After I got done reading the out come of a four way comparison between three "performance orientated sedans" the new Camry XLE, Galant RALLIART, Altima SE-R, and the Malibu SS. The 0-60 times are 6.1 secs (Camry), 6.2 secs (Altima), 6.4 secs (Galant), and 7.0 secs (Malibu).

This was a comparison between 3 apples and one orange. What kind of moron would compare the first three to the Malibu SS. The Malibu SS is the least competitive of GM's offerings in that class and they know it. Their final comment was something along the lines of "You don't get what you don't pay for."

They whined about how it didn't have a 6-speed transmission, hello the '07 Pontiac G6 GTP has a 6-speed and a more powerful DOHC engine (which they prefer) for only around $1000 more, while offering more room, having better styling, and better interior.

Or how about the new Saturn Aura XR, it has the same powertrain as the G6 GTP while costing around $500 less, while probably having nicer interior that might have rivaled the Camry.

If they would have chosen one of those two, the GM offering still would have been $3,000-4,000 less expensive than the other cars, while having an offering that would actually stand a chance.

My point is that having reviews like this are helping to kill our companies. When they do this, it appears that the Big 3 can't compete at all.

Now in fairness, would the Camry still deserve to win the competition. Yes, it would still be the fastest. The difference is either the G6 GTP or Saturn Aura XR would have at least came in third or maybe second. The G6 GTP or Aura XR have acceleration times between 6.2-6.8 secs, which would have been better suited to this competition. The Aura's superior interior would have given it the lead for sure over the Altima and Galant. The fuel economy would have been better than the Galant and slightly less than the Altima. They could have done a much better job than this and they know it. Okay, I'm done![sm=rant.gif]

 

After going back and reading it more thoroughly, I found some more things to criticize. They whined about the characteristics of a pushrod engine and that they didn't like the sound of the engine note. If Motor Trend actually wants to actually attempt to be objective, then they need to get a staff of writers with a variety of opinions. I happen to prefer the sound of a pushrod engine over an OHC engine.

They of course complained about the interior for the millionth and first time, but of course they choose the car they knew had the cheapest interior.

They should have included some of GMs larger midsized cars such as the supercharged Grand Prix GT (GTP is now discontinued). It still wouldn't be as fast as the Camry or the other two but the acceleration for the price would have been unbeatable. They should have included the Mazda 6 Speed model. The turbo 2.3L would have wipped the Toyota. I could go on all day with what they should have included.

In short, it is being unfair to compare a lower priced budget car against a more premium priced and packaged car. They need to make sure in the future that they have more similarly priced cars, because the premium ones will always win in their competition.

 

Here is how I see it, go through all the pages, count how many cars are in an ad, and that will be top car in that mag.

 

Your right about that. They do tend to favor the one that they advertise the most. Isn't it pathetic that we can't find an honest outlet?