Top Gear!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

All current Astons and the last two XK's have all been DB7 ripoffs. :p

---

So that makes it OK?

For £75k you could have a VXR8 and enough petrol to run it for a week. The VXR8 puts out 430bhp; that ought to be enough power.

Heck for £75 you could have a VXR8 and a VXR8 Maloo. I don't think that there'd be many other cars on sale in Britain in which you could do 140mph with a grand piano in the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

So that makes it OK?

---

I don't think that drawing inspiration from a DB7 and the E-Type (two of the best looking machines ever made) is a bad thing. :)

And hardly surprising considering Ian Callum designed the DB7, DB9 and XK.

Without a doubt the Kitty is the best looking of the 2 in the same way that Cheryl Cole is better looking than Susan Boyle but when it comes to singing, I know which one I'd choose.

XKR-S looks absolutely horrible. Even the seats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregor-y

I'm staggered at how few miles cars in the UK seem to accumulate.

.

---

Fuel is very expensive and the roads are very busy and we are a relatively small island with most places not too far away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregor-y

I'm staggered at how few miles cars in the UK seem to accumulate.

Rowan Atkinson did not disappoint, both as a guest and with his lap time.

---

35k miles in 15 years is exceptional. Caroline's car is more typical at 17 years and 220k miles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

For £75k you could have a VXR8 and enough petrol to run it for a week. The VXR8 puts out 430bhp; that ought to be enough power.

Heck for £75 you could have a VXR8 and a VXR8 Maloo. I don't think that there'd be many other cars on sale in Britain in which you could do 140mph with a grand piano in the back.

---

I'd rather buy a used, 400-500 BHP modified but not chavved up Evo/Impreza/Cosworth/Skyline/Supra etc for far cheaper

Liked Rowan. Loved the GTR. Looks like a weapon on the roads.

TG gave a crushing blow to the Jaguar's chances with this comparison. Who in the right mind would actually buy that crap Jag for almost 30,000 pounds more? :eek: It doesn't look any better, and would be absolutely MAULED by the GTR on the road or on the track. Loved Rowan's inch perfect fastest lap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

TG gave a crushing blow to the Jaguar's chances with this comparison. Who in the right mind would actually buy that crap Jag for almost 30,000 pounds more? :eek: It doesn't look any better, and would be absolutely MAULED by the GTR on the road or on the track. Loved Rowan's inch perfect fastest lap.

---

There are still people like Jon who want something like a Jag which isn't as good as the opposition ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

There are still people like Jon who want something like a Jag which isn't as good as the opposition ;)

---

And it's not even like it's maybe 5000 or 6000 pounds more, it's almost 30,000 pounds more!! What would one pay that ridiculous amount for? Ahem, *cough* looks *cough* or some false sense of national pride about British engineering? For 97,000 pounds you could buy a Nissan GTR (which is already better than the Jag in every aspect) + two more cars or buy yourself a better house. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

And it's not even like it's maybe 5000 or 6000 pounds more, it's almost 30,000 pounds more!! What would one pay that ridiculous amount for? Ahem, *cough* looks *cough* or some false sense of national pride about British engineering? For 97,000 pounds you could buy a Nissan GTR (which is already better than the Jag in every aspect) + two more cars or buy yourself a better house. :p

---

Exactly. I've never been one for the whole national pride thing, but the Brits seem to really be up for it. There's a reason why most British cars aren't popular outside of Britain ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Exactly. I've never been one for the whole national pride thing, but the Brits seem to really be up for it. There's a reason why most British cars aren't popular outside of Britain ;)

---

Also, Jaguar is now no longer entirely British. It's a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Motors. So, even if the cars are still made in Britain at Jaguar's factory, the money goes to India. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Exactly. I've never been one for the whole national pride thing, but the Brits seem to really be up for it. There's a reason why most British cars aren't popular outside of Britain ;)

---

Which would be fine if it just meant that Brits tended to buy more British cars, but that feeling of national pride extends to the media and even worse to the industry itself...

I've always been stumped as to why companies like Rover or the old motorbike companies felt that people should pay more for their stuff than 'inferior' Japanese or German products just because they were British... I guess thats why they disappeared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

Like I said, "real" racing drivers. :p Besides that might be the one of the reasons why Villeneuve isn't in F1 right now. Also, I don't get how that is relevant. That wasn't a guy being passionate about his car, that was his freakin huge ego costing his team money and inconvenience.



