[g__day (Matthew)]

Somewhat agree - but what I'm asking for are meaningful benchmarks of essential features. For instance if a review clearly said of 3 goto mounts

Model__Price____PE____Capacity (Kg)
EQ6___$2,400__+/-22___22
G8____$4,000__ +/- 8___13
SXD___$2,950__+/- 7___15

Well you could rapidly assess their fit to purpose.

I want image of 40 minutes on a guided rig capable of carrying 12 Kgs - I can guess what will best suit my purpose.

Let's say my budget is $10k - 13k, the OTA load is 28 kgs and the imaging time is 120 minutes guided. I can still use the above factors to compare a Losmandy Titan, a Tak NJP or EM400, an AP900 or AP1200. Well the same table applies:

Model____Price______PE_____Capacity (Kg)
Titan____$11,000___+/- 4______45
NJP______$ 9,200___+/- 3.5____30
EM400___$11,300___+/- 3.5____39
AP900___$11,357___+/- 3______35
AP1200__$13,429___+/- 2______45

Using the same parameters you could rule out the Vixen Atlux and prioritise the remaining mounts.

Now many of my other points relate to quality control. Nothing would stop a manufacturer reviewing at least 1 in 5 of its scopes for quality assurance (more if problems are often found - less if all is regularily good).

How many really good reviews of mounts have you read - versus the sort that go "The CGE looks great - sleek and modern, nearly all of its cables are hidden from view. Out of the box set-up is easy and it just works!" - yes all true, but whilst its bearing are great, its gears are significantly poorer in quality than the older G11 (so its 15 arc minutes vs 7 in periodic error). The reviewer should say so - it looks great, carries more and points and tracks alot worse than the equivalent Losmandy.