Today's Top Gear Agenda: E90 330i/CTS-V

[Jason C]

Should make for an excellent episode. :devcool:

I'm curious as to how fast the V will run around their track. Obviously, being part of the British automotive press, they'll be obligated to make their snide remarks toward interior quality/crude engine. They did that with the C6 as well. Didn't stop it from running with the VanquishS/575 on their powerboard.

EDIT: Here's their powerlap as of the last episode of this series:

1st Maserati MC12 - 1.18.9

2nd Ferrari F60 Enzo - 1.19.0

3rd Ariel Atom - 1.19.5

4th Porsche Carerra GT - 1.19.8

5th Mercedes McLaren SLR - 1.20.9

Ford GT - 1.21.9

Ferrari 360 CS - 1.22.3

Porsche GT3 RS - 1.22.3

Murcielago - 1.23.7

Zonda - 1.23.8

Koenigsegg - 1.23.9

Noble - 1.25.0

Gallardo - 1.25.8

Lotus Exige - 1.26.4

Chevrolet Corvette - 1.26.8

Mercedes CLS 55 AMG - 1.26.9

Porsche 911 GT3 - 1.27.2

TVR 350C - 1.27.5

BMW M3 CSL - 1.28.0

Dodge Viper SRT-10 - 1.28.5

Note: Some of the laps (Viper for one) were run on a wet track.

[ZBB]

Damn... I missed it -- only on twice today at 6:30am and 1:30pm AZ time on BBC World.

Next showings are Friday, will shoot for the 6:30pm showing :thumbup:

[Jason C]

Just finished watching the episode, a mostly predictable verdict with a segment that JST/lemming would have loved to watch:

•They spent a lot of time bitching about the way that the V bonged at the driver for everything (door ajar, key on, seatbelt off, etc) and also did their usual jabs on american car exterior/interior stuff. Right. So what else is new?

•Clarkson remarked on it's supposed nurburgring credentials and mocked it... until they put it up against the stig in an Audi S4 to chase the V. It was (painfully) obvious what a mismatch that was around the track. The V looked flat and balanced through the corners. By comparison, the Audi was floppy, tipsy, and it didn't stand a chance on the straight. On one of the corners the S4 actually understeered into the dirt.

•"I'm not sure that if you're going around a bend fast enough to generate some meaningful G... that you should be looking at a little readout... on the dashboard."

•In the studio they actually ended up recommending the Vauxhall Monaro (aka GTO) "if you want a four-seat musclecar with a V8." Did Clarkson somehow overlook the handling disparity between the V and the Monaro/GTO?

•Stig got a 1:33.4 on a ludicrously wet track (about as wet as the 997/Viper laps). It had a scary-looking amount of wheel hop off the line - I could actually see both sides of the exhaust move close to half a foot. I wouldn't do any drag-racing in the V if I had one.

Oh, the E90. Well, they only got a 320d, so it wasn't exactly brilliant. They did like it a lot though - handles great and the run-flats apparently don't beat the occupants up. Looked like crap with those tiny wheels and light paint job. Conclusion was that it's a brilliantly engineered car that suffers from the image brought about by the badge.

[Fair!]

You guys get BBC's Top Gear episodes??? Damn it... I've done PVR searches for months looking for this show. And I get a BBC channel (DirecTV), but apparently not the right one. :(

I have to settle for 5th Gear and downloading Top Gear from bit torrent.

My biggest problem with the lap times they do on Top Gear is exactly what you mentioned... wet track times compared against dry ones. HORRIBLE testing for comparisons. I mean, sure, it's the UK and it pisses rain 75% of the time... but damn. Put the wet track times on a different board. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

---

I am seriously looking at new 2005 GTOs (400 hp! T56! $30K with GM employee pricing!) but the back seat ingress is TERRIBLE. A friend has a 2004 and no one ever thinks of riding in back. I'd rather have the funky looking CTS-V, which is almost the same car but with rear doors (for my daily driver) but they're $20K more new. Still, I have seen CTS-V's for mid thirties used; they depreciate LIKE MAD. Do I wanna buy slightly used one and take an even bigger hit in a few years? Yea, maybe. ;)

GM really pooched it by not offering the Commodore or some other Holden with 4 doors for under $40K...

http://www.bimmerhausoftexas.com/tamscc/images/GTO_SL1.jpg

[JST]

I'd rather have the funky looking CTS-V, which is almost the same car but with rear doors (for my daily driver) but they're $20K more new. [/img]

Not almost the same car--driving the CTS-V made me Happy. Driving the GTO made me Sad.

Honestly, while the specs are similar, the GTO just doesn't connect dynamically in the same way that the CTS-V does.

[zach]

I'd rather have the funky looking CTS-V, which is almost the same car but with rear doors (for my daily driver) but they're $20K more new. [/img]

Not almost the same car--driving the CTS-V made me Happy. Driving the GTO made me Sad.

Honestly, while the specs are similar, the GTO just doesn't connect dynamically in the same way that the CTS-V does.

I agree. I drove the CTS-V and the GTO back to back. There really isn't much of a comparison to be made; they are very VERY different cars. To me, the GTO opitomizes "fat pig." It felt very heavy and unweildy. The controls seems imprecise. The CTS-V, while also very heavy, felt nimble and light compared to the GTO.

[Fair!]