Like I said in my earlier post, regular folks like us would never be able to get a supercar to the limit on normal roads to know the difference, EVER. That MAY BE possible at a track day, but they'd be afraid to wreck it. Probably only the folks who have money to throw, like millionaires or billionaires, would do it. So, we're really talking about a really small group here. Also, not all billionaires t necessarily have to be good drivers. There are also morons.

At one of the tracks in India where I took part in the national karting championship, Mr. Vijay Mallya was the guest of honor. Before the race he uncovered his brand spanking new Porsche Carrera GT, wore an Arai helmet, squeezed his fat ass into Alpinestars racing overalls, got buckled up and everything, wanted to showboat, there was applause when he started the engine, he accelerated and then drove it straight into the wall wrecking the half a million dollar supercar.

Clarkson, Plato and Needell can all say what they want to, I still am free to make up my mind. Probably Mclaren didn't pay them enough marketing money. :p And I would still prefer the Mclaren because of the way it looks, sounds and what was said about it. A sweet handling supercar is my dream car, but well, us mere mortals can only dream. :D If you've ever struggled with an ill handling car during a race, you'd know what I'm talking about. And mind you, the Mclaren at full throttle would also need 'taming'. It's not like the car suddenly has 200% grip and you just turn at 200 mph without braking. But the best part about that car is you would have full confidence going into a corner, because you know exactly what the car is capable of. I have never met anybody in my life who just "loves" catching understeer or oversteer.

---

It appears that McLaren took the criticism of Clarkson on Top Gear, as well as those from EVO, Autocar and various other reviews rather more seriously and have made several changes to the cars actually going on sale, including a louder induction noise under heavy acceleration, light movement on the gear change paddles and an improved feel on turn in. It appears that they are very much realising that if they want this car to be the equal or better of the Ferrari 458, which is being touted as the benchmark they do need to improve certain areas. I have no doubts the McLaren was a lready a stunning car, but it might already be a little bit better as a result of the reviews that you so quickly derided, including Clarkson's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

It appears that McLaren took the criticism of Clarkson on Top Gear, as well as those from EVO, Autocar and various other reviews rather more seriously and have made several changes to the cars actually going on sale, including a louder induction noise under heavy acceleration, light movement on the gear change paddles and an improved feel on turn in. It appears that they are very much realising that if they want this car to be the equal or better of the Ferrari 458, which is being touted as the benchmark they do need to improve certain areas. I have no doubts the McLaren was a lready a stunning car, but it might already be a little bit better as a result of the reviews that you so quickly derided, including Clarkson's

---

Did you get a copy of EVO through the door too? :) I doubt Ferrari would allow that. In fact here's what Ferrari do How Ferrari spins

I'll take a McLaren in Papaya Orange thanks :)

as for the Jag v GTR thing, they really aren't genuine competitors, the Jag is a 2 seat sports GT coupe. It finished to a high standard and isn't built to be the last word in handling or trick electronics. It might be a base of a GT3 race car, but that will be a very different animal.

The GTR is all about showcasing the very best in electronically assitied chassis and driving dynamics, about going as quickly as possible, not about cruising, comfort or style. They are both very good at what they do, but they don't stack up as direct competitors for me. And being the absolute fastest is not the alsways the last word when you enjoy driving, its the feel you get from the car when driving it wherever you do your driving. If you spend a lot of time on the track then the GTR is more likely the car for you. As for buying British, we might be the only people buying Britis cars (more histroicvally than now as there really aren't any truly British mass manufacturers left), but the split of manufacturers is far wider in the UK than most other countries in Europe, where the French predominantly drive Renault, Peugeot or Citroen, the Germans VW, Audi, BMW, Merc and Opel, Swedes more Volvos and Saabs, Italians Fiats and Alfas. it was partly because the UK embraced the imports over the national manufactueres that they died out (and partly because they had a prolonged period of producing ****e)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

Did you get a copy of EVO through the door too? :) I doubt Ferrari would allow that. In fact here's what Ferrari do How Ferrari spins

I'll take a McLaren in Papaya Orange thanks :)

---

I did, and i have to say I'm very impressed with McLarens response and speed of implementing the changes. I think there are a lot of us who desperately wanted the McLaren to be the perfect car, and it seems it was so close in so many areas that these few changes might make all the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Which would be fine if it just meant that Brits tended to buy more British cars, but that feeling of national pride extends to the media and even worse to the industry itself...

I've always been stumped as to why companies like Rover or the old motorbike companies felt that people should pay more for their stuff than 'inferior' Japanese or German products just because they were British... I guess thats why they disappeared.

---

And because if I'm honest they British cars of the last 4 decades have in general been inferior in both quality and design to their continental and Japanese counterparts.

