Re: Comparing Units - specifically little q content

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-03-21 23:11:59 EST, you write:

<< 
> I dont know what you have been looking at, i am not talking soley about 
> acceleration.  I am talking about the whole performance package.  
> Including, top speed, handling, slalom, acceleration, 
> braking...everything objective...
 
> Objectively, as a whole package, Porsche is number 1, it is provable...my 
> friend even devised a method of rating the objective performance, even 
 >ncluding the price...
 
> It is quite good, and doesnt seem to have any holes in it..
  >>
I too speak of the "whole" performance package.  If that is true, how do you
"rate" a 2 door/2 seater, against a 4door/4seater.  Again, understand the
point, in "depth" of field, porsche falls short.  Given the same "provable"
method of objective perfromance, where exactly does BMW fall?  Where does audi
fall?  Top 5?  Really, which one/s?  (with what brakes might be a more
appropriate question)

>From my pentium, putting audi in the above 'performance' category of cars, in
'potential' or stock, has a few holes in it.  Neither here nor there.  Maybe
we need to all take a look at the "methods", Mr. Williams.  My thinking is
that good proof 'without holes' might put the 993tt at the top, the next 9
would interest me more, and might just be a validity test for your friends'
"methodology".  As one that spends a lot of time making the audi 'potential'
of which you speak, and has driven the others, I am most interested in how you
came to the conclusions you did.

Subjectively and objectively, I can easily admit to being most impressed by
993tt performance.  However, I believe you to miss my point.  Just as
subjectively and objectively, your 'method' or mine, I don't bite on the "audi
top 5".  Happy to be "proven" to have missed something.  

Scott Justusson