Motor Trend Car Of The Year - Wrong Choice

Found a few problems with MT's COTY choice. And as always, their photo resolution is lacking.

I found numerous problems and omissions with your recent COTY issue. Some of them inexcusable. The COTY process, Ferrari California and photo quality are the three items that need addressing.

Was the criteria for the Contenders and Finalists listed? The "Contenders" included a Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix. Why in the world were both "corporate twins" included? That made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Was there ANYTHING of significance revised regarding these cars?

Regarding the Challenger R/T. Why wasn't the SRT-8 model considered instead? It has more power, handles better, Brembo brakes, also now available with a 6-speed transmission AND limited-slip rear differential. Additionally, SRT-8 models offer the SRT-8 Track Experience.

If performance criteria was a factor, there were many other cars missing from the list which should have been finalists, especially reading their reviews in the same issue. For example, the ZR1 Corvette and the 7 Series BMW. Why weren't the following models considered: 370Z, BMW M3, Pontiac G8 GXP (vs. the GT like the Challenger R/T), Viper ACR and Solstice GXP (please, leave out the Saturn - corporate twins, you know?). These were serious errors of omission.

While the GT-R is an amazing car for the price, it is also a street-only car. It will probably never see a green flag in a sanctioned racing event, especially due to it's numerous driver's aids and undoubtedly because of it's excessive weight. If no longer AWD for racing, no DCT, no driver's aids, is it still a GT-R?

Notations about it's weight savings are laughable for a car with only 2 usable seats that weighs 3900lbs. It never set a record at the Nurburgring as quite a few sources have already exposed Nissan's 'Ring time that was obviously done in a more powerful car and the street tire question not entirely disproven either. Also, falsely representing the production car's ability in terms of power by not matching the pre-production model's 1/4 mile trap speeds in all the magazines. Remember the ZR1 #001 fetching over $1 million at Barrett-Jackson? How much do you think GT-R #001 would go for? And why is that?

Car & Driver magazine had an excellent article about the "real horsepower" of the GT-R. Funny thing was, their conclusion was WRONG. Their May '08 Road Test model (pre-production) hit 130mph 1.6 seconds quicker than the next fastest model (12.1 vs. 13.7) tested in September '08. That is an enormous margin. Clearly the pre-production model tested at the Nurburgring was much more powerful than what is for sale in the real world.

Also, what about the Ferrari California? Numerous "firsts" for Ferrari: dual-clutch transmission that is probably the best on the market, a folding hardtop, direct injection and a front-engine V8. How could that be passed up for consideration? Pricing? A $75,000 Nissan that should be sold at Infiniti dealers isn't exactly affordable either.

But the worst part about the Ferrari California? The statement that it looked better with the top up. And not ONE photograph with it's top up! Inexcusable!

This brings me to the final observation. It's quite obvious MT has a lower resolution photographs in numerous articles compared to your competition. This have been happening for a long time. I suggest MT bring it's visual quality back to a competitive level.