Really quite a pointless review. It should just have been a straight shoot out between the Merc and the Beemer. What's the point of seeing if the Golf can keep up with the merc, I mean c'mon 230bhp vs 350bhp . You don't need a rocket scientist to work out the result of that test.
It kinda reminds me of Moneyball (Who has seen it/read it? If you haven't go do so now! Awesome look at management and at statistics, let alone the underdog and pioneer aspects of the story.)
$40million vs $110million
Oakland A's vs NY YankeesThe point, one of the points, of that story is that its not just about what you can do, it is also about doing it efficiently. --- EDIT: sh!t forgot about spoilers, so removed this bit --- Arguably the same applies here:
£40k vs £28k
A45 AMG vs GTI PerformanceIs the AMG worth the extra money, or does the Golf offer more bang for its buck? Another example would be the way horse power is thrown around by cars like the VXR and Megan 265. Horse power alone is no use, its how you get it on the road that matters. Statistics are not helpful if they are not properly understood.
Then again I tend to agree with you, this isn't how road tests should really be done. Few people are going to choose between an A45 and a GTI, it will be RS3 vs A45 and Focus ST vs GTI (or whatever). Hypothetically they could have decided the A45 is overpriced and then made a case against it with the GTI as an example of better value, but an open ended road test? Bit silly really.