Bwright
Enthusiast
Re: Why does
Mike,
I respect what you said. For the record, I have nothing personal against Russ or anyone else on this thread. Russ has made posts most recently on the flickering lights issue where, though I never posted it, I agree with him 100%. I even agreed with Russ that there may be bias somewhere as this is a part of human nature. If that was not clear from earlier then let me clearly state my agreement with that sentiment. Are European magazines biased against American cars? Possibly. Having never read one though, I can’t actually say. But to claim bias by American auto magazines you first have to take an honest look at what they have written. You’ll see they are more than fair.
Russ supported his conclusion that MT was biased by saying, among other things, that they included the Mosler and did not say it was a non street-legal ringer. Not only did they actually use the word "ringer" in describing the Mosler but they clearly stated that the version they tested was not street-legal. Russ further argued that the Viper would have won all the tests but for the Mosler. In fact, the Murcielago, a production car, defeated the Viper on ½ the tests and the tiebreaker went to the Evolution. No bias, just the facts.
Before claiming R&T is biased against the Viper read their most complimentary review on the SRT-10 this year. R&T’s September 2003 Road Test summary highlights the fact that the SRT-10 can decisively out corner (as measured by lateral-g limits) any car they have ever tested, including the Enzo, McLaren F1 and the Saleen S7. The summary shows that the Enzo’s braking prowess falls within the scope of the Viper’s. Where? In bold type at the bottom of every summary is information on significant difference. That is, the range within which performance differences can be considered similar and outside of which become significant.
"In every measure of performance there’s Dodge and Ferrari – then there’s everything else." "Get on your knees and bow in homage to the master…the Viper." "The Viper delivers such a groundforce of quaking performance it should come equipped with its own seismometer." "There is simply no other production car like the wholly brutal Viper." "The Viper is easily forgiven its price by virtue of its remarkable ability to bend time and space." "It cut a swath of destruction through our tests." Biased? All these statements are from various editions of Motor Trend in describing the Viper in head-to-head competition against Ferraris, Porsches and the like.
Car and Driver’s bit with the eggs and bacon on the SRT-10 was in poor taste. I will be the first to concede that. However, a single joke, albeit one in poor taste, does not mean they hate Vipers. They are critics, they criticize everyone. Has anyone read Automobile Magazine’s Eddie Alterman’s recent savaging of Porsche and their decision to build the Cayenne?
I’ll leave you with this excerpt by Car and Driver’s senior editor, Brock Yates in the September 2002 edition of Car and Driver.
Later.
Mike,
I respect what you said. For the record, I have nothing personal against Russ or anyone else on this thread. Russ has made posts most recently on the flickering lights issue where, though I never posted it, I agree with him 100%. I even agreed with Russ that there may be bias somewhere as this is a part of human nature. If that was not clear from earlier then let me clearly state my agreement with that sentiment. Are European magazines biased against American cars? Possibly. Having never read one though, I can’t actually say. But to claim bias by American auto magazines you first have to take an honest look at what they have written. You’ll see they are more than fair.
Russ supported his conclusion that MT was biased by saying, among other things, that they included the Mosler and did not say it was a non street-legal ringer. Not only did they actually use the word "ringer" in describing the Mosler but they clearly stated that the version they tested was not street-legal. Russ further argued that the Viper would have won all the tests but for the Mosler. In fact, the Murcielago, a production car, defeated the Viper on ½ the tests and the tiebreaker went to the Evolution. No bias, just the facts.
Before claiming R&T is biased against the Viper read their most complimentary review on the SRT-10 this year. R&T’s September 2003 Road Test summary highlights the fact that the SRT-10 can decisively out corner (as measured by lateral-g limits) any car they have ever tested, including the Enzo, McLaren F1 and the Saleen S7. The summary shows that the Enzo’s braking prowess falls within the scope of the Viper’s. Where? In bold type at the bottom of every summary is information on significant difference. That is, the range within which performance differences can be considered similar and outside of which become significant.
"In every measure of performance there’s Dodge and Ferrari – then there’s everything else." "Get on your knees and bow in homage to the master…the Viper." "The Viper delivers such a groundforce of quaking performance it should come equipped with its own seismometer." "There is simply no other production car like the wholly brutal Viper." "The Viper is easily forgiven its price by virtue of its remarkable ability to bend time and space." "It cut a swath of destruction through our tests." Biased? All these statements are from various editions of Motor Trend in describing the Viper in head-to-head competition against Ferraris, Porsches and the like.
Car and Driver’s bit with the eggs and bacon on the SRT-10 was in poor taste. I will be the first to concede that. However, a single joke, albeit one in poor taste, does not mean they hate Vipers. They are critics, they criticize everyone. Has anyone read Automobile Magazine’s Eddie Alterman’s recent savaging of Porsche and their decision to build the Cayenne?
I’ll leave you with this excerpt by Car and Driver’s senior editor, Brock Yates in the September 2002 edition of Car and Driver.
All boldfaces are mine. Bias? There are no sacred cows guys. Magazines tag everyone, no exceptions.
Later.
. 
