Can we at least be objective when testing and ranking cars, either old or new??

This question shouldn't have to be asked, but it does. The current issue of Car and Driver bears this out. They had a 3-way comparo between a Nissan GT-R, a Porsche 911 Turbo and a ZL-1 Camaro. All premium, megabuck cars with more than 500 hp. This is what I love about magazine writers-even though the GT-R had the fastest 0-60 time, the fastest 1/4 mile time, the shortest stopping distance from 70 mph, and the quickest time in the 0-100mph-0 "Sprint", it finished third out of three in their ranking. Huh? WTF?  Your testing ultra-performance sports cars, and the one that wins all the relevant performance tests finishes last?  How does that math work?  Like this-The GT-R was "Too Refined". It's smooth 545 hp twin-turbo V6, six-speed dual clutch auto and all-wheel drive drivetrain-while rocketing to 60 in 2.9 seconds and through the 1/4 in 11.1-blowing the doors off the other two by a wide margin-delivered that massive power too smoothly and seamlessly!!! And the car was too "easy" to drive fast!!  Hello??  A $100,000 sports car is SUPPOSED to be easy to drive fast!!!  That's why people who can afford them buy Ferarris, and Aston-Martins, and Audi R8s, and BMW M3s and M5s.  These macho assholes preferred the tail-happy ill-handling, noisy 911, and the loud, solid axle-Camaro that fried the tires at the slightest application of throttle. Puhleeze. Of course, these are the same people that said a four-wheel drive,dual rear wheel,diesel, one ton, crew-cab Ford F350 had ride and handling that was "too trucklike". Duh!!  These same people complained that the new for 2015 Subaru WRX STI that had 305 hp,a six-speed,Brembo brakes, 18" wheels and a driver adjustable suspension and limited-slip axle and transfer case-was "peakier" and rode harder, and wasn't as "pleasant" to drive or "user-friendly" as the 265 hp base model with standard brakes, a five speed, 17" wheels and a non-adjustable suspension!!  Really? Do you think a 12:1, solid-lifter L88 427, 4-speed Corvette with 4.56:1 gears would be a little more tempermental than a 9:1, hydraulic cammed, LS5 454 with 3.36:1 gears?  A 400, 4-speed, WS6 Trans-Am is "peakier" and has a harsher ride than a 403 Olds / Automatic base model?  Shocker!!   Anyhow-these masters of the obvious seem to have great influence over the public. One buff mag had a "Movie and TV Musclecar battle". They pitted a '69 Charger done up like the "General Lee" against a "Smokey and The Bandit" '77 Trans-Am. Even though the Trans-Am- pulled .080g on the skidpad, stopped repeatedly from 70 mph in 144 feet, handled like a slot car,had supportive seats and that awesome engine-turned, easy to read guage panel and was faster in the slalom and around the race track-the writers-and the readers that voted via the internet decided that the Charger-which handled like the Queen Mary-wallowing through turns and around the skidpad at .067g-( an S10 Blazer does better than that ) took 228 feet to stop from 70 mph the first time, and as the 4-wheel drum brakes faded got worse and worse finally needing over 300 feet, had flat bucket seats so slick and unsupportive that the driver had to hang onto the door strap or the shifter to stay behind the wheel-depending on if he was turning left or right-and was waaayy slower in the slalom and around the track was declared the winner!!  Yeah, that's logical. Because there's no way a '70's Pontiac can beat a '60's Mopar, right?  Like Ditka says-"Come on, Man!!"  Really-If I see one more Dodge Pickup with a sticker of Calvin ( of the "Calvin&Hobbes" comic strip ) pissing on a Chevy bowtie, or a Camaro with a "Friends don't let Friends drive Fords" bumper sticker, I'm going to go all "Road Warrior" and ram them with my Old Buick!  Like whatever you want to like, but when your comparing hard performance numbers-be reasonable and objective. Any one else want to weigh in on this? Mastermind