Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site uwvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!uwvax!pal
From: pal@uwvax.ARPA (Anil A. Pal)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Imported (Car Reviews)
Message-ID: <1033@uwvax.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 18-Aug-83 13:31:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwvax.1033
Posted: Thu Aug 18 13:31:29 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Aug-83 23:45:25 EDT
References: <493@ihuxl.UUCP>
Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept
Lines: 19

I read one British magazine (CAR, I think, which had a good/bad/ugly section,
also called boring/good/interesting).
It was my impression that they were biased strongly pro-British and
anti-Japanese.
Also, the reviews were of little comparative value.  I don't need them to tell
me that a $50,000 Ferrari accelerates better than a $5,000 Honda Civic.
One characteristic they seemed to find highly desirable in a car was
"character", or what I prefer to call "unreliability/inconvenience".
Hence a standard review would read something like:
Good finish, comfortable ride, excellent economy/reliability, no CHARACTER,
typical Jap.
[I found the use of "Jap" rather offensive]
Disclaimer : This is my opinion only.

Anil Pal
U. of Wisconsin
pal@uwisc      seismo!uwvax!pal

P.S. Why am I complaining, they rated the Accord (I have one) well.