Which magazine do you consider more worthwhile?

 

I like the photography and articles in R&T.... although the 'tell it like it is' in C&D is sometimes entertaining, but sometimes they just go way over the top.

Evo & GRM please.

https://honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=640915

 

Road & Track.

 

Increasingly I'm more a fan of R&T than C&D.

Another good one that I pick up sometimes is Sports Car International.

 

Neither. While a bit "pricey" a years subscription to EVO or CAR magazine is a worthwhile investment; the photography is excellent, and if you enjoy sublime english humor, you'll love the commentary.

 

C&D hands down. Those editors are the best bunch around by a good margin.

Reading R&T is like reading a high school paper sometimes. I rarely agree with their points based scoring system for comparison tests (although C&D just went to one too, but they seem to weigh the important stuff much better). R&T doesn't do weather normalization on any of their vehicle tests (C&D does). But overall I feel that their editors seem to like writing about how they took a fancy car up to 150mph on a road in Italy and had the wind rushing through their hair and had an orgasm. C&D tells you what the car is like.

But R&T does cover the racing world so I keep my subscription for that.

 

Automobile

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by bb6h22a &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Neither. While a bit "pricey" a years subscription to EVO or CAR magazine is a worthwhile investment; the photography is excellent, and if you enjoy sublime english humor, you'll love the commentary. </TD></TR></TABLE>

This might be common knowledge, I don't know, but at least here you can get Evo for $3.99 in QFC now.

 

Car & Driver. I read for entertainment and this magazine is far more entertaining. The quality of the writing is excellent, and frequently very funny. Plus, even if they are opinionated, I like their style much better than the sugar coated reviews of other major publications. (come on Road & Track, criticize a car, just once, pleeeeeeze?) In spite of this they always provide enough information for you to draw your own conclusions, regardless of the editor's opinion.

Car is also a good magazine, and the only one that I've seen use the word 'crap' in the title of a road test article

P.S. GRM rules too

 

The only thing wortwhile about Road & Track are Peter Egan's columns. C&D is a more fun all-around read, but what is disappointing about both in general is that at this point in my own automotive enthusiast body of experience and skills, I look at most of the content and who puts it together in the context of the "emporer having no clothes". Years ago I was in awe of car rag writers, now I'm more of the mind of ....what a bunch of knuckleheads....

My only subscription in recent years has been Autoweek.

 

Certainly one or the other. I just got done with a year of having a subscription to both, and it was painful. I swear that they have a meeting and decide what cars to DUPLICATE coverage on EVERY MONTH. I prefer C/D, largely because they cover cars that you might actually see on the road, and have great, entertaining commentary. R/t seems to take the mindset that if it isn't expensive, exclusive, or obscure, you just aren't cultured enough to appreciate their rag.
Now, on to my new subscription to GRM!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by madhatter &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">... I swear that they have a meeting and decide what cars to DUPLICATE coverage on EVERY MONTH...</TD></TR></TABLE>

They are owned by the same parent company last time I checked.

I favor C&D over R&T, but what's wrong with Motor Trend? I only subscribe to basic cable right now, but Motor Trend TV was a blast to watch. I don't usually trust MT predictions though. They predicted the Civic type R was coming to the US in the fall 2003, and the current issue writes as if the Civic Type R is already on sale in the US!!

I just started a subscription to Autoweek, and look forward to GRM every month.

 

Most of the major motorsport magazines are owned by just a few publishers. It is sort of the nature of the business. It makes magazines like GRM all that more impressive that they can survive and thrive without the major backing of a huge publisher.

Some of the major players:
The big dog - Primedia (http://www.primediautomotive.com/) – European Car, Automobile, Hot Rod, Motor Trend, Super Street, Honda Tuning, Sport Compact Car, Circle Track, etc., etc….

Hachette Filipacchi – Car and Driver, Road and Track, Cycle World

Crain Communications – AutoWeek, Automotive News, Automotive News Europe

Dennis Publishing – Evo, Auto Express

 

I like C&D more than Road & Track. I only will buy a Road & Track issue if it's something interesting that catches my attention - like the issue back in '97 with very long test article on the McLaren F1 roadcar with cool pictures and an insight from Gordon Murray. I just renewed my subscription to C&D - and at $22.00 for 3 years you really can't beat that ($0.62 an issue...)

 

I was raised on Road & Track & have back issues since summer '84 or so. The Peter Egan columns and articles are worth the newsstand price IMHO.

Jon

 

eh.

neither.

They are both written for (and by) middle aged men who want their asses cuddled in leather as they pimp their new BMWs at starfucks right after making themselves feel like great drivers after taking a twisty road at *gasp* 10mph over the limit.

 

C&D.

Any article by John Phillips is worth the subscription alone.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by preparedcivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The only thing wortwhile about Road & Track are Peter Egan's columns. </TD></TR></TABLE>

W3RD. Egan is a phenomenal writer. It's the first thing I read in every new R & T.

Overall, I perfer R&T, although I like C&D plenty.

 

Road and Track. I like the newer "widebody" format... haha

 

I'm partial to C&D just because I feel the writers, overall, are a little more subjective and I also just prefer their writing style and wit.

Plus, I just got a new subscription notice for 1 year for $8 for C&D.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by elgorey &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">eh.

neither.

They are both written for (and by) middle aged men who want their asses cuddled in leather as they pimp their new BMWs at starfucks right after making themselves feel like great drivers after taking a twisty road at *gasp* 10mph over the limit.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Actually, I was curious- are half of these writers actually good(fast) drivers? Or do they just write like they might be fast?... maybe this should be the subject of a new thread?

 

Seems like a lot of the writers from both magazines have quite a bit of road racing experience of some sort.

 

I prefer Road and Track because it's bigger, they have a Formula 1 et al section, and they do less boring cars.

I was raised on Motor Trend, so I suppose I'd prefer that, but my tastes changed from that, to Sport Compact Car, and now to GRM.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MaddMatt &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">C&D.

Any article by John Phillips is worth the subscription alone.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I totally agree. He's the one that sold me on C&D.

I enjoyed R&T photography, as well as the aforementioned Egan...

But C&D actually is willing to criticize cars, whereas R&T never does.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by allenp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But C&D actually is willing to criticize cars </TD></TR></TABLE>
Non-BMW cars that is......