I thought magazine writers were supposed to be objective.....

A trend that really rubs me the wrong way lately is the buff magazines having comparison's and then declaring the car they like the winner, regardless of test results. Here's a few really offensive ones. "Bandit vs General Lee". The magazine found a couple guys one with a '69 Charger done like the "Dukes of Hazzard" car, and one with a black and gold '77 Trans-Am. Since the Charger had a high-compression 440 V8 with real dual exhausts and the T/A's 8:1 400 was choked with a catalytic converter and other smog gear, obviously the Charger was quicker in a drag race. However-the T/A trounced the Charger in every other performance category. The skidpad-the T/A ripped off a blistering .82g. The Charger had a UPS truck-like .67g. In 70mph panic stopping-the T/A stopped consistently in 144 ft. The Charger took like 212 feet, and got worse with every try. The T/A smoked it in the slalom, and in lap time around Willow Springs. At the end of the article-they declared the Charger the winner. Huh? How does that work?  Another one tested a Mustang GT against a BMW M3. The Mustang was equal to or better than the M3 in every single category-0-60, 1/4 mile, slalom, braking, lap time around the track, everything. And the Mustang cost $35,000, the BMW $64,000.  They declared the BMW the winner. Another one was subcompact performance cars. They tested a Subaru WRX, a VW Golf GTI, a Honda Civic SI, a Nissan Sentra SER, and a MazdaSpeed 3. The Subaru was the best in every performance category, and was the lowest priced.  They declared the VW the winner.  In a high end sports car comparo-they pitted a Porsche 911 Turbo against a Corvette Z06, a Nissan GT-R, an Aston-Martin V12 Vantage, and Audi R8. The Corvette and the GT-R were the consistent performance winners. The Nissan was quicker 0-60, but the 'Vette was quicker in the 1/4. The Nissan was better in the slalom, but the 'Vette was quicker on the track ( by small margins either way ). The others were consistently behind. The 911 did win the braking test. They said the one they liked the best was the Aston Martin, even though it placed last in almost every test. Why? The exhaust sounded cooler than the others, and it felt like a "real" sports car. The others just didn't feel the same. Huh? I've never driven an Aston Martin, but I have driven a Z06 'Vette, and a GT-R and a 911 Turbo and an R8. They are all ungodly fast and don't suffer fools lightly. If you have 100K+ to spend on a badass sports car, you really can't go wrong with any of them. But the Aston was the priciest, and had the lowest performance-if you consider 12 second 1/4's and 180+ top speed "low" performance-the others ran low 11 and high 10 second 1/4s and had 200 mph top speeds. If you want to pretend your James Bond, I guess that would be the way to go. I was curious as to why they didn't have a Jaguar F type. With 575 hp and all-wheel drive, I would think it would be right up there with the 'Vette and the GT-R. Maybe Jaguar didn't have one in their test fleet. I get personal preferences. I'd rather have a '60's 427 Stingray than a new Z06, even though the Z06 will run off and leave it. I'd rather have a '69-70 Boss 302 than a new Shelby GT350R even though the new car will smoke it in every performance category. But if I'm writing an article for a magazine-I'm not going to tell the reader that he should invest 70-100K in a 50 year old car instead of a brand-new one that has twice the performance, a warranty etc.  It just blows my mind. And they've been doing it for 50 years. I remember a motorcycle test one time-they were comparing 750cc "Superbikes"-this was the early '70's when 750cc was a "big" motorcycle motor, not like now where their pushing 2 liters. Anyhow, they compared a Honda, a Triumph, a Kawasaki and a Yamaha. The Kawasaki was a 2-stroke triple. The Triumph was a four-stroke triple, and the Honda and Yamaha were four-stroke four-cylinders. The Kawasaki blew the others away in 0-60 and 1/4 mile. It ran something like 12 flat or 11.90 which was ungodly even for a bike back then. The others weren't even close. They declared the Honda the winner-because it was the smoothest and easiest to ride. They said the Kawi would smoke the tire or wheelie too easy if you weren't careful with the throttle. Guess which bike everyone wanted to buy? Today those Kawis have a "Cult" following. I'd buy one if I could find one that wasn't priced in the stratosphere.  Anyhow-I think they should be more objective. Numbers don't lie. Yes, their entitled to their opinion-but be reasonable.  Mastermind