Quote Originally Posted by niky
Hi guys, long time no see...

Just my 10c worth:

The Philippine Car of The Year awards were decided on a scoring system based on the subjective observations and experiences of the judging panel (but following a points system...), and GPS-tested track performance. I think there may be a slight bias towards vehicle performance, as indicated by the fact that most of the winners were either the fastest in their segments or close to it. I suppose the awards should be renamed "The Fastest Philippine Cars of The Year".

One cannot deny, however, that almost all of the vehicles chosen were very good vehicles, presenting value for money, as well as a comfortable driving/riding experience.

As regarding some of the aforementioned "controversies":

Toyota did NOT join, it is true, but private owners donated their cars to the testing. There was a Vios and an Altis in the test, but I'm not sure if the panel managed to source a Revo. I am also of the opinion that the Revo would have won, as my cousin has a VX200, and it is head and shoulders over most any AUV I have ever ridden (and I drive an XUVi).

That the Vios won is a disappointment to me. I think it's a case of testosterone over estrogen (Vios versus City), with the balls carrying the vote. If the Honda Jazz had come out earlier, it would DEFINITELY have been a different story, as the Jazz caters to both.

There should be no onus on the Lynx RS for being an old car... the Sentra is running on a platform that has not changed (suspension-wise) since the early 90's. The Lancer is pretty long in the tooth also. The Optra, though viewed by many (including me) as being a merely re-badged Daewoo, is actually a more modern platform, but technically not as sophisticated as some. Even the Mazda3 is an amalgam of old and new tech, the 3's MZR engines have the same basic core as the Lynx's 323 sourced 1.6 and 1.3 liter hearts. I would have happily agreed if the Mazda3 had won (it definitely has it all over the Civic 2.0), but I give props to the judges for recognizing the solidity and dependability of the RS. Who cares how old the bones are? If it corners, drives and stops better, while riding just as comfortably as the newer platforms, it deserves the accolades it gets.

And for anyone bringing up the "old car" issue again, I say: look at the AUV and Large SUV categories... those platforms and engines are all twice as old as the RS's. The Starex is another old car in new boots... but at least it has a great new engine.

The SUV Lite category is the only big vehicle category showing promise in terms of technology, as the X-Trail bested the old-fashioned but powerful Escape, the light and nimble RAV4, and the default choice CR-V. It's probably one of the only winners that's NOT fastest in class.

The S60 T5 and 745Li are both natural choices, in the absence of more compelling arguments from the competition. I would've picked the 530d, though, but you can't win them all.

As for the overall win for the Accord 3.0, I do agree that fuel conservation, practicality and price should have been a bigger factor in the voting (which, paradoxically, may have given the win to either the X-Trail or the Vios), but remember, the objective voting weighs BOTH fuel consumption and performance, and I think that those factors even each other out. In the end, I believe the subjective voting carried the vote. Having ridden in a new Accord, I can safely say I understand why.
[SIZE=3]
Good Explanation! POINT TAKEN! [/SIZE]