| Irace86.2.0 |
03-29-2017 12:07 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
(Post 2880605)
Hmmm, a video game comparision is ridiculously informative. Especially a video game that's closer to the arcade side of things rather than simulation. But, you go Glenn Coco!
:thumbsup:
|
I was just thinking the information on the car was informative. Also, there is not a lot of rear/mid engine sports cars these days under 100k, so I appreciate the effort. +1 for a small displacement engine that is high reving, turbocharged in a light car too.
I didn't even wait for the head to head; my bad, sorry, didn't think you meant just the head to head.
I find head to head comparisons entertaining at best but rarely informative anyways. Don't you? Seems like they are always comparing apples to oranges in price, power delivery, weight or class, only to claim something is a few seconds faster on their track or 0.3 seconds faster to 60 then they will say the slower one is more fun. It is all entertaining and all, but a person can't determine happiness through a surrogate in some video and probably won't be happy buying a car only for it being the fastest by slim margins compared to others in its class.
Ill have to watch the video to know for sure but I'm guessing the comparison was to entertain, and mostly it was to capture the attention of buyers who like light weight, great handling sports cars. Considering this thread I would have to say success on their part.
|