Vs BMW M3 vs C63AMG vs RS4 - Objective Opinion Comparison

[coolraoul]

I agree, the tiltle is an oxymoron. But "subjective opinion" has not more sense, because an opinion is always subjective.

However, the title "objective opinion" is more adapted, because i think this article is less subjective than others, so this title is more clear about the fact that this test is interesting because it wants to be more objective; see my point?

This title is in theory kind of wrong, but is clear about the characteristics of the articles, so is adapted and should be kept.

The aim of a title is to be clear, informative and eye-catching. The actual title fulfills this mission better than "a subjective opinion", which does not reflect the inside of the article! And is wrong too...

 

[Centurion]

I disagree, the author explains pretty well the pros and cons of M3 and RS4, and does not said "this one is better,...". He then gives his choice, but only after having explained that both have their pros and cons! And he seems less subjective than many others to me.

Regardless of what he says about the C63 and M3 he did crown the RS4 the king at the end. That makes the whole comparison subjective especially when the RS4 is AWD and is very different from the M3 and C63 when it comes to driving dynamics. By choosing the RS4 he makes it clear that he prefer it over the C63 and M3.

This isn't different from any other comparison where the M3 comes out on top.

 

[Sunny]

An objective comparison would have been one where they would just compare the numbers.

 

[coolraoul]

Sunny, numbers does not say everything about cars, for me. The way they drive, react, "talk with you" is much more important. or the comfort, for some vehicules, or... Impressions are what make a car pleasant or not to drive.

Luwalira, I know he said he prefered the RS4. And he did not really tested the C63. But he explained the reasons why he preferred the RS4, and said a lot about the respective qualities of each. That's why it is more objective to me, he did ot say, the XXX is better, because ...., and that's it, like a lot of test does.

he explained his choice, explained it can be different because no one is really better than the other. It is only at the end that he looses a bit of objectivity...

 

[Sunny]

Sunny, numbers does not say everything about cars, for me. The way they drive, react, "talk with you" is much more important. or the comfort, for some vehicules, or... Impressions are what make a car pleasant or not to drive.

Luwalira, I know he said he prefered the RS4. And he did not really tested the C63. But he explained the reasons why he preferred the RS4, and said a lot about the respective qualities of each. That's why it is more objective to me, he did ot say, the XXX is better, because ...., and that's it, like a lot of test does.

he explained his choice, explained it can be different because no one is really better than the other. It is only at the end that he looses a bit of objectivity...

Numbers doesn't say everything to me either, but that is what an objective comparison would be.

Just cause he explains his preference for one car or the other, doesn't make the comparison any less subjective. And this is not something limited to cars either, the same rules applies to a book review or a movie critique.

 

[coolraoul]

Well, I see your point Sunny. But, he did not say all the review long that the XX is better, the YYYY is not as...., you see? He tryed to understand both cars (because he did not properly tested the C63), to see where they are good and where they are less good, without saying cash that the RS4 is better because that or that.
I have the impreission that he tried to see, to test both cars more objectively, giving fair impressions o both. Giving their pros and cons, without beeing too biased.

It is only at the end that he became more subjective, more like other journalists, and said he preferred the RS4. He said it is better...here he is a bit biased; but the rest of the review is pretty fair for me.

 

[Sunny]

Well, I see your point Sunny. But, he did not say all the review long that the XX is better, the YYYY is not as...., you see? He tryed to understand both cars (because he did not properly tested the C63), to see where they are good and where they are less good, without saying cash that the RS4 is better because that or that.
I have the impreission that he tried to see, to test both cars more objectively, giving fair impressions o both. Giving their pros and cons, without beeing too biased.

It is only at the end that he became more subjective, more like other journalists, and said he preferred the RS4. He said it is better...here he is a bit biased; but the rest of the review is pretty fair for me.

I never said he was not being fair or biased, in fact I think he did a pretty good job. Just that it is not accurate to call it an objective comparison.

 

[martinbo]

To simplify matters in this rather enjoyable discussion, isn't it fair to say that if car X understeers at the limit and car Y oversteers at the limit that this constitutes an objective assessment?

The subjectivity arises when the author would attempt to realise an outcome by saying which characteristic (oversteer or understeer) is preferable... Of course, Oosthuizen's opinion remains subjective but at least it is a well founded and balanced opinion.

 

[coolraoul]

This exactly that. It is an opinion of course, but fair and well explained, and allowing the possibility to say "I would prefer the other because...".