These two are very similar cars underneath. Unlike the CTS-V, the GTO coms with UTTER SHITE all season tires that are Mud and Snow rated which KILLS the skidpad numbers and responsiveness/feel. I've ridden in a GTO on Kumho Victoracers in an autocross and it felt like a different car... and was damn quick. With the Kooks full length headers and exhaust it sounded mean. :)

I suspect the CTS-V got the better springs/bars/tires/tuning for the extra $20K. Nothing a few bolt on bits and some track testing couldn't fix. They both suffer from axle hop in stock form, but shocks are supposed to be a big help in this area, too.

Again, the factory installed tires are a HUGE part of the feel of any new car. The GTO just happens to be saddled with a terrible stock set. Remove, replace, re-try. ;)

[zach]

These two are very similar cars underneath. The GTO coms with UTTER SHITE all season tires that are Mud and Snow rated which KILLS the skidpad numbers and responsiveness/feel. I've ridden in a GTO on Kumho Victoracers in an autocross and it felt like a different car... and was damn quick. With the Kooks full length headers and exhaust it sounded mean. :)

I suspect the CTS-V got the better springs/bars/tires/tuning for the extra $20K. Nothing a few bolt on bits and some track testing couldn't fix. They both suffer from axle hop in stock form, but shocks are supposed to be a big help in this area, too.

Again, the factory installed tires are a HUGE part of the feel of any new car. The GTO just happens to be saddled with a terrible stock set. Remove, replace, re-try. ;)

In my opinion, the problems with the GTO extend beyond the shitty suspension. The throttle is really weird and requires a heavy foot to get the the tach needle moving at all...but then it shoots up. The shifter is lousy (worse than the cadillac). There's no doubt in my mind that the GTO is fast and could be fast on an autox course. I just don't think I'd have that much fun making it go fast.

[ZBB]

You guys get BBC's Top Gear episodes??? Damn it... I've done PVR searches for months looking for this show. And I get a BBC channel (DirecTV), but apparently not the right one. :(

I have to settle for 5th Gear and downloading Top Gear from bit torrent.


My wife is Canadian, and I got her a Canadian sat tv service last year for Christmas (gray market install -- they think its installed at her parents house in BC, but billing goes to my credit card). They carry BBC World and BBC Canada (which is 90% the same as BBC America). Top Gear is on BBC World, which is not otherwise avail in the US...

[Fair!]

In my opinion, the problems with the GTO extend beyond the shitty suspension. The throttle is really weird and requires a heavy foot to get the the tach needle moving at all...but then it shoots up. The shifter is lousy (worse than the cadillac). There's no doubt in my mind that the GTO is fast and could be fast on an autox course. I just don't think I'd have that much fun making it go fast.
The 2005 GTO has the LS2 and it's dreaded throttle by wire... and hidden torque management software. I agree that it makes it feel funky, with respect to throttle response. Have some of the same feel in the C6... all can be fixed with LS2 Edit. :oops:

Most every stock T56 shifter I have ever tried has sucked, but that's a $120-150 fix. Again, it stinks that they couldn't get the details/inputs more right on the GTO, and it seems as if they DID do these right on the CTS-V. Just remember... the CTS-V is heavier and fully twenty grand more. For people on a $30K budget, and those that can live without the back seat, the GTO is still a great bargain. 400 hp, IRS, RWD, 6 speed, excellent interior, looks that "blend easily" for less police attention? heh.

Still... both of these models are WAY too heavy. :( I am having a hard time letting go of my 540i-6spd, with a massive trunk (GTO = JOKE), 4 full doors (GTO lacking), and real back seat headroom (not good in CTS or GTO), fold flat rear seats (both), etc. Sad thing is - the E39 540 is slightly lighter than both the GTO and CTS-V. :rolleyes:

[Jason C]

I have to settle for 5th Gear and downloading Top Gear from bit torrent.

How do you think I get complete episodes? :P

On paper, the LS2 GTO would seem to be a bargain, especially since you can get one for $31k with GMS. However, JST and Co. seem to think that it's not even close to the Mustang GT/CTS-V in the area of handling, nevermind the other issues with it. :dunno:

[Rob]

The shifter is lousy (worse than the cadillac).

I am not sure that's possible.

My ssk is still sitting on the floor next to the front door b/c I can't decide if I have the guts to try an install that requires dropping the transmission, but it will be changed soon, one way or another. By far the weakest part of a GREAT car sits in that shifting mechanism.

Oh, and I don't think a shock replacement on the V is very easy. You can upgrade to the FS2 shocks ($1200 installed as a dealer option), but I think they are controlled somehow by a computer and it's difficult to replace them and get better handling. I haven't looked into all that thoroughly though, so I could be wrong.

[zach]

The shifter is lousy (worse than the cadillac).

I am not sure that's possible.

My ssk is still sitting on the floor next to the front door b/c I can't decide if I have the guts to try an install that requires dropping the transmission, but it will be changed soon, one way or another. By far the weakest part of a GREAT car sits in that shifting mechanism.

Oh, and I don't think a shock replacement on the V is very easy. You can upgrade to the FS2 shocks ($1200 installed as a dealer option), but I think they are controlled somehow by a computer and it's difficult to replace them and get better handling. I haven't looked into all that thoroughly though, so I could be wrong.

Hmm. Not being able to easily upgrade the shocks would be unfortunate.

Rwg, go drive a GTO. I swear the shifter is worse.

[Plaz]

The shifter is lousy (worse than the cadillac).

I am not sure that's possible.

My ssk is still sitting on the floor next to the front door b/c I can't decide if I have the guts to try an install that requires dropping the transmission, but it will be changed soon, one way or another. By far the weakest part of a GREAT car sits in that shifting mechanism.

