoted to editor-in-chief, but, now, he's leaving, too.

 

IMO that's a cop out. The idea that you have to trade driving for added miles per gallon is not true. I don't even understand what this "it's not meant to be" line means. Who dictates what "it's intended to be", some executive? As the consumer, I can't ask for both? A BMW 3-Series is every bit as compliant and comfortable as any car, but yet it still manages to offer the best dynamics in its class. I just think this is a false trade off, you can have the best of both worlds, in fact, you should at least try if you are going to post a Lexus logo on the vehicle.

 

Don't you write for C&D?