Fellow MG enthusiasts, I've subscribed to R&T since the '60's, and have a collection that goes back to the late '40's. The devolution of this magazine is very sad. At first it was just an amateur ent
Dear Don, Pick up a copy of Thoroughbred & Classic Cars and Classic Cars magazine, both British monthlies, top notch, forget R & T, these magazines have your name on it. You might also want to check
I do read those magazines and I do like them a lot. Years ago, I was the US subscription agent for Practical Classics. I agree, they are great magazines. Funny thing is, the ads are actually interes
Funny you should mention this. Just yesterday, I was "sort of" cleaning up my "den," (a.k.a. my room in the basement) and came across a pile of R&Ts of the early 1990 ... and a copy of the December
I like Classic and Sports Car magazine, another British mag. The ads are interesting as well, although it took my a while to figure out that by 'lump', they mean engine!! Latest issue had a Rover V8
What do you expect? You don't bite the hand that feeds you. Ever notice that when an expensive car, say a Porsche, is introduced, a mag like R&T or Car & Driver does a "road test" on the car, but the
Here's my two cents. Part of the problem is that magazines like R&T don't know who their audience is anymore, if they have one at all (maybe ALL their revenue comes from advertising now). There was a
Good point, Stuart, about Consumer Reports. For those of us that are enthusiasts, it's a fairly tame magazine but provides a good counter-point to the too-often ad-like nature of the editorial conten
You've hit the proverbial nail on the head. To your quote "you don't bite the hand that feeds you," I can add, "we get what we pay for." Glossy magazines do not come cheap, so subscriptions to R&T a
Don't you think the money given to Consumer Reports by the Trial Lawyers influences their reports on flaws and defects? At least with ads you can see who is spending the money. Brad (who still enjoy
I may have met one of R&T's current audience...I was stopped at a lightin my everyday driver - VW Bus - when a new Boxster pulled up next to me, top down. I told him I thought it was a "nice machine
I am inclined to agree with many of the comments. The modern magazines such as R&T, Automobile, etc write very 'fluffy" articles of little or no substance and certainly no crititism. They cater for t
I agree that R&T in the 70's was a better read but I am not sure I would blame the advertisers. The fact is that cars have gotten MUCH better over the last 30 years so they have fewer glitches to poi
<snip> The new Celica, on the other hand is ugly almost to the point of visual agony. Anyone who thinks this is cutting edge hasn't seen a 58 Chevy lately or a TR-7. <snip> And then there is the Pon
In defense of R&T, they have always concentrated on new cars, with a few stories about old cars thrown in for good measure. In the old days that meant lots of articles about British roadsters and oth
Chuck, you're right on re: Aztec. I actually drove to a Pontiac dealership to check it out as I could not believe that it was so ugly in the photos. Unfortunately, the photos do it TOO much justice.