I can understand your position and I don't question CR's utility. However, I question whether they possess the same level of expertise (despite your comment about equal sized staffs) than the writers/reviewers of the "serious" car magazines. I do see the value of the supposed "unbiased" CR reviewer. However, I personally prefer the opinion of those who have made it their business to specialize in a particular vehicle or vehicles from a particular country (i.e., European Car Magazine). I can remember more than a few articles that were critical of the car(s) being reviewed.<p>There's nothing wrong with testing the 1.8T. My criticism/reservation lies with their comparing apples with oranges. IMO, the 2.8 would have been more appropriate. Moreover, there is a big difference between the 30V version of the 2.8 and the 12V version of the 2.8 that was reviewed previously. This would necesitate an updated review in my opinion. It is like saying that because they reviewed the Mustang Cobra of 3 years ago (that had about 240hp), it was not necessary to review today's 325hp version. Of course, the power differential is not as substantial where the 30V and 12V are concerned, but my point remains the same.<p>Once again, CR does serve a purpose. However, it would be a mistake to place too much value/weight to their opinions. It's best to do as you do, use it a just one source among many to make an informed decision.

Check out "Car and Driver" sometime. They are generally very blunt about the drawbacks of the cars they review.<p>> A problem with "serious" car magazines: They<br>> take advertising and have to watch how they<br>> criticize cars in their reviews. They tend to<br>> only point out the good qualities.<p>