Apparently Car and Driver does not share Motor Trends opinion that the Camry is the best new car made, they rated it 5th out of 6 in a new comparison (February issue) and placed it behind the Aura, Kia Optima, Altima and Accord. They managed to swing off of the Accords nuts just like Motor Trend did with the Camry. I just found it hilarious when I read this:

 

I don't care what anybody says. C&D calls 'em like they see 'em.

 

i cant believe they placed a Kia above the Aura

 

Ha ha, keep it up C&D!!

...now GM, just don't Funk things up!!

 

MT was looking at a top-of-the-line V6 model versus the garden variety 4cyl version that C&D tested. That could account for some of the difference in outcome.

Last I heard 4 cyls made up something like 80% of the market in these cars. I think in a year, the new Malibu with a 4 cyl would make a better comparison to the rest of these.

 

I thought media are biased??

 

I have to say I don't agree with the Camry being car of the year either, but I also realized C&D has a very specific preference in cars - the more it drives like a BMW, the better... period. Maybe a few extra credit points assigned for other 'small' factors like fit and finish, value in pricing, equipment/features, ride quality... heck even acceleration isn't that big of a deal as long as it's decent. If the chassis, suspension, steering, and brakes aren't setup for a road race... they hate it.

Granted I suppose there's nothing wrong with that so long as you understand they don't have much business comparing family sedans with that kind of approach, unless of course they're comparing them for the guy who has a family and can't afford a BMW.

Come on now... they're only biased when they say things that the people on this forum don't like to hear.

 

Yes, they are obviously pro-KIA biased.

 

Actually, the BMW M5 came in 3rd out of 3 in the same issue. And they don't actually like race-car rides. I'd say that they like cars with a decent ride and sharp handling. They do make allowances for the market, but even with family cars, they like a sportier drive.

On the vtec.net forums, C&D was accused of an anti-Honda bias, if you can believe it, because C&D complained about torque steer on the 6 speed Acura TL. Of course, the Acura TSX and Accord had recently garnered spots on the 10-best list, and C&D was one of the few magazines to give a rave review to the S2000 (Autocar in the UK didn't like the S2000 at all). Go figure.

 

I agree with Charlie about Car & Driver. They do call 'em like they see 'em. Threxx also strikes C&D head on with the observation that the more a car drives like a BMW, the better.

A couple of examples. They slammed the '94 Impala SS because they didn't know who'd buy it, and assumed that older NASCAR types would be the only ones intrested in it. In retrospect, the car didn't have the Euro-sophistication, and in a world obsessed with FWD, the car really didn't make sense. Another example is the CTS. I saw it as a BMW level Cadillac, and was appalled when they didn't give it better reviews. Ditto the STS. Today, I realize these 2 Caddys aren't BMW level, but like C&D claimed, it's huge steps for Cadillac, GM, and American cars. and I gotta agree now.

But C&D is fully capable of some complete screwups and blantantly clear bias.

They loved the GTO in it's 1st article. Then they turned around and slammed it without mercy on their TV show. Then mimicking Bob Lutz's famous term, C&D created a "Fun Factor" scoring catagory and used it to give the new Mustang a win over the vastly quicker and euro-quality GTO (intrestingly after a Bob Lutz ripped into car magazines by threatening to withdraw advertizing for unfair reports). Also came up with an article about how they easily twisted a GTO during an unauthorized race in Neveda and had to take it to a frame shop to fix it which is the least believable story I've ever read in a legitimate car magazine (the goat was a loaner from GM, who would probally have taken it back to fix, also anyone whose familiar with the GTO and and all previous edition Australian Omega "V" cars know the things structurally are tanks..... the GTO has oil pan skidplates for God sakes!)

If a car like the Camary is getting slammed by Car & Driver (after years of winning or coming 2nd behind Honda in just about every comparison thrown at it) it's worth taking notice.

Either Camry has dropped badly in quality, American cars have caught up and passed it in quality..... or someone at Toyota pissed in Car & Driver's corn flakes that morning.

 

or C+D dont know what they are talking about..

 

I don't care whether a magazine cans a GM car or a Toyota for that matter... I don't place a lot of faith in what a lot of them say IFF what they say is subjective and that subjectiveness is used to arrive at a conclusion.

Drive the car yourself. If it suits your wants and needs and you believe it's good value, buy it! That's the formula I use!

 

Having not yet sat in an Aura, I cannot comment on C&D's mark down due to the interior quality (but knowing GM, it's proably a fair assessment), but stating the other key low point to be getting dirty hands when you open the trunk had to be one of the most half-a55ed excuses to slide a car down in the standings I've ever read.

 

^ ^ agreed .

I like "numbers". Facts. Real information, that can be tested under indentical conditions. Weight, power, braking performance, turning (lateral g's) performance, "as tested" fuel economy (not just what the OEM "claims"). That stuff you can compare. It's apples to apples.

"Subjective" comparisons are a waste of time. They'll only help to confirm your already preconceived beliefs that "Toyota sedans ... boast unimpeachable quality" or "another sorry attempt by one of the Big 3".

And like Guy pointed out, their "subjective" opinions about a car could have more to do with who's been naughty or nice than anything to do with the actual car .

 

I don't think the Fit, or that whole class of cars, is really a new thing. Cars keep getting bigger, to the point where today's Civic is probably about the same size as an Accord of the '80s. I've not compared the dimensions, but just looking at them, and knowing how each car grows a bit in wheelbase/length/width/height with each redesign, I'd bet it is the case. The Accord has gone from a compact/small midsize four door sedan (with 4cyl power only) to a large midsize, 240 hp V6 powered family hauler. The Civic has grown as well. In my eyes, the whole "B-Car" class is a big joke in that it isn't really anything new. It is simply bringing back the idea of a subcompact car. Just because something is called a Civic doesn't mean it is the same actual size of car as the old school, tiny Civics of the '70s and '80s. Same with the Yaris. It is probably not much smaller (if at all) than the Corolla a couple of gens back.



There was a tall Civic wagon in the '80s long before the Fit ever came to be. To me, the Fit, Aveo, Yaris, and Versa or more or less the Civics, Chevettes, Corollas, and Sentras of 15+ years ago, as those cars keep getting more and more bloated...