I take these reviews with a grain of salt. They review hundreds of cars throughout their career. They are bound to get snobby and nitpicky. It's just a natural thing once you've had so many experiences with all sorts of cars. For the average person, some of it is irrelevant. I for one lean towards performance, so anything that doesn't affect my day to day(like plastics on some surfaces), I actually take as a positive because those savings were passed onto me.
C&D gave the 4BW a 10/10(even though they crashed the damn thing on the lightning lap), and their cons were: Not as quick as the BMW M3, interior quality falls short of luxe rivals, fully loaded versions approach $90,000. Their cons either don't apply to me or I don't care about at all.
Same thing with all these magazines recommending Kia's over Toyotas/Honda's. None of them are keeping them for years or interacting with the infamous sub-par dealerships long-term. Talking about how it's a good value new, but never talking about the residual values being garbage 5 years down the line, totally negating any kind of "value savings" on initial purchase.
),... but in both U-drags (vette and rustang) they matched up our manual vs their auto. I know they don't have stick as an option, but we have a great auto available that happens to also be a couple ticks quicker, so shouldn't they run that as a true comparison or at least make mention of it if they are talking about a true top performance comparison?(Especially when you are talking about just a couple of tenths of second where I bet it makes the difference)
evo.co.uk
