Are you offended?



Because it's popular. Not everybody likes it but it does have a good following. It's like I think Channel 4 has shown a lot of good programs and films over the years, even though I dislike Big Brother (which has still been very popular)

It's bad joke. Not because it don't work, just due to its level.
I realize, what he want to say, but way to do it is unattractive.

I have lot of opinions too, but i'm not spreading it around the world.

Well you are to people who browse this site.

They are entitled to their opinions and we are entitled to ours and also we have the entitlement to criticise their opinions if we don't agree. I, for one, don't agree with many of the cars they have put on the list. I put it in here as I was asked and I thought we could have a discussion around the merits or lack thereof of their list.

The BBC have a duty to give the license fee payers what they want and Top Gear is phenomenally popular. On the main site last week I raved about their new drama 'The Shadow Line' but despite how good that is it will probably at best match the viewing figures of Top Gear and will probably get a few million less.

I have said in the past that I enjoy Top Gear and watch it if it is on even if it has descended even farther into stupidity in recent series. I don't take it seriously and I won't ever buy a car based on their recommendations. It is at best dumb entertainment. Three bored middle aged blokes having a laugh with cars. Admittedly I don't like it when they wreck certain cars but I also don't like everything about everything I watch.

No. But sometimes the others, when they notice, what's my opinion about the peer group, they are belonging to.

I agree with that (Sandie's last post). It's not worth getting too annoyed if you disagree with what they say.

Although I'd say "at best it's dumb entertainment" sells it a little short, it's not meant to be intellectual but I think they have made some quality (thanks to the budget) entertaining television over the years (trips through South America, Africa, Japan, challenges featuring the most expensive supercars, tanks, military jets and attack helicopters), so when it's at its best it's a bit more than just dumb, but often it can be pretty silly

@Nightrider: this statement is not a bad joke. And it's not even original from the chav, who said it in the TV.
It's historical proven quotation from officers of the British Occupation Troops in 1945, when they took over the KdF-plant in Wolfsburg. They denied to commandeer the whole company into British property.

This decision has caused some gleefulness by German VW-enthusiasts. "Not really smart, this choice. Here's Volkswagen. But where's the British automotive industry today?"

Well, you do over-generalise and become over-opinionated when you say "Top Gear is just for uneducated shitheads". This doesn't offend me personally but I don't think it does you any favours, with all due respect (because not everyone who watches Top Gear is a complete moron. As Sandie said, it's not meant to be taken seriously, it's just light-hearted entertainment)

There is very little difference: on this site anyone can tell me, that I'm wrong. And I can change my wrong opinion, if I realize, that I was wrong.

Or: of course anybody browsing this site can learn, that somebody nicknamed "Nightrider" don't like Maserati Biturbo,for example,but I doubt that it would change someone's mind.
Book can do that.

And I wonder why it is in the list

Because:

"Like some untamed Norse beast, the 225bhp Viggen is likely to dislocate your shoulder in its eagerness to nail 258lb ft of torque to the tarmac through its front wheels. Add the kick in the back from the turbocharger and you're slithering all the way to the osteopath's. The suffering is compounded by near-solid suspension, sending ridiculous shakes and shudders into a body structure with the rigidity of a jellyfish."

For the Monte Carlo (which should actually be spelled Montecarlo), they admit that it isn't really crap, but they criticize the problem with the easily locking front brakes on early models.
The 924 is only criticized for having the same engine used in VW vans (I wonder which one exactly, AFAIK the 924 used Audi engines).
The STS (actually Seville STS) is criticized for its tasteless interior with huge amounts of fake wood, which I do agree about.
The only problem with the Safrane seems to be that it's big and French, which they obviously don't think is a good combination.
About the XJ40 they say that Jaguar had ignored everything their customers liked about their cars, and they also don't like the dashboard, the build quality or the sloping rear end.
The 3000 GT is criticized for being filled with pointless technology and not being a Japanese Porsche (why should it be?)
The Wagon R is said to accelerate slower than some dead things, and they also say that it doesn't seem to have any kind of suspension and, of course, criticize for its odd exterior.
The Polonez is criticized for its aged technology and bad build quality, while the Serena's diesel version is criticized for its poor performance. The Lada is criticized for its aged technology.

I only have the Swedish translation of the book, so some points may have been "lost in translation" as I translated the things back to English.


I don't think that the book would change anyone's opinions about these cars, as it is written in such an exaggerating way, and they don't come with any real criticisms for most of the cars.

The first gen of the LT had the same engine (1.8 or 2.0 liter, I don't) know, as the Porsche 924 and the Audi 100 [C1].

That these clowns only have noticed the VW-engine in the 924, shows two things:

a) the Porsche 924 contains a wild mixture of parts of the whole VW/Audi-range of the early 70ies. There's stuff included from Passat, Polo, Beetle, Typ 3, Typ 4, Audi 100 and even K 70 (cooling water pot, wipers).

b) they don't know anything about the history. The 924 was originally developed as an Audi. By Porsche engineers, but planned as an Audi. But one more sportive car in the range besides Scirocco and Audi 100 Coupé S was too much, so it was a left-over, which was built by Porsche theirself then.

All the other ctizim-points, Deltagolf is mentioning, are sometimes true or comprehensible - but in every case it's totally irrelevant and unnecessary, that anyone else needs to know these unimportant opinions of such total irrelevent freaks.

Until now I never find anywhere the confirmation, that my opposite opinion is not correct.

And when have you found that your opinion is correct?

By IMCDB. By the pics in relation with the comments of the (fortunately not many in our community) supporters and fans.
Not by watching the original by myself. This was always out of question.

Have you ever seen any of Top Gear? If not whole episodes, any clips?

Only one time on Youtube. Parts of the episode about the demise of the British car industry. Clarkson has interviewed retired automotive engineers. As example they took the Triumph Stag, and for what reasons (technical, logistical, administrative) this car became such an terrible disaster.
That's all.