Re: all the news that's fit(?)

[Eliot Lim <eliot@u.washington.edu>]

> And I didn't say Eliot was wrong, I questioned "accuracy".

so what is "accuracy"?  speaking of accuracy, i never called the vr6
"the best engine in the world".  that is a factual misrepresentation
on your part.  also, it would have been clear to anybody reading that
it was a matter of me *liking* one engine over another, based on
arbitrary and subjective criteria.  how would you propose to measure
the "accuracy" of this?

>  G/F
> provided side-by-side comparison of the VR6 vs. Audi V-6 with
> lab and test track results and manufacturers (VAG) design intent.
> FWIW the article didn't state that the VR6 sucks, or that the Audi
> V-6 beats_it. 

lab tests are only one data point.  even so, one could question their
"fairness" of picking one specific set of measurements over another..

> I have found lack of specific information as a means of
> hiding deficiences.  I find it important to remember that any car
> magazine has normaly one data point and the manufacturer at their beckon
> call (an unrealistic benchmark).  After all it is just their SHO (somewhat 
> honest opinion).
> 
> I go for facts not opinion.

i gather then that you think that the only way to "measure" the
"goodness" of an engine is strictly the numbers game, anything that
can be scientifically and "objectively" measured.  look at it this
way: do you measure the goodness of a meal by the nutritional value of
its constituents or by how well it tastes?  is brand X of beer better
than brand Y simply and automatically because brand X has a greater
percentage of alcohol?

where is it decided that mid range torque holds more weight than aural
entertainment?  nowhere.  it is all subjective what you want to care
about.  "lack of specific information" can mean nothing more than that
particular piece of information being irrelevant in the reviewer's
criteria.  

it is completely futile to try to ram one's own set of criteria down
the throats of others.


eliot