[01x02] November 28th, 2010

[MattMan]

lol, TG does not create a good source for facts...just saying

So true. If you're watching Top Gear UK for factual car reviews, I bet you watch the Daily Show for your main news source as well.

I love my Top Gear, but let's be honest, it's good for entertainment not for facts.

 

[Blind_Io]

So true. If you're watching Top Gear UK for factual car reviews, I bet you watch the Daily Show for your main news source as well.

I love my Top Gear, but let's be honest, it's good for entertainment not for facts.

These days the Daily Show is the best source for news - or at least to de-spin the major news networks.

 

[K5ING]

I'm watching this episode right now, specifically the bit with the EVO. At first I thought they had closed the road for the shoot, but it looks like it was open the whole time.

It will be interesting to see what Top Gear can do without insane health and safety or BBC regulations.

I saw that too. I must be getting old because it caused me to cringe a bit. Hooning and drifting on an open public road, going by 30mph speed limit signs at 50mph was irresponsible to do, and even more irresponsible to show on camera.

 

[gregworldny]

Saying it does more power per displacement also is accurate. Maybe useless in your opinion, but accurate.

Germany does have TV, indeed. In fact, many TV-related inventions come from here. Ever heard of a cathode ray tube or CRT? German invention. First electromechanical television system? German invention. Russians and others did a lot of work as well obviously.

I think you know exactly what i mean. When Tanner says "the Lancer Evo produces more HP per liter than a Ferrari F430", it goes into people's minds as "wouah, the engine in the Lancer is better than the F430". Which is nowhere near the truth. Who knows how much you would get out of Ferrari V8 if you put one or more enormous turbos!?

 

[victorloya]

May i ask, why? You know it just might be possible that they deserve it.

Yes @MattD1zzl3, there are some cars that deserve it. Just like when Jeremy compared a top of the range Ford Mondeo vs a BMW 3 series, he prefered the Mondeo because of equipment, price and exclusivity. Not to mention Richard's love for muscle cars.

Whats wrong with them defending their cars, do you think top gear UK has no bias and stereotypes of American cars ever?

Yes @steve216, there may be stereotypes, and that may be result for the different type of appreciation of what a great car may be. All I want to see, is TGUS being critical with their own car industry, for their own sake. Like when Jeremy rode the latest supercharged Range Rover, even though it is his favorite SUV, he said that it was expensive, it had the worst fuel efficiency, and selling it supercharged in times like this, was out of place. (s14e04)

It's ok if they have a natural favoritism over US cars, but I expect them not to be blinded by it and let it become some sort of subtle propaganda.

I don't recall Ford being bailed out.

You're right @FruityLexia, Ford was not bailed out. I stand corrected.

 

[gregworldny]

i honestly don't what you are trying to prove here? are you saying that when Top Gear UK does a power/liter ratio comparison, it's legitimate and forgivable, but when the US version does the same thing, it has no relevance to the segment?
is that what you are trying to get at?

No. I never noticed this kind of comparison in TGUK. But if they did, they would be both very wrong.

 

[K5ING]

I've interviewed Tanner more times than I can count. I'll be the first to say he's bland on camera (or "compellingly understated" as his agent would probably say) but I'll be the last person to say he's dumb. He's a gifted driver, not a gifted orator.

I think he would have been a better Stig than presenter (unless he IS the Stig already).

My issue with Tanner is that while he may be a drifting champion, drifting is to autosport what rap is to music. Anyone can do it and it takes a minimum of talent. It takes far more talent to keep a car from drifting on a highspeed racecourse than it does to make it lose traction. Hell...I used to drive drift-style all the time when I lived around Chicago and there was any snow on the roads. Yes, I know doing it on pavement is harder, but I don't have the money to waste a set of tires to do much practicing.

 

[Blind_Io]

I saw that too. I must be getting old because it caused me to cringe a bit. Hooning and drifting on an open public road, going by 30mph speed limit signs at 50mph was irresponsible to do, and even more irresponsible to show on camera.

It looks like they had the crew on the corner to spot for traffic. I've been very vocal in the past in opposition to crossing the double-yellow, but it looked like they took precautions to ensure safety.

 

[robb08]

I didn't like this one as much.
I did like the Evo race however, but only because it took place relativly near to where I live.
The "drift competition" was BS. It was a waste of precious time, film, money, and tires. It was just stupid.
They need to try harder.

 

[steve216]

Yes @MattD1zzl3, there are some cars that deserve it. Just like when Jeremy compared a top of the range Ford Mondeo vs a BMW 3 series, he prefered the Mondeo because of equipment, price and exclusivity. Not to mention Richard's love for muscle cars.




Yes @steve216, there may be stereotypes, and that may be result for the different type of appreciation of what a great car may be. All I want to see, is TGUS being critical with their own car industry, for their own sake. Like when Jeremy rode the latest supercharged Range Rover, even though it is his favorite SUV, he said that it was expensive, it had the worst fuel efficiency, and selling it supercharged in times like this, was out of place. (s14e04)

It's ok if they have a natural favoritism over US cars, but I expect them not to be blinded by it and let it become some sort of subtle propaganda.




You're right @FruityLexia, Ford was not bailed out. I stand corrected.

True but it has just been 2 episodes so far and they have reviewed some of great cars like the acr, if they continue to give good reviews for cars that don't deserve them I'll agree, but for now its still a little early to call it propaganda.

 

[ricochet]

My issue with Tanner is that while he may be a drifting champion, drifting is to autosport what rap is to music.

Before he he was being paid to drift, Tanner was a top driver in the US Rally Series. Fact was, drifting simply paid better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkp3cJdOAuU (First interview with Tanner at 2:20. A Mitsu EVO in this event, but previous couple years he drove a Subaru.)

