new school vs. old school, new scc article Options

[akamiami]

Well, I got my new copy of SCC a few days ago and got around to reading it tonight. For those that haven't seen it, there's an article where they compare new school (their project evo MR and some tuned STi) against old school (consisting of modded cars from the 90's). The old school car camp, comprised of cars like a Z32, MKIII, GVR4, RHD Evo3, 98 3SI, and NSX, were supposed to represent how that technology could pose a challenge to the new school cars when accentuated by years of tuning development on the aftermarket, or at least that's what I think their intention was, as the results are difficult to interpret given the lack of follow through.

What could have been a great article ended up being pretty damn disappointing, if you ask me, and there was only a short paragraph consisting of a few weakly apologetic sentences explaining how difficult it was to find cars suitable to the test that offered any sort of explanation of the editorial inadequacy. It was a great idea, and I'm glad they made an effort, but, once again, SCC has disappointed. They also demonstrated their propensity for grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Poor form.

To briefly describe things, they ended up, once again, choosing cars that were, with the obvious exception of the MKIII from Canada, entirely located on the west coast. In addition, the 4g63 contenders were either woefully lacking in mods or unable to remain intact much longer than it takes me to empty my bladder on the pages of the magazine that fails to understand that it has subscribers east of the rockies.

The evo3 pretty much remained together for the event, and did set one record among the old school cars on a road course chosen to favor the rwd cars, but the modifications were limited to an ARC intake box, BOV venting to atmosphere with the stock maf setup (RICER!), and a Kei Office suspension (uber jdm hawtness). While the GVR4 looked pretty stout, the thing couldn't keep a bottom end in tact long enough to participate in anything but the photo shoots.

Don't get me wrong, I love it when SCC and other magazines still have DSM's in them, especially mint examples like GVR4's and Evo3's which are old enough to perhaps truly warrant the old-school sport-compact moniker. But, I'm sure there are examples of these cars better suited for publication and I'm convinced that it's negligence on SCC's part that results in the constant failure of their chosen examples to put down results when put under the gun.

I'm much happier with my Modified subscription than SCC....

Did anyone else read this article?

[turbohcar]

I've got a subscription to SCC and religously read it cover to cover every month. I too am a bit dissapointed in the contents of that particular article but, I'm more dissapointed in the magazine as a whole. Ever since the previous Editor-in-Chief left, it's been depressing. The articles aren't quite as detailed or interesting as they have been in the past. It's just not as good as it used to be. I really hope that they get a new Editor in there soon. One with some good experience at keeping readers on the edge of their seats. Otherwise I'll have to think twice about renewing my subscription.

[Kazz5]

I'm almost exactly a month behind in my required reading - just finished the SCC with the first project MR mods and the review of the MazdaSpeed6... Need to eat more prunes ...

[akamiami]

turboh, I know what you mean. that article is a highlight actually in a rather dismal plunge for the publication. Their feature story last month about the GTR vs Jet was pure space filler. As if I give a damn about their exploits and half assed attempts at coolness. Are we supposed to be in awe that they're driving a skyline?

They just got that Tate guy as editor and I actually think he's marginally better than the last clown. I think the previous guy was responsible for the burnout magazine, which was rock bottom for them as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not sure if it's that the magazine actually sucks that badly, or if my knowledge has increased to the point where I'm no longer in awe of their technical ability and am able to critically evaluate the content better. Probably a combination of both but more of the former than I'd like to take credit for of the latter...

In any event, the mentioned article has provided me with a good amount of motivation for making my GSX a better built machine. Odd that stories about the fragility of dsm's and other people's problems with them make me more determined to keep mine running for even longer and build it to be far more robust than it needs to be.

[akamiami]

Need to eat more prunes ...

yeah, eat more prunes, grandpa!

[SCCA Stang]

I read the article too and also disappointed...... it's just too bad that the GVR4 bottom end didn't hold up... however the EVO III held up well and I think that Shamou's red cousin held it's own too.....
as far as the editor is concerned... I think that they are too concerned with posting up cool catch phrases that throughing in good technical info.... for example, when they were talking about the 3K VR4 they mentioned that "with the power levels that the car is seeing, the stock clutch would simply go up in a a cloud of fishy smelling smoke and promptly take a crap".... maybe it is a funny statement, but where is the real technical info???