|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I don't agree with the thinning of the links section. Many external links on Wikipedia point to commerical sites, and product placement is after all in the eye of the beholder. If one is interested in researching Motor Trend, access to its history volume and a source for back issues is highly relevant. The company's endorsement of car care products simply illustrates the somewhat absurd lengths to which its brand extension has gone, and is unlikely to deceive the reader into believing that Wikipedia is pushing fabric deodorizer. IMHO, we should aim for every Wiki article to provide access to too much information rather than too little, and leave the user to determine how much of it he/she really needs. RivGuySC 04:03, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I went back and re-read Car and Driver and Motor Trend's reviews of the Lincoln Blackwood and was surprised with their uniformity. I have to agree that MT has become more skeptical as C&D has become less so lately. Any observer should have called Lincoln on that truck in the harshest terms, and yet few did. However, older (late-80s) issues of MT and C&D are striking - MT never says anything bad about anything, and C&D never likes anything but BMWs! Opinions? --SFoskett 18:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
motor trend is a very good magazine, but the magazine don't accurate or modern, like auto motor.
Influence of Auto Mrs on Editorial Awards?
Has there been any investigations re auto mfr influencing magazine's editors in their car of the year picks? It would seem there is lots of financial incentive for fraud or bias which makes me wonder how it has been avoided if it has.
When you look at the choices for car of the year over the years your point is well taken. And why the bias against Ford products? Chevy Citation, Vega and 1983s choice of A.M.C. Renualts, who is kidding who? randazzo56 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)