Opinions about cars are just that: Opinions. Today I just got more proof about that. Phil Powell, one of my fellow reviewers on About.com, reviewed the 2006 Pontiac Torrent AWD on the same day that I reviewed the 2006 Pontiac Torrent FWD. In essence, the same car, he just had two more driven wheels than I did. Well, he gave the Torrent four stars out of five. I gave it two and a half stars -- begrudgingly. I really disliked the Torrent. I thought it was behind the times, sloppily built and amazingly underwhelming. Phil thought it was a snappy little wagon substitute.

I respect Phil's opinion -- he's a very smart guy, good writer and knows more about cars than I ever will. How can our opinions differ so widely? It's all about taste, I think. I do think that both reviews are useful if you're thinking about buying a new Torrent (don't) though.

Which brings me to my theory of criticism -- well, not mine, actually. It's something I learned in grad school from one of the fathers of literary criticism, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832).

I approach a car or SUV with the following three questions:
1. What is the car trying to do?
2. How well does the car achieve its goals?
3. Were the goals worth achieving in the first place?
By approaching a car in this way, and by acknowledging my personal tastes, I can provide a picture of the car that is useful. You may agree with my opinion, you may not agree, but I've given you a good basis to make up your own mind. I don't believe in The Myth of Objectivity, and I'm careful not to pretend that I come to my opinions in a vacuum.

How important are car reviews to your buying decision? Do you have favorite reviewers whose opinions sway you more than others?