I too think crunch ratings are subjective. Particularly when one is used to a type of game. For me, TFT is very low crunch, and GURPS is medium-crunch, but games I'm not familiar with can look very crunchy.
My scale of how crunchy things are is a bit like:
10 - some ridiculous homebrew experiments I've done with impulse movement, momentum, etc
9 - Phoenix Command, Attack Vector: Tactical
8 -
7 - GURPS 4e character creation options, GURPS as I play it with various house rules, GURPS Technical Grappling
6 - GURPS 3e
5 - GURPS 1e/2e
4 - GURPS Man To Man, Orcslayer
3 - TFT
2 -
1 - Microscope
I can deal with up to about level 7, and am willing to do so if and only if I think it's worth it to do so.
But I don't want crunch for crunch's sake. I only want crunch that serves a purpose I care about. Like, yes, I do want to track specific wounds suffered by important characters, because it's interesting to me, it's often very relevant to whether they succeed or die and what happens to them, and I like games that are about such details and have satisfying mechanics about them. I'm also so used to doing it, that it doesn't feel very crunchy to me to do so. I only developed a taste for doing that after years of play.
Oh, and I also tend to insulate most players from most of the crunch I do as GM. I can run crunch-7 GURPS without the players needing to know anything about GURPS, by translating everything into English.