The British Leyland stuff and later Rover Group products were dismal. While their counterparts were starting to make advances in technology they were still churning out crap with live rear axles and so on. Type K series into google and the third result is head gasket, what does that tell you about the K series and its ability to blow head gaskets? ;)

Fords are better but take a look at previous model Ka's, the last Escorts and similar vintage Mondeos. They rust like buggery! Heck even Focii (though to be fair I don't think they were ever UK produced) are starting to rust. To me rust on the body of a car these days isn't acceptable at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

It appears that McLaren took the criticism of Clarkson on Top Gear, as well as those from EVO, Autocar and various other reviews rather more seriously and have made several changes to the cars actually going on sale, including a louder induction noise under heavy acceleration, light movement on the gear change paddles and an improved feel on turn in. It appears that they are very much realising that if they want this car to be the equal or better of the Ferrari 458, which is being touted as the benchmark they do need to improve certain areas. I have no doubts the McLaren was a lready a stunning car, but it might already be a little bit better as a result of the reviews that you so quickly derided, including Clarkson's

---

That's fine with me as long as they don't make the car's handling worse than before, just so that some people can get "thrills" from the back stepping out in corners. IMO if a car handles as perfectly as the new Mclaren, people really shouldn't complain. They should be happy that because of high level engineering they're now able to make a car which is just a precision beast. I don't find anything wrong with the looks either. Call me weird, but I prefer the look of the Mclaren than the IMO ugly Ferrari 458, especially its front arrangement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

That's fine with me as long as they don't make the car's handling worse than before, just so that some people can get "thrills" from the back stepping out in corners. IMO if a car handles as perfectly as the new Mclaren, people really shouldn't complain. They should be happy that because of high level engineering they're now able to make a car which is just a precision beast. I don't find anything wrong with the looks either. Call me weird, but I prefer the look of the Mclaren than the IMO ugly Ferrari 458, especially its front arrangement.

---

i believe the issue with the handling, that i read anyway, was the lack of feeling on turn in which in turn left the driver with a lack of confidence that the car was doing what the inputs requested, rather than providing an edgy handling car. It was roundly praised for its cornering ability and ride and in turn the speed it could hold in a long corner, but the initial turn in was what was raised and has apparently been addressed. Therefore it didn't handle perfectly, and the changes should take it up to a level where the 458 currently rules, which again has been proclaimed as one of the best handling cars ever.

and personally speaking i don't think i have a favourite, it changes from day to day, they are both exceptional, both fantastic looking in their own ways and I'll probably never drive let alone own either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

i believe the issue with the handling, that i read anyway, was the lack of feeling on turn in which in turn left the driver with a lack of confidence that the car was doing what the inputs requested, rather than providing an edgy handling car. It was roundly praised for its cornering ability and ride and in turn the speed it could hold in a long corner, but the initial turn in was what was raised and has apparently been addressed. Therefore it didn't handle perfectly, and the changes should take it up to a level where the 458 currently rules, which again has been proclaimed as one of the best handling cars ever.

---

I'm guessing Top Gear's track is a power track and that's why the Mclaren smoked the Ferrari 458 there. But then the car that topped the time-sheets, Ariel Atom, is almost a formula based car with massive downforce compared to the Mclaren and the Veyron, so that means handling is also a big factor there. Is there a lap time comparison between these two cars at a track which favors handling? I'm guessing the Mclaren is the better handling of the two, but they prefer the Ferrari for its better feel, not really better handling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

and personally speaking i don't think i have a favourite, it changes from day to day, they are both exceptional, both fantastic looking in their own ways and I'll probably never drive let alone own either

---

Well, ain't that the truth. I love the new Mclaren, but probably would never be able to buy it. And actually my dream car would be a Nissan GTR with performance upgrades, so it handles just like the Mclaren and goes like the Veyron. :D *Daydreaming* Buy it for 70,000 pounds, and then put 30,000 pounds worth of upgrades, and have an absolute beast on your hands. *Daydreaming*

Well, looked like a Rat was screaming round the track today. Hope he gets a bit more forward momentum rather than sideways on his fastest lap. Also a bit of fun with a F1.

