I'm actually with the guy. I think that proving a point to the expense of others is very bad journalism. Sure, Top Gear is very much entertainment and very little journalism, but this has reached a level it never should have.
Forget that you're a Top Gear fan for a second. Instead, imagine you're the builder of a kit car. You invest huge chunks of your life and your money to make the car as good as possible, and you create a kit car that actually works. Then, Top Gear asks you whether they can feature your car on the show, because they're doing a special on the original manufacturer. You give them your car, and they completely misrepresent its actual behaviour, because they had the bit scripted priorly and needed the car to comply. Would you just shrug and say "Hey, that's television!"???
I do believe that he will sell more of his kit cars now than he would have before, simply because many more people know of it now (though I must say that it was very easy to find on the internet if you were in the market for a Statos replica already before Top Gear). However, I also believe that he would have even more customers if they had represented the car as it actually is. Sure, a lot of people are still drooling from what they saw, but when their brain kicks in when the hand reaches for the wallet, who wouldn't have second thoughs now? "A great looking and sounding car, but the wiper just tears off at speed, the brakes lock up and even a pro driver spun it repeatedly. Do I really want that car?".
As for Top Gear, where do these pieces take us? Which words the guys speak out am I to believe, and which shouldn't I believe? Is it all just entertainment? Am I to choose wildly which bit is a true fact, and which bit is just imaginary? They give so much information on any car they review, what do I end up with if its all worthless? Yeah, a nice hour of HD car entertainment at its finest, but a hollow stage behind a curtain of "We tell you what a car is really like!".