Quote:
Originally Posted by wraith
Mitsubishi did what BMW did with the M3. It made a car which might not do any of the things as well as the leaders but did enough of the right things to make it a better street driver. However, when the VR-4 was tested, they never proclaimed it the winner because of its positives. They just dwelled on its performance numbers and called it an also ran. On the other hand, C&D and R&T are magazines that posers read to think they are car saavy, so what they did, was took a vehicle that they have always liked and made it the winner because of non-performance aspects that might be said of the Pontiac G8 if you threw that in this test...........but then they could say it would win bang for buck since its 1/2 the price. Maybe it would come out on top because it has two extra doors for easy access for passengers LOL. You know what, maybe they should have goten their hands on a 2009 CTS-V and threw that in there for comparison. Sure, it might not handle as well as the rest, but I am sure it would still come out as well as the M3 did against the other two and then they could say its the winner because it has more cup holders and has an awesome supercharger whine
|
Yeah, I know what you're saying and I really do agree with you. I was just a bit suprised at how well the GT-R really handled and comparing it with the technology of the VR-4/TT which is almost 20 years older. Anyhow, if they threw the G8 and/or the CTS-V into the mix then I probably would have lost all interest in the article even if the GT-R was in the review.