Originally Posted by mmarshall

I'm not saying that track testing doesn't have a place. But, First, in comparisons, one must separate apples and oranges. Air temperature/pressure/humidity plays a big role in engine power (in fact, as pilots, we sometime had to calculate take-off performance based on that, wind, aircraft weight, and on available runway length). The compositon/type of pavement surface can also play a role in handling, skidpad, and braking tests, because it can determine tire friction/adhesion. Second, the average car buyer (including many on CL) doesn't care much about extreme track testing at the limit.....they buy a car for everyday use. That's why, in my own reviews, I go over the car from stem to stern, in great detail, and try to describe exactly what one is getting for the money, instead of what kind of drag or racing machine it will be.

One could reply......."Well, if that's the case, then they shouldn't be reading enthusiast car magazines to start with.....leave the enthusiast magazines to the enthusiast". That's fine.....except that even very few enthusiasts have the kind of money it takes to get into (and insure) many of the mega-sports/exotic cars that these magazines often dwell on. Yet, the mags (especially R&T) tend to give a lot of print space to those cars, at the expense of everyday street cars.

Originally Posted by IS-SV

Who knows what you are talking about or what your were saying, nobody questioned what you said or cared Because my posting was a response to I8ABMR regarding what reviews ideally should be a mixture of, not to be critical. No problem.

Originally Posted by LexBob2

I agree that the information from track testing by the car mags is beneficial and helps in the decision making process when buying a car. Step #2 as you said, is to go and drive the cars that are of interest. Not rocket science, you just need a process.