Oh, and I don't think a shock replacement on the V is very easy. You can upgrade to the FS2 shocks ($1200 installed as a dealer option), but I think they are controlled somehow by a computer and it's difficult to replace them and get better handling. I haven't looked into all that thoroughly though, so I could be wrong.

Hmm. Not being able to easily upgrade the shocks would be unfortunate.

Rwg, go drive a GTO. I swear the shifter is worse.

http://www.conniescrafts.com/smchurn.JPG

:dunno:

[Jason C]

http://rapidshare.de/files/2535785/Topgear_Caddy_CTS-V.wmv.html
^^Segment on the CTS-V, for those without bittorent. 25.6M 11min.

http://rapidshare.de/files/2535974/Clarkson_Ford_GT_trouble.wmv.html
^^Amusing discussion of Jeremy's Ford GT. :lol: 9M, 4min.

[JST]

http://rapidshare.de/files/2535785/Topgear_Caddy_CTS-V.wmv.html
^^Segment on the CTS-V, for those without bittorent. 25.6M 11min.

http://rapidshare.de/files/2535974/Clarkson_Ford_GT_trouble.wmv.html
^^Amusing discussion of Jeremy's Ford GT. :lol: 9M, 4min.

Finally got a chance to watch those.

"Bone your dog" apparently means something very different in England than it does here.

[Rob]

I was thinking about this last night . . . they couldn't really find anything to fault with the car (other than it bongs if you take off your seatbelt or leave the key in the car, just like every other european car sold here), so they made something up b/c it was American. It felt "cheap." I guess they don't have to go on credibility, but still - that was weak.

The car has several serious issues, one of which their film demonstrated, but they didn't talk about any of them. Instead, they talked about some esoteric "feeling" that can't be quantified.

[Rob]

Oh yeah, if you didn't see the opening part of the show, they tried to jump a stretch limo over some campers and cars and stuff. It was mildly interesting. I don't remember exactly why they did, it, but they did. I can maybe find a link if anyone wants the entire half hour.

[lemming]

8:17.

that's what i'd have to reply to the TopGear staff.

i'd just want them to name the cars faster than that --universal metric and all of that.

:)

[Jason C]

Finally got a chance to watch those.

You like them Audi driving dynamics? :twisted:

[John V]

Top gear is good for entertainment, but little else. The guys on the show know very little about cars and their opinions are biased against American cars.

Remember the "leaf spring" debacle when they tested the C6 Corvette? :rolleyes:

Their test driver is more interested in drifting around the test track than turning fast times - especially in cars they don't like.

[lemming]

Top gear is good for entertainment, but little else. The guys on the show know very little about cars and their opinions are biased against American cars.

Remember the "leaf spring" debacle when they tested the C6 Corvette? :rolleyes:

Their test driver is more interested in drifting around the test track than turning fast times - especially in cars they don't like.

you'd be like that, too, if your country didn't make any notable cars anymore and the average displacement size of all vehicles on the road was about 2.0litres.

british and bitter are the same thing with regard to cars?


:flame:

[John V]

british and bitter are the same thing with regard to cars?


:flame:

You're probably right, but that doesn't give them the right to just make up facts about cars, or pan them for technical features they don't understand.

[dan]

Discovery Channel is going to be showing old Top Gear episodes now.

[dan]

you'd be like that, too, if your country didn't make any notable cars anymore
:flame:

I'd say the cooper and the elise are notable cars (not to mention TVR and Noble :dunno: )

[lemming]

you'd be like that, too, if your country didn't make any notable cars anymore
:flame:

I'd say the cooper and the elise are notable cars (not to mention TVR and Noble :dunno: )

technically, cars are still produced in the UK. it's just a question of ownership and there are no car manufacturers of any notable volume that are british owned companies --sore point for them.

i say whatever, but i think it matters to the union jack empire. to be fair, americans gladly return the favor with regard to british cars and opinions. think about the things we'd opine if someone suggested it would be fun, in front of a camera, to poke fun at some fake-british autos.

[Fair!]

TOP GEAR ON Discovery

Discovery Channel is going to be showing old Top Gear episodes now.
I noticed that the "Top Gear" show name search that I've had in place for the past year ("Ultimate TV" DVR) finally got a hit, and some episodes are coming up soon on Discovery. w00t!

American Auto Journalists SUCK BALLS

These crazy brit car shows are FUN AS HELL to watch and I hope some american car magazines writers/tv-hosts watch some Top Gear/5th Gear. Maybe then they'd realize these important things:

1. american auto magazine writers are all limp wristed fags without one whit of writing flair or style. on TV they are positively boring.
2. said group cannot drive their way out of a paper bag
3. there are ZERO notable former pro racers on staff at ANY american rag
4. our auto journalists have the personality of a wet bag of dung when they migrate to television
5. americans, by and large, drive big shitty gas swilling SUV mammoths and frumpy fwd asian cars. because our auto journalists promote these things.
6. the "high tech" craze that infests the brains of the typical "auto enthusiast" reader is ALL THEIR FAULT!
7. american auto rags are far too focused on "CAR OF THE YEAR" and "TOP 10!" lists (all of which are awards that are 100% FOR SALE) and silly, 8 page color write-ups of aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and electro-diesel trains...
8. our journalists cannot seem to find a FOOKIN DRAG STRIP on the continental 48 and instead settle for 1/4 mile and 0-60 testing on random public roads with a 5th wheel... which is terribly inconsistent
9. when was the last time you saw a U.S. auto rag post ROAD COURSE times for any or even every car they test on a consistent track (streets of willow is craptasticly bad), like Top Gear and 5th Gear do (both of which have too much rain for consistency, tho)
10. the avg age of mainstream american auto writers is 78, they live in the shithole called "Detroit", are focused more on snow traction that track action, and most of them want either minivans or AWD station wagons but own an SUV and some old junky Alfa or TR6 as their "sports car".

