From: Dave on 30 Mar 2007 08:28 Larry wrote: > > I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it > useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims. > This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford > commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD > Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested > a FWD Fusion. > Larry > That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid comparison.
From: Leythos on 30 Mar 2007 08:39 On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:28:32 +0000, Dave wrote: > Larry wrote: > >> >> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it >> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims. >> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford >> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD >> Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested >> a FWD Fusion. >> Larry >> > > That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same > ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid comparison. Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing performance. -- Leythos spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: C. E. White on 30 Mar 2007 08:40 "Larry" <larrydykeman(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1175189762.786650.256500(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find > it > useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims. That's fine. I just think they deliberatly constructed the commercial to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional brakes. Instead of running a 0-60-0 comparison, they could have run a straigth 0-60 and/or 60-0 comparison. But if they had done that, only the 0-60 would have been exceptional. By doing the commercial as shown, they were trying to make people think the brakes were really good - when they aren't anything special. > This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford > commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD > Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had > tested > a FWD Fusion. > Larry I test drove both an AWD and a FWD Fusion and honestly couldn't tell much difference. But I didn't run one through a slalom course. I got the AWD one anyhow. You can't get an AWD Camry or Accord. I don't know how the 4 cylinder FWD Fusion would have compared to the Accord or Camry. According to the Consumer Reports road tests, a 4 cylinder Fusion (well actually the Mercury version) accelerated as fast a 4 cylinder Camry, and the FWD version handled the same as the AWD version. The Ford V-6 is plenty strong and the interior is very nice. A FWD Camry equipped like my AWD Fusion would have been at least $3000 more, plus I would have had to deal with the lousy Toyota dealers in my area. Ed
From: Dave on 30 Mar 2007 09:00 Leythos wrote: > On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:28:32 +0000, Dave wrote: > >> Larry wrote: >> >>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it >>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims. >>> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford >>> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD >>> Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested >>> a FWD Fusion. >>> Larry >>> >> That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same >> ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid comparison. > > Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing > performance. > But it DOES when buying a vehicle!
From: Leythos on 30 Mar 2007 09:09
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:00:35 +0000, Dave wrote: > Leythos wrote: >> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:28:32 +0000, Dave wrote: >> >>> Larry wrote: >>> >>>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it >>>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims. >>>> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford >>>> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD >>>> Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested >>>> a FWD Fusion. >>>> Larry >>>> >>> That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same >>> ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid comparison. >> >> Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing >> performance. >> > > But it DOES when buying a vehicle! Not really. I've been looking at new SUV's to replace my Dakota Quad 4x4 V8 and have found that the 4Runner, Highlander, FJ, etc... all have around the same price at the high end, but they have vastly different performance specs. Cost is not a good indicator of performance. If the vehicles tested are being tested to show performance, then they should be of very close specs, cost would not be part of the equation. After the performance stats were show they could list the cost of each, but my guess is that their car would be higher priced than what they competed against or they would have bragged about it. -- Leythos spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) |