EVO timed the Ferrari and McLaren round the Bedford Autodrome, which has a pretty good mix of handling and power, on a flying lap, and the Ferrari was just 1 sec quicker, although with more track biased tyres the McLaren cut that to something like 3 tenths. In the latest issue they reckon the changes would make some of the difference up, so in reality there is next to nothing between them in standard form round a track. Also worth bearing in mind that the Top Gear lap is taken from a standing start, which has a large bearing, even including the Atom, which is the quickest accelerating car going really

Excellent racing feature tonight.

want that Lotus, if i had £650k spare and my own race track I'd be all over one of them

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robinho

want that Lotus, if i had £650k spare and my own race track I'd be all over one of them

---

Do you actually own the car though? I was under the impression it was merely a service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

There are still people like Jon who want something like a Jag which isn't as good as the opposition ;)

---

I don't really care how fast a car is around the Top Gear test track. I don't give a **** if the GTR can go round the Follow-Through at 92mph and the Jag can only do it at 88mph. It's irrelevant.

I will never spend my own money on a car that looks like a dogs dinner, such at the GTR. No matter how fast it can take the Follow-Through. The Nissan is just a car that science designed, and that just doesn't excite me at all. As for the price issue, I said earlier, I'd still prefer a standard XKR at the same price as the GTR.

Cars aren't a product like a fridge or a lawn mower that you buy just with your head. You buy cars just as much with your heart. So I don't care if I end up with something that is technically inferior. I don't plan to ever own a Japanese car, but hopefully I'll own plenty of 'hopeless' Jags and Alfa's. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

You buy cars just as much with your heart. So I don't care if I end up with something that is technically inferior. I don't plan to ever own a Japanese car, but hopefully I'll own plenty of 'hopeless' Jags and Alfa's. :)

---

I think thats a little unfair on Japanese cars.

Ever thrashed a Honda Type R Integra with a hand finished engine to an inch of its 8700 redline? Felt its tail step out in a way no European maker dared to do back in the late 90s?

How about a smooth rotary engine coupe that feels more like a turbine to drive matched to a well handling RWD chassis.

Or a thrummy torquey flat four ahead of you with a rally-bred chassis?

None of those cars I describe lack character or passion.

Jaguars do nothing for me, nor do Astons. Why not? Because they're all modular constructions spun off the same platform designed and built with a bottom line at heart and a market niche to fill. Each designed specifically not to take sales away from the models above and below. Nothing there for the heart I'm afraid.

Now Alfa? Guilty of platform sharing and everything I criticise Aston and Jaguar for without the build quality but... I still want one. Lancia too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I think thats a little unfair on Japanese cars.

Ever thrashed a Honda Type R Integra with a hand finished engine to an inch of its 8700 redline? Felt its tail step out in a way no European maker dared to do back in the late 90s?

How about a smooth rotary engine coupe that feels more like a turbine to drive matched to a well handling RWD chassis.

Or a thrummy torquey flat four ahead of you with a rally-bred chassis?

None of those cars I describe lack character or passion.

Jaguars do nothing for me, nor do Astons. Why not? Because they're all modular constructions spun off the same platform designed and built with a bottom line at heart and a market niche to fill. Each designed specifically not to take sales away from the models above and below. Nothing there for the heart I'm afraid.

Now Alfa? Guilty of platform sharing and everything I criticise Aston and Jaguar for without the build quality but... I still want one. Lancia too.

---

Quite agree.

Passion is something that ****y motoring journalists use as an excuse for something being a poor car, or an underperforming car.

I don't think Jon has ever driven any of the things you've mentioned, probably too busy driving his 1.2 8v Grande Punto which is a Corsa with passion :p

If that Jag didn't have a Jag badge on it I doubt most people would look twice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I think thats a little unfair on Japanese cars.

Ever thrashed a Honda Type R Integra with a hand finished engine to an inch of its 8700 redline? Felt its tail step out in a way no European maker dared to do back in the late 90s?

How about a smooth rotary engine coupe that feels more like a turbine to drive matched to a well handling RWD chassis.

Or a thrummy torquey flat four ahead of you with a rally-bred chassis?

None of those cars I describe lack character or passion.

Jaguars do nothing for me, nor do Astons. Why not? Because they're all modular constructions spun off the same platform designed and built with a bottom line at heart and a market niche to fill. Each designed specifically not to take sales away from the models above and below. Nothing there for the heart I'm afraid.

Now Alfa? Guilty of platform sharing and everything I criticise Aston and Jaguar for without the build quality but... I still want one. Lancia too.

---

^^ This. I wonder how many people actually ignore really magnificent cars just because they're Japanese or Korean. IMO the Japanese have built some of the best cars in the last three decades. I especially love the Mazda RX-7, what a beast. Also, call me unconventional, I like the looks of the Nissan GT-R than the Jaguar. I also don't get what's the big deal with the Aston Martins, seriously. The Bond movies and Top Gear have made what's a so-so looking car into somewhat of a hyped up phenomenon. It's big, clunky, never wins anything in world competitions. The Porsche 911 ate it for breakfast around a track, with much lesser BHP.