There... it's even in "TOP 10" form for those fruit loops! :twisted:

Thankfully, these witless buffoons are paid salaries commensurate with their complete lack of talent and skill... meaning, they don't make squat.

[clyde]

Fair,

I think I speak for all, when I suggest that you try to working on expressing your thoughtd rather than holding them deep inside yourself. You'll live longer and better.

Cheers!




:lol:

[John V]

There... it's even in "TOP 10" form for those fruit loops! :twisted:

Thankfully, these witless buffoons are paid salaries commensurate with their complete lack of talent and skill... meaning, they don't make squat.

Have you ever read Grassroots Motorsports? Their new car coverage is pretty lacking, but they're getting better.

[blee]

Sesquipedalian, maniacal diatribe against the written word deleted

Ridiculous. You may not like American auto journalists, but you're way off the mark. Tests are done as objectively as possible, but you know as well as anyone else that performance stats have rather few degrees of accuracy. Given two cars with 1/4 times of 14.2 and 14.5, there is no significant difference. So what difference does it make, whether they're measured at a dragstrip (and should they use the SAME one for every car, whether they pick it up in Detroit, California, or Rome?) or using the most sophisticated equipment available to them -- a portable test rig, a local track? Likewise, where do you propose they find a single track at which to record lap times? And do you think it would be a wise idea for them to take every car they test to this track? And given the differences in weather, driver ability, track surface, and timing equipment, how useful would those stats really be?

Next, while advertisers do pay the rent for car magazines, they do so around the world. What makes you so certain that American rags are influenced in ways that the Brits aren't? And what makes you think that any review is automatically tainted because of an advertisement in the same magazine? Why shouldn't I also assume that Evo loves the Elise because there's a Lotus ad in every issue? FWIW, I've seen C&D bash cars that advertise heavily in their publications, and I've seen them adore cars that apparently have no ad budgets whatsoever. People love to say that BMW is paying C&D to keep their cars at the top. Yeah, try reading some recent comparos.

Finally, don't forget that these are MAGAZINES. Nobody buys C&D for in-depth technical analysis, engineering white papers, or debates over gauge placement. People buy these publications for entertainment. If you want to see hard numbers, totally objective analyses, and mind-numbing technical discussions, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Ignoring the fact that such comparisons are objectively impossible in the real world, you're asking a magazine intended for mass consumption to transform into a nerdzine. I subscribe to C&D because I happen to like the writing, and I also get to keep mostly abreast of new cars as they enter the market. I haven't read anything in evo or Car or TopGear that would give me more of what I want, unless I want to spend hundreds of dollars on overseas magazine subscriptions.

[Jason C]

4. our auto journalists have the personality of a wet bag of dung when they migrate to television


TYPICAL AMERICAN MOTORING SHOW: THE ABRIDGED
SCRIPT™

FADE IN: TITLE AND BLARING THEME MUSIC

EXT. OUTDOOR SHOT WITH PARKED CAR

ANNOYING BOISTEROUS HOST
Hello and welcome to our show! Today, we'll be providing advertising for some of our most important sponsors! Only on our show, we'll cleverly disguise them as car reviews! No one will notice the difference! I need to talk in this booming, overbearing voice to make myself heard! Let's get on with the boring crap that we call our show!

MORE BLARING THEME MUSIC AND FLASHY GRAPHICS

EXT. RANDOM BACK COUNTRY ROAD
We see the car in question PUTTERING at a grand total of 35 MPH down the gently winding roads. This is because the filming equipment of the TYPICAL AMERICAN MOTORING SHOW cannot show the car being pushed past about 3/10th, except for brief moments on a proper testing venue, ie a HINT of wheelspin when launching on a dragstrip. This is also because the various LITIGATION-PRONE viewers and nanny-organizations will sue at the first sign(s) of POWERSLIDING.

ANNOYING BOISTEROUS HOST
Hello there! Just because I'm not on the screen doesn't mean that you can excape from my voice! Now here is a greatly abridged history of the car in question! Cringe as I continue talking in this highly unnatural, TelePrompTer™ voice!

EXT. SOME RANDOM BACKGROUND SETTING
Camera now cuts to EXCITING, INNOVATIVE shots of car from normal eye-level. No fancy video-editing techniques will be used outside of that which might be employed for a high-school APUSHIS project.

ANNOYING BOISTEROUS HOST
Now watch the still footage and let me tell you things about the car that you can find out by yourself just by looking at the brochure or by watching some advertisements!

INT. CAR IN QUESTION
We cut to obligatory 2-second panning shots of the car's trunk, random exterior areas, instrument panel, front and back seats, and engine compartment.

ANNOYING BOISTEROUS HOST
Let me tell you some more blindingly obvious things about this car! Don't you just love the way I talk? This is a sports car! Isn't it impractical? And here is a minivan, it can haul a lot of stuff!

AUDIENCE
I am hypnotized by his blaring tone! This show is da bomb! (Unless the viewer(s) in question have seen motoring programs outside of the USA, in which case they may be watching now because THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON.)

ANNOYING BOISTEROUS HOST
Don't go away yet! Stay tuned for more boring craptacular advertising that's disguised as a meaningful show, coming up right after the break!

END.

[Fair!]

