16th Oct 2008, 08:28
I wish we could do a blind test of your theory with the Consumer Reports test so-called "engineers" (I am a real engineer). I am sure it would be emphatically proven to be correct.
6th Jan 2009, 16:38
Absolutely, categorically 100% TRUE!! People who are "ego buyers" go by price only and usually don't even know what a "cylinder" is, what "horsepower" means, or which end of their car the drive wheels are located on. If it costs MORE, it is automatically better. I once asked a fellow with a new BMW how he liked it and he replied "Oh, it's WONDERFUL! FRONT WHEEL DRIVE is so safe!!" (and I'm NOT making this up!!)
I recently read a review in a major publication on a new vehicle. It was described as having a "herky-jerky" transmission, riding very harshly, getting awful mileage and having seats that felt like concrete blocks. A "crappy" domestic you ask? Not quite. It was the horrendously expensive new Mercedes ML320 Bluetech. In fact, Mercedes has a large number of its vehicles rated as "much worse than average" or "worse than average".
Sadly, our culture bases EVERYTHING on the price tag. If it costs more, it just HAS to be better. Never mind that there is really not a SHRED of evidence to back this up.
20th Sep 2008, 21:27
This comment is one of the most confusing I've ever read. First of all, the Quad 4 was one of GM's most maintenance free (no timing belt) and reliable 4's ever made. It powered millions of Chevy, Pontiac, Buick and Olds models over a period spanning nearly two decades. There are many of these cars on the road with well over 200,000 miles on them.
The quad 4 does not have 190HP (it's rated at 150 stock) and the 3.8 Grand Prix is not rated at 240HP and weighs considerably more than 2500 pounds. I haven't the slightest idea what point the commenter was trying to make.
As far the Mustang GT having "unique" styling, it has basically the same exact styling as the V-6.