What's the big deal about looks really? It's not like the Jag is so jaw droppingly beautiful. It's an OK looking car with crap engineering. Doesn't deserve the extra money.

http://www.jaguar-addict.co.uk/acata...s-pictures.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog...._specv_opt.jpg

I think the GT-R looks awesome. Also, knowing that it's a ridiculously stonking fast, neck-breaking monster, adds to its appeal.

Regarding Top Gear itself, last night's episode was one of the dullest I've watched. The Jensen piece was pointless, Saint Bob was mildly amusing, Jean Alesi was wasted, and the demolition challenge was just boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Regarding Top Gear itself, last night's episode was one of the dullest I've watched. The Jensen piece was pointless, Saint Bob was mildly amusing, Jean Alesi was wasted, and the demolition challenge was just boring.

---

The Interceptors tv theme bit was hilarious, but it was only a tiny bit of the episode. Agree with you on the rest though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

I don't think Jon has ever driven any of the things you've mentioned, probably too busy driving his 1.2 8v Grande Punto which is a Corsa with passion :p

---

:laugh: :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainRaiden

What's the big deal about looks really?

---

'That's like asking what was so great about Marilyn Monroe. If you have to ask the question in the first place then you will never understand'

I don't understand the obsession with speed on road cars. Maybe my opinion will change when I own something with more power or have enough free time to do track days, and if I was buying a car with the intention of using it for track days I'd get a Caterham or Westfield. But when a modern 1.2 supermini is comfortable at 85mph on the outside lane of a motorway, a young expensive to insure driver can't justify the cost of a fast car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel

If that Jag didn't have a Jag badge on it I doubt most people would look twice.

---

What do you think about the new Lancia Chryslers then? Looks like we'll be getting Lancias in the UK with a different name on them. I've always wanted a new Lancia but not sure I'd stretch that wish so far that I'd be prepared to buy one with a Chrysler badge on it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

I don't understand the obsession with speed on road cars. Maybe my opinion will change when I own something with more power or have enough free time to do track days, and if I was buying a car with the intention of using it for track days I'd get a Caterham or Westfield. But when a modern 1.2 supermini is comfortable at 85mph on the outside lane of a motorway, a young expensive to insure driver can't justify the cost of a fast car.

---

Personally I don't like the Skyline GTR either for the same reason, its way too fast.

Even if you head 'down' to BMW Z4 territory the cars are still way too fast to enjoy on the road safely.

Stick with classics, they'll give far more fun 90% of the time even when you're at or below the speed limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brown, Jon Brow

'That's like asking what was so great about Marilyn Monroe. If you have to ask the question in the first place then you will never understand'

I don't understand the obsession with speed on road cars. Maybe my opinion will change when I own something with more power or have enough free time to do track days, and if I was buying a car with the intention of using it for track days I'd get a Caterham or Westfield. But when a modern 1.2 supermini is comfortable at 85mph on the outside lane of a motorway, a young expensive to insure driver can't justify the cost of a fast car.

---

I have never found Marilyn Monroe "beautiful". She was a bimbo at best, a product of Hollywood propaganda, with next to no acting skills. I like other unconventional, non-mass-propagated beauties which have not won some pageant or I should like them because other people say so. Sure, if it's only superficial looks you're concerned with, then I won't bother with any of those two cars. There are much better looking cars in the market for much, much cheaper.

The discussion was about how can Jag justify that kind of price for giving that less, not about what you would choose as your everyday car. I don't think anybody on this forum is realistically looking to buy either of those cars. But if I was in the hypothetical situation of choosing one, I would choose the GT-R every time. I'll be shocked if after that TG episode, anyone would be a big enough sucker to buy the Jag for 30,000 GBP more. I'm not willing to pay more and get inferior machinery, just because of some "tingling" and "looks" that for some reason only the Brits find pretty.

As is the case with Monroe, and that Jaguar, beauty is only skin deep, and that doesn't interest me one bit.

Cars are like women. Some like them cheap, some expensive, some like vintage whereas others go for new models. Fat, thin, Single seaters or mpv's, European, Japanese, American or whatever.

Me, I like driving lots of different ones as often as possible :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan H

What do you think about the new Lancia Chryslers then? Looks like we'll be getting Lancias in the UK with a different name on them. I've always wanted a new Lancia but not sure I'd stretch that wish so far that I'd be prepared to buy one with a Chrysler badge on it...

---

I like the Delta, the Ypsilon is OK, but apparently the interior is a bit cheap and, well the others are just rebadged Chryslers so for me would be a no go.