"Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:433E9690.1DF7D9C2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FDR wrote:
>>
>> "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:iHn%e.734$qX7.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >
>> > "Del Cecchi" <dcecchi.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >
>> >>> What makes you say that? They'd rate the Honda Civic better than a
>> >>> Lamborghini because it has longer intervals between tuneups.
>> >> Why not? By any rational standard the Honda Civic is superior to a
>> >> Lamborghini. The Lamborghini excels in driving very fast and
looking
>> >> good.
>> >
>> > But you don't buy a Lambo for practical reasons. CR thinks we should
>> > all
>> > drive Honda or similar autos.
>>
>> People that buy CR mag buy it for the practicality/value info. If
you're
>> into a Lambo then you'll be buying a gearhead type mag.
>
> CR does not contain (valid) practicality/value info. Their "findings"
> are distorted, biased and not in any way based on valid scientific
> testing or analysis.
>
> Pete C.
Hey, I read them and don't agree with them many times, but what do you
exactly think they should do that would meet your standard of testing? AS
for cars, like many reviews they are opinions. Firm ride, small back
seats,
cheap plastic knobs aren't something you need to do a scientific analysis
of. Reliability ratings are another thing entirely, since it's up to the
consumer to provide feedback on problems. To do any scientific analysis
would require that they gather x number of cars, drive them y number of
miles, and i z number of conditions. Highly impractical. Motorweek tests
one car over 15000 miles but that's nowhere scientific either.
|
