ZR1 VS. GT2 video inside.
08-17-2009, 05:41 PM
#31
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Didn't one of the European mags do a comparison of the best performing car with the Z06, and when it won in all categories they ranked it last because the interior wasn't as nice and they didn't like the body?
08-17-2009, 06:11 PM
#32
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Miami
Posts: 1,175
dude I can't stop posting here... it just pisses me off so much that they don't give credit where it's deserved, while on the other side here in the states, the mags over here will willingly slam the american car if and truly only if they are the clear loser in more categories than not.
08-17-2009, 06:23 PM
#33
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
Not only that, but in something like a Corvette vs GT2 comparison, most people over here will admit that even though the Corvette clearly performs better, that the Porsche is a nicer car(in terms in interior, body, sophistication etc). But when the goal is simply to see which car performs better, period...give credit where credit is due. But it seems like, especially in the UK, when they do a performance comparison with an American car and the American car wins, they end up saying "Oh yes, but we think it sucks so we rank it last." That's provided the test wasn't rigged to begin with.
08-17-2009, 07:24 PM
#34
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 2,112
They are often full of it. I was thumbing through on recent mag where they compared the Accord to the Fusion. The gave the Fusion 2nd place for a few lame *** reasons. One being you couldn't manually shift it.
Also the only reason the Accord posting better times was b/c they had to manually shift it- it wouldn't pull to redline on its own. Line 'em up with the trannies in "Drive" and watch the Fusion fry the rice. But nope.
08-17-2009, 07:41 PM
#35
Sounds like M/T, C&D etc...
They are often full of it. I was thumbing through on recent mag where they compared the Accord to the Fusion. The gave the Fusion 2nd place for a few lame *** reasons. One being you couldn't manually shift it.
Also the only reason the Accord posting better times was b/c they had to manually shift it- it wouldn't pull to redline on its own. Line 'em up with the trannies in "Drive" and watch the Fusion fry the rice. But nope.
They are often full of it. I was thumbing through on recent mag where they compared the Accord to the Fusion. The gave the Fusion 2nd place for a few lame *** reasons. One being you couldn't manually shift it.
Also the only reason the Accord posting better times was b/c they had to manually shift it- it wouldn't pull to redline on its own. Line 'em up with the trannies in "Drive" and watch the Fusion fry the rice. But nope.
08-17-2009, 08:01 PM
#36
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NC
Posts: 2,112
^ Notice I said "recent mag." They were not comparing a '03 V6 with a Fusion. In the mag it had an asterik by the Accord's time saying they had to manually shift it, or it would shift before redline in 1st and 2nd gear, I believe.
Anyways, have at it tiger:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/results.html
BTW, the 3.5 Fusion should give you a run haha
Anyways, have at it tiger:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...n/results.html
BTW, the 3.5 Fusion should give you a run haha
Last edited by 94Blk5.0; 08-17-2009 at 08:03 PM.
08-17-2009, 08:27 PM
#39
The car trapped .4 miles per hour faster....oh boy, look out! It still wasn't any quicker in most of the 0-xx tests, therefore that Fusion isn't going to be frying any Accord 'rice', whether you like it or not.
I guess some people really give a crap about being able to manually shift an automatic. I don't know why. I doubt anybody is going to be towing **** with their 4 cylinder family car, and if they want to run through the gears themselves they should buy a stick shift car.
It boils down to opinion, for all the car mags. One car placed better than the other doesn't make the one car the best. It's just opinion, so the bottom line is folks, who gives a **** over opinion?
"By a margin as thin as its paint, the Honda's lower ownership cost and slightly comfier seating eke out a win."
With a margin that 'thin', I highly doubt MT is suggesting you could go wrong with the second place car.
I guess some people really give a crap about being able to manually shift an automatic. I don't know why. I doubt anybody is going to be towing **** with their 4 cylinder family car, and if they want to run through the gears themselves they should buy a stick shift car.
It boils down to opinion, for all the car mags. One car placed better than the other doesn't make the one car the best. It's just opinion, so the bottom line is folks, who gives a **** over opinion?
"By a margin as thin as its paint, the Honda's lower ownership cost and slightly comfier seating eke out a win."
With a margin that 'thin', I highly doubt MT is suggesting you could go wrong with the second place car.
Last edited by 99GTvert; 08-17-2009 at 08:30 PM.
08-17-2009, 11:06 PM
#40
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 420
THAT was the most biased REVIEW i have ever SEEN WTF can that guy in the vette even DRIVE WTF ugh i wanted to punch the brit in the face for being this dumb...
I'll take the zr1 over the dang gt2...and reading the comments TR-6060- they bash it for being a clunky...>_> I'm at a loss for words..
Imo
If i want power and Performance I'll take the vette
If i want looks and luxury- i take the dang porsche
even tho i like the looks of the vette, some reason euro cars looks always appeal better to my eyes X_X
I'll take the zr1 over the dang gt2...and reading the comments TR-6060- they bash it for being a clunky...>_> I'm at a loss for words..
Imo
If i want power and Performance I'll take the vette
If i want looks and luxury- i take the dang porsche
even tho i like the looks of the vette, some reason euro cars looks always appeal better to my eyes X_X