Well, they've provided the reasons why they made their statement. How about
countering it with some contrasting data and a well-reasoned response?
While I'm sure they "appreciate" your enthusiasm, I don't know what good it
would do besides convincing them you're a lunatic! ;-)
Our *opinion* doesn't mean jack to anyone but ourselves (which is good
enough for me, of course, because I'm the only one that has to drive my
truck). Anyone got some documented track runs with a stock 3.9L you can send
them that dispute their findings, or other specific reasons why their
results might be misleading or inaccurate (e.g. Bernd's comment about gear
ratios)? I don't think hissy fits are going to make anyone change their
minds about track numbers (and they shouldn't).
- Alex/StL
'00 RC SLT V6 5-Speed
Autolite 3923's, Homebrew K&N
>> Hey Bernd..we need to reply to this in mass quantities...Lets flood these
>> scum bags with lots of e-mail..
++++++++++
>
> I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS LYING DOWN...NO SIR!!!
>
> We should all drive our Dakotas out to Consumer Reports HQ,and circle the
> building...
>
> These ***holes haven't heard the last from me..
>
++++++++++
> Subject: DML: Re: "I just sent the following to CONSUMER REPORTS"
>
>
> HOW MANY MILES DID YOUR DAKOTA HAVE ON IT WHEN YOU TESTED IT?
> HOW OLD WAS THE DRIVER?
> HOW MUCH WEIGHT WAS IN THE CARGO BOX WHEN YOU TESTED IT?
>
>
> Personally i DISAGREE with your findings.It is a crock of S**T!
>
> A Ford Ranger getting a better time from 0-60 than a V6 Dakota??
>
> BULL****!
>
>
> You can expect a flood of e-mail from my fellow members.
>
> Plenty of Pissed Off Owners..
>
> Excuse me,but my opinion IS ACCURATE!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:55:57 EDT