Have you ever read Grassroots Motorsports? Their new car coverage is pretty lacking, but they're getting better.
I subscribed for the first several years, and I still read the occasional issue - when I can find them (B&N or other big box book stores). My main problem with that mag is the publisher/cheif editor Tim Studdard (or Suddard?), who is kind of a nut and gushes over old and busted British sports cars a little too much for my taste (so much so that he started a British roadster magazine after GRM). He's also a terrible driver, as proven by his few competition results. But still, other than him, they have done some good work over the years. I really admired some of their early test and review work, as they did some of the best new car comparison work in the business. This was accomplished by:

1. Having one nationally competitive, competent test driver do all car testing (plus include times from their somewhat less elite driving writers for comparison)
2. They had a "Set" test track that never changed where every car was run on, for times. It was a pre-painted, permanent autocross course on a lot someone let them use for many years. The group I autocrossed with in college had a similar "permanent test course" that we used to set-up and tune our set-ups over long periods. It ain't that hard to set-up once it's painted.
3. They fitted a current model of R compound tire, in the closest to stock size, to all cars tested.

Number 3 was HUGE. I have seen SO damn many magazines "test" factory cars with total ringer factory tires... certain NSX, S2000, STi, GT3 and many others come with what some would consider factory R compounds. This gave these cars unusually high skidpad, braking, slalom and track scores (when tested on their stock tires, compared to others). Very few of these magazines mentioned that these tires last <5000 miles and that most owners will fit "normal" wearing street tires to the cars rather soon. That maybe, just maybe the test figures may be skewed. Some cars, like the new GTO, come with complete shite factory tire fitments... M&S rated all seasons won't skidpad for crap when compared with a Mich Pilot Sport or the like, fitted to some competing cars.

As many people that compete in solo2 or road racing know, tires are 90% of the game (when compared to "street tires"). The single, biggest factor that can make or break a competitive car. No "driver" can make up for 3+ second deficiencies that tires can sometimes make on a 60 second course, when a comparible driver is runnig with them. Even the Brit shows neglect to bring tire equalization into the picture.

Sesquipedalian, maniacal diatribe against the written word deleted
Whoa! Quite the thesaurus-saurus today!

Ridiculous. You may not like American auto journalists, but you're way off the mark. Tests are done as objectively as possible, but you know as well as anyone else that performance stats have rather few degrees of accuracy. Given two cars with 1/4 times of 14.2 and 14.5, there is no significant difference. So what difference does it make, whether they're measured at a dragstrip (and should they use the SAME one for every car, whether they pick it up in Detroit, California, or Rome?) or using the most sophisticated equipment available to them -- a portable test rig, a local track?

What difference can a drag strip make? A LOT. Having made 1000's of dragstrip passes in radial tire equipped street cars (as well as watching 1000's of other runs first hand), many of them stone stock, I have rarely not seen the magazine test numbers trounced badly... and by varying degrees depending on the type and layout of cars. It's hard to do an AWD launch wrong, and torqueless FWD cars pretty much launch the same on a track or a two lane blacktop, but a SKILLED driver on a CONSISTENT and PREPPED dragstrip (of which there are hundreds upon hundreds across their fare land) can and will go faster at a drag strip in certain higher powered/lower traction cars than on a random stretch of empty road. When the difference is .5 to 1 second, that can skew comparisons.

There are too many drag strips, open too many week nights and weekends, to not to use them for added testing accuracy and with repeatability.

Likewise, where do you propose they find a single track at which to record lap times? And do you think it would be a wise idea for them to take every car they test to this track? And given the differences in weather, driver ability, track surface, and timing equipment, how useful would those stats really be?
Again there are hundreds of small road courses all over the country. One magazine goes to "streets of willow" on occasions. If they didn't live in the automotive armpit of the world (Detroit) and relocated instead to the west coast or down south, they could test cars in BETTER/more consistent weather, for a longer period of the year (we race 12 months a year in Texas; Cali folks do to). There are also more and better tracks in certain parts of the country; west coast is sick with tracks, N.E. and Mid-Atlantic have tons of road courses; the south is catching up fast, too.

Next, while advertisers do pay the rent for car magazines, they do so around the world. What makes you so certain that American rags are influenced in ways that the Brits aren't? And what makes you think that any review is automatically tainted because of an advertisement in the same magazine?
Magazines have to attract and appease their advertisers, while not losing objectivity, to pay the bills. The purchase of "car of the year" awards is well known, and barely hidden by the "big" mags anymore. That's a whole other thread that I don't want to get into; it's been fought on boards for years, and there is proof. The LA Times runs an unflattering article on the new Pontiac G6, then the $10M GM ad budget vaporizes - that was a PUBLIC situation that was plain to see just a month ago. A whole lot more of this goes on behind the scenes; I know tuner shop, magazine advertisers who have been through the "shake downs" and B.S. I know some small car mag writers, too, and they hate these situations.

The smaller mags may be worse about this, esp. with aftermarket equipment and their advertisements. A well known fact for aftermarket tuners is the bigger your ad budget in a particular mag, the better the chance of a multi-page exclusive article will appear therein. That's the way these things work. It sucks, but oh well.

Brit shows like Top Gear & 5th Gear have the advantage of being run on the BBC, which is more like our PBS than a strict commercial television network. They also attract a large and diverse following (because they ARE entertaining, as well as fairly technical), so non-automotive car advertisers would likely pay for ads. Until we can get our domestic TV auto shows off of car-ad-laden networks like Speed or TNN, they will be saddled with this same "keep them happy!" advertiser/objectivity problem, I feel.

