On Wed, 11 Oct 2000, Alex Harris wrote:
> 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).
>
I agree... Its easy to let our emotions take over when faced with
an injustice, wether real or perceived. I would suggest doing some
research, and presenting them with the facts. We know that a V6 has
more power than they say, and that their track numbers are not
representitive of the whole. Who knows, maybe they tested a sick
Dak? (My 5200lb 318ci Ram 4x4 with 3.55s and 33" mudders went 17.90,
so I KNOW a V6 dak can't possibly run as slow as 18.5.)
Anyway, data on all of the trucks listed in their letter should
be available from the likes of Car & Driver, Motor Trend, etc. Personal
1/4mi times would be OK if nothing else is available, but if you can use
published data generated by professionals with bone stock trucks, you
have a strong case. Armed with that data, it seems to me that the
direction to take would be presenting it to them, and questioning
their "commitment to the consumer". If their testing is so flawed, why
should anyone believe them? Do they have a hidden agenda, or are they
merely incompetent? Perhaps they made a mistake. Etc... If they
are truly as concerned as they say, they will want to look into the
situation, whatever the cause.
When gathering the data, don't forget to compare the weights of
the trucks too... For example, if an S-10 is both lighter and slower
than a Dak, then the V6 can hardly be called anemic, now can it?
Good luck, whichever path you take! :-)
-Jon-
.---- Jon Steiger ----- jon@dakota-truck.net or jon@twistedbits.net ------.
| Affiliations: AOPA, DoD, EAA, NMA, NRA, SPA, USUA; Rec & UL Pilot - SEL |
| '92 Ram 150 4x4 V8, '96 Dakota V8, '96 Intruder 1400, '96 FireFly 447 |
`------------------------------ http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ----'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:55:57 EDT