Comparing cars is never exactly "Apples to Apples"....

Had an AMC fan who was offended by my calling the Javelin / AMX "The welterweight champ." He said I wasn't comparing Apples to apples. Well, now were splitting hairs. What I said was-the TOP engine available in a Javelin in 1969 was a 390 V8 rated at 315 hp, while the BASE engine in a Road Runner was a 383 rated at 335, and the BASE engine in an SS396 Chevelle was rated at 325 hp with a 375 hp option. I also stated that the BASE engine in a GTO was a 400 rated at 350 hp with the under-rated RAIII and RAIV models rated at 366 hp and 370 hp respectively, and that the Charger and the Road Runner had the 440 4bbl, the 440 Six-Pack and Hemi optional.  I also stated that when AMC increased displacement to 401 cubes in 1971, GM had lifted the ban on engines over 400 cubes in the intermediates, so now you could get a 454 in a Chevelle or a 455 in a GTO or 442.  Now, technically comparing a car with 401 cubes to a car with 455 is a little unfair, all other things being equal. But those were the top engine options for each model.  In the late '70s you could could get a 400 Pontiac in a Trans-Am, while the Z/28 Camaro and Corvette's only engine was a 350. Should magazine writers have only tested the Z/28 and the 'Vette against a base model Firebird with a 350?  In the '80s the only engine in the Mustang GT was a 302 V8, while you could get a 350 in a Z/28 Camaro or Firebird Formula or Trans-Am. Should Car and Driver and Hot Rod, etc only tested the Mustang against the 305 Camaros and Firebirds?  This crap still goes on to this day. Car and Driver was accused of being "Pro-GM" because they tested a Camaro SS against a Mustang GT and a Challenger R/T. The 426 hp Camaro beat the 375 hp Challenger and 412 hp Mustang in a drag race.   The Mopar and Ford guys griped that they should have used an SRT8 Challenger and a Shelby GT500. When C / D responded by saying they were trying to be fair in testing the mid-level models, and that if they used a 470 hp SRT8 Challenger and a 540 hp Shelby Mustang, then they would have had to use a 580 hp ZL1 Camaro, and the results might have been the same, the Mopar and Ford guys still cried foul. Car and Driver's position, and mine is-they were comparing the mid-level and top of the line of each model. If one had a bigger engine or a better suspension-( The Mustang smoked the Camaro and the Challenger on the skidpad and around Willow Springs raceway ) then that's the breaks.  I mean why don't we compare a BMW M3 to a Chrysler Town and Country van and a Toyota Tacoma pickup? I mean all 3 of them have 4.0 liter engines right?  Let's compare a 1987 Buick Grand National to a 1987 Olds Cutlass Ciera. They both have fuel-injected 231 inch V6's right?  I have nothing against AMC's, but the bottom line is in the late '60's and early '70s, GM, Ford and Chrysler offered more powerful engines as standard and optional equipment. Spare me your 11 second time slips from your AMC cars-my much modified, 4.33 geared Judge sucked up and spit out it's share of LS6 Chevelles, 429 SCJ Torinos and Hemi Chargers.  That doesn't mean a stock one would do the same. I know guys with 9 second 5.0 Mustangs. But stock-they ran high 14s and low 15s. And bone-stock is what we were talking about. I stand ready to apoligize if anyone has a problem with comparing the top dog of one car line to the top dog of the other.  Mastermind