I think a better solution to this big, monstrous problem is a completely different financial model for these mags and shows. MOTORWEEK is an automotive TV show on Public Broadcasting. I used to watch it for years; if they were a tick more technical, they might get more viewers? I dunno, it may be off the air now, but it was "fairly" good, and didn't rely on the car makers for their ad revenue. Consumer Reports is the magazine model - where subscriptions, not ads, pay the bills. But they have to test everything from dishwashers to Hondas, so the car content is minimal.

With the advent (and low overhead/monthly costs) of internet magazines, pod casts and web casts, some with potentially paid subscriptions to these, there might be a way to beat this problem without going on the gov't dole (PBS) or having to test dishwashers (Consumer Reports). I haven't seen a serious attempt at this to date; I have spoken to more than a few people/racers/writers/gear heads about this. Still, it's hard to with a webcast or surf a car article while sitting on the crappy. ;) Car Mags, with glossy color prints and "go anywhere" portability, do have their draw... but also have big drawbacks.

Finally, don't forget that these are MAGAZINES. Nobody buys C&D for in-depth technical analysis, engineering white papers, or debates over gauge placement. People buy these publications for entertainment. If you want to see hard numbers, totally objective analyses, and mind-numbing technical discussions, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Ignoring the fact that such comparisons are objectively impossible in the real world, you're asking a magazine intended for mass consumption to transform into a nerdzine. I subscribe to C&D because I happen to like the writing, and I also get to keep mostly abreast of new cars as they enter the market. I haven't read anything in evo or Car or TopGear that would give me more of what I want, unless I want to spend hundreds of dollars on overseas magazine subscriptions.
Ahh, you're a C&D fanboy then? :) I was wondering which one you subscribed to.

I subscribe to no fewer than 6 monthly magazines as well as Autoweek, buy lots of eclectic car mags off the shelf every month, and have hundreds of these things littering my home at any given time. I'd say I probably read more car articles every month than the average ten people on this board combined. Doesn't mean I have to love them, defend them - I can and do rag on most of them for sucking, but sometimes poorly written/tested car news that is 3 months out of date when it hits the shelves is still better than no news.

I respect some of the basic work they do, I just think it could be a lot better, more technical, more "big picture" and more objective, yet still be entertaining. How many magazine writers use "big like a pickle" lines in their articles, eh? :) How many professional or former pro racers or automotive engineers write in the common car rags? I don't think people want "white paper" drivel, but something beyond this vanilla coverage would do. I think the higher than average age of these writers, and sometimes abysmal understanding of driving physics or the nuts and bolts of hands-on automotive work, keep them from doing the best job possible.

Many of us here at carmudgeons know more and/or have more racing and/or mechanical experience than any of the U.S. auto writers - we should demand more from their work.

(gack... lunch. gotta run. not edited/spell checked!)

[John V]

I agree with most of what you've said, Fair, but have a couple things to add.

GRM has a "test track" now that they ring out new cars and project cars on. It's closer to an autocross than a roadcourse, but it is something. I think their budget precludes them from continuing to put r-comps on cars and test them that way.

I do wish they'd go more in-depth with their reviews specifically as it pertains to how a real enthusiast would set them up. Measure things like weight distribution. Make notes about camber / caster adjustability. Note the wheel width and estimate how big a tire it could tolerate. Etc.

The big problem I have with you defending Top Gear is that none of their guys can drive either. Even their test driver is sloppy as hell in the cars they don't want to do well. Furthermore, they have very little technical understanding of the cars they're reviewing. Again I bring up the comment about the Corvette's transverse leaf springs. If they really understood it technically, they'd at least note that it has the advantages of lightness, a low center of gravity, and allows the fitment of large wheels and tires. Instead, they decided to bash it because they didn't understand or because they didn't like the car.

The show IS entertaining, but it's NOT objective and it's NOT technical.

[Jason C]

The show IS entertaining, but it's NOT objective and it's NOT technical.

And it doesn't pretend to be anything else.

One thing I've always liked about the British auto press is that they're biased, and openly admit it - as opposed to many in the American press that often try to use ludicrous rationalization to cover up some of their brand preferences, presumably in order to mollify their advertisers. I still remember the MT issue back then when the cover blurb on their comparo was about "all-out performance" and then they picked the E46 M3 over the C5 Z06 because it was more *refined* and had more interior space. :rolleyes:

[blee]

Sesquipedalian, maniacal diatribe against the written word deleted
Whoa! Quite the thesaurus-saurus today!

LOL. My word-wh0ring is all mine -- "all motor," if you will. The thesaurus usually makes my writing look like it came from a five-year-old with a collegiate dictionary and a random number generator.


There are too many drag strips, open too many week nights and weekends, to not to this testing more accurately and with more repeatability.


Fair enough, but I still think that there's too much variability to call the writers bad journalists for not being consistent. The perfect situation really would be to have the same skilled driver at the same track under similar conditions each time, driving a car as it comes out of the factory (NO SLICKS -- this is not a racer's magazine). But considering the number of cars that are tested, where they come from, and how much time the journalists are given for each car, I don't believe that it's possible. Once you introduce a single variable to the equation -- say, two different drag strips -- you introduce a host of factors that add to variability. At that point, an ET difference of a few tenths really doesn't mean anything. So rather than attempt to make their measurements perfect, the buff books do the best they can. I don't see a problem with this.


