ForcedTorque said:
What seems odd tho, is how the article was set up for the Mustang to win. I guess if they had used the price of the Mustang GT, something else would have been the best bang for the buck.
Yeah. I think it wasn't set up very fairly, with every category counting the same. Then just dividing the price in to figure out price for performance? If you look at the final chart there is only one exception to cheaper cars scoring higher... :3d_frown:
[edit] Oh yeah, a linear progression of points makes absolutely no sense. If you have one car that does the quarter mile in 20 seconds, another that does it in 15, and a third that does a 10, you wouldn't say that the 15 second car is directly between the two. It gets exponentially harder to improve performance the faster you go. The 5 seconds from 20 to 15 are not nearly as impressive as from 15 to 10. Therefore I wouldn't score those three cars 50, 75, and 100 respectively. Instead I'd at least go with a quadratic formula, something like 25, 56.25, 100 respectively.
You wouldn't expect that by doubling your money you will double points with the linear model. Therefore going with linear points will always help the cheap cars in price/performance. I wonder what would have happened to the final results if they stuck a crappy $7k car in there? [/edit]