All of the Editorial reviews you read are pretty much crap.
here are a few reasons they don't mean a thing to me..

Wards Automotive ... They ranked the G35 Engine as one of the Top 10 engines ever made for 4 or 5 years in a row. What they failed to test or mention was that from 2005-2007 the engines (when mated to the 6-spd) burn oil at a rate of 5quarts every 3000miles. I killed two engines and Nissan eventually repurchased the car. I know of 300+ people on the G35 message board alone that have the same problem. When I brought this to Ward's attention I was told thank you, but they weren't going to do anything about that because they don't test the cars that "in-depth"..

Road&Track.. They ran a comparison between the GM Acadia, Acura MDX, and the Mazda CX-9.. The Acadia was more comfortable, had more space, more features, a more refined interior and a nice looking exterior, but it lost.. Why? Well, because it didn't get to 60 as fast of course.. Last time I checked most people were in the market for a SUV with 3 rows of seating because they wanted to go drag racing..

Read every review you've ever come across and it's pretty much some a$$-hats lame opinion about a car that they really decided they didn't like before they drove it.
The only cars that get tested for what they're really built for are cars like the Miata, and Solstice. They're cheap, so the magazines often buy one for long term testing and they're all so fun to drive that the reviewers can't really decide which is better. The MX-5 Miata won in 06 because it had more trunk space and felt a little more composed while cornering. This is true and valid.. It didn't lose because of "where the cupholders are" or something rediculous as that...

So, long and short of it is... Take the reviews with a grain of salt (or whatever the saying is)because they're pretty much someone elses opinion and odds are he's not alone in that opinion, but more often than not that opinion doesn't account for the vast majority.