Likewise, where do you propose they find a single track at which to record lap times? And do you think it would be a wise idea for them to take every car they test to this track? And given the differences in weather, driver ability, track surface, and timing equipment, how useful would those stats really be?
Again there are hundreds of small road courses all over the country. One magazine goes to "streets of willow" on occasions. If they didn't live in the automotive armpit of the world (Detroit) and relocated instead to the west coast or down south, they could test cars in BETTER/more consistent weather, for a longer period of the year (we race 12 months a year in Texas; Cali folks do to). There are also more and better tracks in certain parts of the country; west coast is sick with tracks, N.E. and Mid-Atlantic have tons of road courses; the south is catching up fast, too.


This would work for cars that are delivered to the publisher's door, and many of them are. But this isn't always the case, and we again run into the consistency issue...only this time, it's much worse because different courses obviously have very different times. On a microcosmic scale, most of the magazines already do what you propose -- only they do it with a much smaller test group, such as sub-$40,000 sports sedans, for the purpose of doing a single-issue comparo.


Magazines have to attract and appease their advertisers, while not losing objectivity, to pay the bills. The purchase of "car of the year" awards is well known, and barely hidden by the "big" mags anymore. That's a whole other thread that I don't want to get into; it's been fought on boards for years, and there is proof. The LA Times runs an unflattering article on the new Pontiac G6, then the $10M GM ad budget vaporizes - that was a PUBLIC situation that was plain to see just a month ago. A whole lot more of this goes on behind the scenes; I know tuner shop, magazine advertisers who have been through the "shake downs" and B.S. I know some small car mag writers, too, and they hate these situations.

The smaller mags may be worse about this, esp. with aftermarket equipment and their advertisements. A well known fact for aftermarket tuners is the bigger your ad budget in a particular mag, the better the chance of a multi-page exclusive article will appear therein. That's the way these things work. It sucks, but oh well.


Yes, advertisers pull their ads after unfavorable reviews. I believe a particularly stark example of this was an old C&D bashfest of an Opel sedan, which featured a photo of the car parked in front of a junkyard. But how does that explain the fact that I regularly -- every month, in fact -- read a negative car review? Advertisers may pull out, but they always come back; the buff books have high circulation numbers, after all. I know that small publications (Focus Fanatic, anyone?) often use their "Hot Parts" pages as thinly disguised product ads, as do many of the TNN car shows. But I don't see this happening in the big magazines and I remain unconvinced that they're being bribed to praise particular cars. Otherwise, it would be too easy to see the Chevy Aveo listed as America's Best Compact Car. In contrast, the E60 recently placed midpack in a comparo of mid-sized sedans. The same BMW that is often rumored of buying their way into the top-10 lists of every car magazine suddenly can't win over a bunch of boring Japanese sedans? Whoops!

In the end, of course, I always know that these are commerical operations and that the magazine publishers are primarily out to make money. I still prefer to read their reviews and their editors' opinions over those of, say, Consumer Reports, which prides itself on being ad-free but can't write a car review without fall over.

[Fair!]

I agree with most of what you've said, Fair, but have a couple things to add.

GRM has a "test track" now that they ring out new cars and project cars on. It's closer to an autocross than a roadcourse, but it is something. I think their budget precludes them from continuing to put r-comps on cars and test them that way.
That's cool; this is what they did at GRM "back in the day" with the added part of tire equalization.

I do wish they'd go more in-depth with their reviews specifically as it pertains to how a real enthusiast would set them up. Measure things like weight distribution. Make notes about camber / caster adjustability. Note the wheel width and estimate how big a tire it could tolerate.
EXACTLY! THAT is what I want to see... don't give me the same boring specs that I can find in the brochure or in any other car mag, give me real world test results and some in depth analysis of the "mod-ability" of the car, what wheels will fit other than the pansy little pancakes that came on it, what major limitations or potentials are there for performance enhancement, discuss things like poor factory tires or brake pads that could potentially make the car much more competitive, quantify some of the subjective issues that so man car magazines over-emphasize like "feel" or "quality", etc.

The big problem I have with you defending Top Gear is that none of their guys can drive either. Even their test driver is sloppy as hell in the cars they don't want to do well. Furthermore, they have very little technical understanding of the cars they're reviewing....
True, their test driver is a "hack" (haha). But the main driver on 5th Gear (a splinter show with some former Top Gear hosts) is actually pretty gifted ("Tiff Needles" sp?), and really can push a car to the ragged edge. He will make any car show it's best and worst... "notice the EXTREME understeer this car has", or "the brakes are very lacking compared to the X car I just ran, and my times are slower by 1.3 seconds per lap".. etc. He still way over-drives the cars, but that's part of the entertainment. You have to admit, these shows are a LOT more fun to watch.

Again I bring up the comment about the Corvette's transverse leaf springs....
Yea, when I saw that Top Gear episode that set me off. Idiots... but the particular munchkin host that reviewed the Corvette was a bit of a "poofta".

Top Gear/5th Gear: neither is perfect but they are both a helluva lot more fun to watch than C&D/MT/Autoweek (cancelled!) auto mag tv shows.

Captian Moogan: your in depth example of an American TV auto show was hilarious!

[lemming]

the real reason why they don't test at the same track in the US is because the writers often go to a convenient location where they can get the cars from the manufacturers. problematically, the UK is about the size of the state of Georgia (maybe?) so it's not all that hard to test all of the time at the same pathetic nearly always damp track.

unfortunately, the United States is actually a continent-sized country, so it's often difficult to round up multiple cars always at the headquarters.

[London]

Top gear is good for entertainment, but little else. The guys on the show know very little about cars and their opinions are biased against American cars.