You'll note that he came in third overall in this event. Just behind ACP (now host of "Ultimate Car Buildoff" on Discovery Channel -- which, coincidentally, features at least one former member of the "Top Gear" NBC production team) and Travis Pastrana.

 

[DubyaStep]

These days the Daily Show is the best source for news - or at least to de-spin the major news networks.

omg, there is so much left spin on his news is unreal, still funny though!

 

[K5ING]

Before he he was being paid to drift, Tanner was a top driver in the US Rally Series. Fact was, drifting simply paid better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkp3cJdOAuU (First interview with Tanner at 2:20. A Mitsu EVO in this event, but previous couple years he drove a Subaru.)

You'll note that he came in third overall in this event. Just behind ACP (now host of "Ultimate Car Buildoff" on Discovery Channel -- which, coincidentally, features at least one former member of the "Top Gear" NBC production team) and Travis Pastrana.

I stand corrected. Thanks. Rally driving indeed takes lots of skill.

Drifting pays better than rally driving? There is no justice in this world.

I stand by my "drifting is to motorsports is what rap is to music" statement however.

 

[Initial_B]

I think you know exactly what i mean. When Tanner says "the Lancer Evo produces more HP per liter than a Ferrari F430", it goes into people's minds as "wouah, the engine in the Lancer is better than the F430". Which is nowhere near the truth. Who knows how much you would get out of Ferrari V8 if you put one or more enormous turbos!?

so what if Ferrari actually DID put a turbo in their V8? it would end up getting too much power and the EVO X still be a better choice. having a turbocharger in 2.0 liter doesn't make it automatically better than a Ferrari. both cars have their own strong points as well as their own weak points. and maybe one will come out the victor by whoever deems it.

No. I never noticed this kind of comparison in TGUK. But if they did, they would be both very wrong.

what do you mean "if they did"? they have and they will continue to use that type of comparison. this comparison has been longed used before the old original format of Top Gear came to be. it's not mis-leading anyone, but if i had to guess it just seems that you simply don't understand on how all cars are actually reviewed. it's nothing more than a typical comparison, not false advertising.

if Honda's K20 4 cyl. makes 200 hp and Ferrari's F430 4.3 V8 makes 483 hp, than the Ferrari makes 112 hp per liter and Honda makes 100 hp per liter. a difference of 12 hp per liter. this a comparison and not to show how weak or strong an engine is.

I didn't like this one as much.
I did like the Evo race however, but only because it took place relativly near to where I live.
The "drift competition" was BS. It was a waste of precious time, film, money, and tires. It was just stupid.
They need to try harder.

sounds like typical Top Gear UK shenanigans to me...

besides, what do you care if a cable channel waste film, money and tires? what kind of pointless babble was this?

 

[Merc63]

I stand by my "drifting is to motorsports is what rap is to music" statement however.

Which is why Adam and Rut give Tanner such a hard time about it. It's figure skating in cars. It does, however, take a lot of skill to do well.

Oh, and there is also a good body of rap music out there that isn't just radio crap, and it ALSO takes skill to do well.

 

[victorloya]

True but it has just been 2 episodes so far and they have reviewed some of great cars like the acr, if they continue to give good reviews for cars that don't deserve them I'll agree, but for now its still a little early to call it propaganda.

True, it's too soon to call it propaganda. But that is one road I don't want the show to take. I understand that they're now trying to create a viewers base, so it will be focused on their tastes.

But I'm looking in the long term. Using a more international point of view. The History Channel has presence in Latin America and other countries. There has been criticism over the network, like "devoting most of its coverage to historical topics concerning the Western world and the United States in particular. The network has also received criticism for emphasizing the history of relatively recent times, as opposed to ancient or medieval eras." Wikipedia. This happens when you take a locally focused tv show to an external market, it can be perceived as propaganda.

Right now TGUS is focused in the US market, but it will be until the program goes beyond the US borders that it will become a good way to reposition US cars in international markets.

I'm not saying it was their original "sinister" purpose, but it might be considered a side effect.

 

[Blue Fox]

I thought the second episode was 100% better than the first. The hosts seem to have loosened up a bit (even though all of this stuff was filmed a while back), and the "shock" of watching new hosts has worn off. I thought the Evo bit was a little weak, but still enjoyable to watch (showing that Tanner really can walk what he talks).......and yes, parts of it was filmed with the roads CLOSED, so no need to chastise them for being unsafe just yet. The Aston bit had some absolutely beautiful cinematography (and used filters which made it look as amazing as it was). My only constructive criticism so far would be for the hosts to be just a little more imaginative and original with their reviews while driving, but that will come with time and practice I supposed. Overall, I rated it a solid 7.

 

[gregworldny]

Initial_B
I invite you to watch all 15 seasons of Top Gear UK and try to find a power/liter ratio comparison between an atmo engine and a supercharged engine.
I think you re wrong when you say it is not misleading anyone. I think it is and especially the new audience that TGUS is targeting

 

[Labcoatguy]

Initial_B
I invite you to watch all 15 seasons of Top Gear UK and try to find a power/liter ratio comparison between an atmo engine and a supercharged engine.
I think you re wrong when you say it is not misleading anyone. I think it is and especially the new audience that TGUS is targeting

Series 5, Episode 1. Hammond talks about a Jaguar S-Type R and marvels how it can get 390 HP from a 4.2L engine while the Americans get less out of their 5.7L engines, failing to mention that the Jag is the only supercharged one there.

Bit I'm talking about starts at 7:52 .

 

[gregworldny]

Bravo Labcoatguy!
You just proved that in that sequence Hammond was misleading the audience by not telling the Jag was supercharged.
I think it is exactly the same with Tanner with the EVO.