Just been shown this..

[BlaRo]

Originally Posted by Northy

OMG OMG OMG sombody told the yanks that there cars are no good...who really cares as they only decent thing they really make is the Z06......the americans dont take banter very well do they....id have to say that you poms are much better and have a far greater sence of humour, its prolly why i love top gear...but at least we wont the cricket

Isn't it past your bedtime?

[American TG Man]

Originally Posted by Northy

OMG OMG OMG sombody told the yanks that there cars are no good...who really cares as they only decent thing they really make is the Z06......the americans dont take banter very well do they....id have to say that you poms are much better and have a far greater sence of humour, its prolly why i love top gear...but at least we wont the cricket

SOME Americans don't take the banter very well, other (namely, the ones on this page) enjoy it even if it degrades their country. If they don't like it, tough! they brought it on themselves! It sails right past me, and I even laugh at it.

As for, "yanks make crap cars," admittedly, they (mostly) do. They're improving, but still have a way to go. And there are some decent American cars: Viper, Saleen S7, Mosler MT900, Ford GT, most classic muscle cars...

[bartboy9891]

Originally Posted by Roberto

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/05/h...ting/#comments

Aside from the terrible article, look at comment 6

I can't believe someone could say that, what on earth makes people like that tick! He/she does not deserve to breath

If thats the sort of thing that happens after a mistake on a 5minute part of a 60minute television program it's no wonder the US has so many enemys. Absoultely diabolical!

Edited to say I think they have *rightfully* delteted it, for you information someone had written "Too bad the accident didn't succeed"

It's a comment on the internet, does any one care?

[efoolution]

Originally Posted by bartboy9891

It's a comment on the internet, does any one care?

Well, the internet does ...

Man can´t invent a Perpetuum Mobile, but there is one thing that fuels itself and will never stop ... Comments on Comments on the Net ...

[Ventura6]

Originally Posted by GraemeH

This reminds me of the Z06 review. He absolutely LOVED the car and praised it no end. Then people berate him for pointing out some down sides as if it was a negative review.

Who did that? I for one thought that the Z06 review was more than fair when it came to the driving experience. Everything Clarkson came up with was right in line with my Corvette experiences.

When it comes to Clarkson's and Hammond's constant jibber-jabbering about "leaf-springs," you have to wonder why they keep doing, in light of the Corvette not having "leaf-springs." But that's been covered enough already in other threads. With pictures and everything.

Bottom line is, when Top Gear gives inaccurate information, seemingly on purpose, it affects how people see the cars, and how people perceive the show. They should behave more responsibly in their reviews. In fact, if anyone at the BBC is listening, I will gladly review Top Gear episode's in advance to make sure that these kinds of things don't happen in the future.

[NecroJoe]

The whole reason they quote BHP rather than whp...that way they can say "It has the same 350hp engine from Car X" no matter how many different cars they put it in. Otherwise, they would have to post different WHP's for every transmission/engine/tire/wheel combination. All of those things affect the whp. So, Ford has a 300hp V-8 engine in the Mustang GT. That engine puts out 300 bhp, no matter what vehicle it's in. If they had to report whp, it would be a different number for 16" wheels compared to 17" or 19". The whp would be different between the manual and automatic transmissions.

Reporting engine HP just makes sense. Top Gear was purposefully misleading.

[eMKay]

Heh, I saw that coming a mile away. TG made a huge mistake with the dyno. any enthusiast knows the difference between crank and wheel horsepower, I would sort of expected Top Gear to know the difference as well. I'm not totally surprised, as they have showed their ignorance before. But of course, it's a comedy show and not in any way factual.

[eMKay]

Originally Posted by Nellus

Correct me if I'm wrong, but BHP is the same as WHP...
Brake Horse Power, as in the amount of horsepower at the brakes, or that the brakes has to stop. Seems pretty similar to Wheel Horsepower, considering the brakes are attached to the wheels....

BHP is essentially the same as crank HP, there is no difference.

[Cuervo79]

I"m still lost man, I don't get what's the banter for, its like they didn't ever read a US car magazine where most state that the "paper written HP" is allways "uplifted" to what they actually had, having the 500HP (or 470whp) is great in my opinion. When I was used to read that sports cars didn't allways have the BHP that the manufacturer said it had.

[Spectre]

Originally Posted by bamf

BHP is actually even further from reality...it is the amount of power generated by engine without any attachments like the gear box, exhaust systems, waterpump etc etc. So it's the power of an engine on an engine dyno outside of the car. Brake refers to the "brake band" device used to measure torque and thereby BHP.

HP (SAE) the American standard, is the measure of the horsepower at the flywheel with an installed engine with all the parts like emission control components, waterpump etc etc. So while it's not WHP, it's certainly more of an accurate representation of the actual power of the car than that of BHP. The Germans do something similar except they use a metric power rating, I don't recall those units.

Um.... SAE horsepower (either gross or net) is sometimes written as "brake horsepower". It's an acceptable term. You are confusing SAE Gross HP with BHP. Gross was the method you describe in the first paragraph and was done up to the 70s. Net is the engine *as it is to be installed in the car* with the full intake and exhaust, pumping its own coolant and oil, turning the same cooling fan it is to use in the car, etc,. etc.

SAE Gross was sometimes known as "marketing horsepower" because it was "whatever the marketing department wanted it to be" and bore little or no resemblance to reality.

[Sarnya]

Originally Posted by Roberto

and makesure it isnt harmful to the wild bats of Tasmania

Leave the Tasmanian wild bats alone... they didnt say anything about the dyno test... in fact they told me that it was quite acceptable

[Capacious Boot]

Originally Posted by Roberto

What on earth makes you think you have the right to that If they do that, it should/would be done by a British person. Also, if they do that it becomes like a pansy American show where people have to censor it and makesure it isnt harmful to the wild bats of Tasmania pffft, absurd. We aren't a nanny state...yet

Now I'm not positive, but I would guess that his offer to preview the Top Gears is similar to Jeremy's offer to let Cameron Diaz sleep with him if she can get 50 mpg out of her Prius.

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by Roberto

Also, if they do that it becomes like a pansy American show where people have to censor it and makesure it isnt harmful to the wild bats of Tasmania pffft, absurd. We aren't a nanny state...yet

I dont know where censoring comes into it, its about providing factual information about the products they review. They can say what they like when it comes their opinion, but the facts should be checked/researched properly and presented so as not to mislead.