Remember the "leaf spring" debacle when they tested the C6 Corvette? :rolleyes:

Their test driver is more interested in drifting around the test track than turning fast times - especially in cars they don't like.

you'd be like that, too, if your country didn't make any notable cars anymore and the average displacement size of all vehicles on the road was about 2.0litres.

british and bitter are the same thing with regard to cars?


:flame:

What a laughable comment, it would have some merit if there were any decent American cars being made....

I suppose the bitterness regarding the loss of a major British manufacturer does not get in the way of glowing reports for cars from other countries?

p.s. Clarkson has bought a brand new GT-40, and the short guys dream car is an old Trans Am.

The reason the average engine in the UK is only 2.0 litres, is because fuel in the UK costs $1.75 a litre for unleaded, and about $1.90 for lead replacement. If that was the case in America, I wonder how many of you would be driving 5 litre hogs that are easily outpaced by European 'hot hatches.'

[London]

you'd be like that, too, if your country didn't make any notable cars anymore
:flame:

I'd say the cooper and the elise are notable cars (not to mention TVR and Noble :dunno: )

technically, cars are still produced in the UK. it's just a question of ownership and there are no car manufacturers of any notable volume that are british owned companies --sore point for them.

i say whatever, but i think it matters to the union jack empire. to be fair, americans gladly return the favor with regard to british cars and opinions. think about the things we'd opine if someone suggested it would be fun, in front of a camera, to poke fun at some fake-british autos.

Are films made in Hollywood by Sony/MGM, or music produced on the Sony label regarded as Japanese, or music on the BMG label German?

Despite ownership, some of the greatest cars in the world are still desinged and made right here in Britain, what is the American version of the Rolls Royce, Bently, Austin Martin or Range Rover?

Who owns them today in the age of globablisation and mutlinationals matters little. The pride in those marques is their history, and they will always be identified as British marques.

Clearly your comments betray an underlying feeling towards Britain, I am not sure why, but mark my words, I could not name a single non British car show, yet British ones seem to do quite well abroad, not bad for a bunch of presenters who know so little about cars eh?

[lemming]

you'd be like that, too, if your country didn't make any notable cars anymore
:flame:

I'd say the cooper and the elise are notable cars (not to mention TVR and Noble :dunno: )

technically, cars are still produced in the UK. it's just a question of ownership and there are no car manufacturers of any notable volume that are british owned companies --sore point for them.

i say whatever, but i think it matters to the union jack empire. to be fair, americans gladly return the favor with regard to british cars and opinions. think about the things we'd opine if someone suggested it would be fun, in front of a camera, to poke fun at some fake-british autos.

Are films made in Hollywood by Sony/MGM, or music produced on the Sony label regarded as Japanese, or music on the BMG label German?

Despite ownership, some of the greatest cars in the world are still desinged and made right here in Britain, what is the American version of the Rolls Royce, Bently, Austin Martin or Range Rover?

Who owns them today in the age of globablisation and mutlinationals matters little. The pride in those marques is their history, and they will always be identified as British marques.

Clearly your comments betray an underlying feeling towards Britain, I am not sure why, but mark my words, I could not name a single non British car show, yet British ones seem to do quite well abroad, not bad for a bunch of presenters who know so little about cars eh?

my point is that it's rather easy to dig back at UK autowriters just as easily as they can dish it out --after all, if you can dish it out but can't take it.............honestly, man.

talk about sensitive.

i OWN 3 US-made cars. i couldn't care less if they get dismissed out of hand by UK autowriters. objectively, they're quite right about interior quality and whatnot.

subjectively, to praise cars such as the ilk that TVR makes but to dismiss a corvette is hypocritical. i do admit to being snide about UK-automobiles and i don't deny that, of course.

[ZBB]

subjectively, to praise cars such as the ilk that TVR makes but to dismiss a corvette is hypocritical. i do admit to being snide about UK-automobiles and i don't deny that, of course.

Interesting timing... last weekend's Top Gear (shown Sat on BBC World, which isn't carried in the US, but I get it on my Canadian Sat) had a review of "British" sportscars. They tested and absolutely loved the Weissman GT, and introduced it as a classic British sports car -- with all the curves, power, RWD and sexiness, except that its made in Germany (its essentially an e46 M3 underneath). They compared it with the TVR Tuscan II, which they slammed -- hard to drive, twitchy throttle, windshield wipers that lifted off the windshield above 80 mph. They even stopped by a factory and bet 5 workers 20 pounds that they could not get in the car and get it started in less than 1 minute without instruction -- and none of them could (for example, the door "pull" is a switch under the rear view mirror)

[Jason C]

subjectively, to praise cars such as the ilk that TVR makes but to dismiss a corvette is hypocritical. i do admit to being snide about UK-automobiles and i don't deny that, of course.

Interesting timing... last weekend's Top Gear (shown Sat on BBC World, which isn't carried in the US, but I get it on my Canadian Sat) had a review of "British" sportscars. They tested and absolutely loved the Weissman GT, and introduced it as a classic British sports car -- with all the curves, power, RWD and sexiness, except that its made in Germany (its essentially an e46 M3 underneath). They compared it with the TVR Tuscan II, which they slammed -- hard to drive, twitchy throttle, windshield wipers that lifted off the windshield above 80 mph. They even stopped by a factory and bet 5 workers 20 pounds that they could not get in the car and get it started in less than 1 minute without instruction -- and none of them could (for example, the door "pull" is a switch under the rear view mirror)

Did you like the sound of that Wiesmann? Damn, if the E46 M3 sounded like that from the factory I might have to get one (spun bearings notwistanding).