• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

TOP GEAR Season 14 EP 4

GTaudiophile said:
What is the deal with these season so far?

#4 wasn't all that great either. Budget cuts at the BBC the problem?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it felt like it was dragging on a little too much. The car through the tunnel wasn't as exciting as I thought it would be. And no Top Gear next week also. 🙁
 
It wasn't the best episode...but I've enjoyed this season more than last season so far. Sure they repeat a lot of their ideas...but I don't care...still entertaining and get to see cars I love.
 
That poor little Twingo. I swear if Renault brought some of their lineup to the US, they would sell like crazy. I'd definitely buy a Twingo if it were available here.
 
RichUK said:
Budget cuts? They destroyed a brand new £12k car as part of this episode.
Click to expand...

...and 12k is chump change when you're making a top-rated tv show. i wouldn't be surprised if the car was a freebie, too. they don't pay a penny for the shopping malls, romanian parliaments, armies or navies either since they're all lining up to be on tv.
 
Kaervak said:
That poor little Twingo. I swear if Renault brought some of their lineup to the US, they would sell like crazy. I'd definitely buy a Twingo if it were available here.
Click to expand...

I'm positive people would be saying the same thing about VW's if VW's were not sold here...but unfortunately they do not sell like crazy.
 
While I haven't seen episode 4 yet, this season has been rather "meh" as well. Plus no crazy ass feature episode (Artic, Botswana, Vietnam, etc). The best part has too be when James May flew the airship over the airport....Where's the races across Europe, Skiier vs Rally car down a ski resort, or British Military involvement?
 
The Boston Dangler said:
how retarded are the bmw and audi trucks? the range rover was pretty sweet, tho. the dash alone will sell trucks.
Click to expand...

That Range Rover beat the other 2 in the ugliest fvcking design category too. Can that ass hang out over the rear wheels any more? Can it be more square?

86113857.jpg

WTF is that thing?

BTW, even on the wet track... did you see which cars that X5M competed with on the lap times? Of course Clarkson wouldn't make a point of it. Engineering marvel. Yeah real uninteresting...

96491140.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lame episode. I ended up skipping quite a bit of it because it was just unfuckingbelievably boring.

They're producing shit right now. I thought the tunnel thing was going to be epic but it wasn't at all.. It was terrible and a HUGE letdown.
 
rh71 said:
That Range Rover beat the other 2 in the ugliest fvcking design category too. Can that ass hang out over the rear wheels any more? Can it be more square?

86113857.jpg

WTF is that thing?

BTW, even on the wet track... did you see which cars that X5M competed with on the lap times? Of course Clarkson wouldn't make a point of it. Engineering marvel. Yeah real uninteresting...

96491140.jpg
Click to expand...

Christ the X5M is FAST.
 
rh71 said:
That Range Rover beat the other 2 in the ugliest fvcking design category too. Can that ass hang out over the rear wheels any more? Can it be more square?
WTF is that thing?
Click to expand...

SUVs that can actually go off road have rear ends like that so that they can enter and leave steep areas without catching part of their pink frilly dress on a tree. Fashion wagons like the other two can barely scale a large chocolate cake without getting stuck. Function, then form.

rh71 said:
BTW, even on the wet track... did you see which cars that X5M competed with on the lap times? Of course Clarkson wouldn't make a point of it. Engineering marvel. Yeah real uninteresting...
Click to expand...
His point was they were all ridiculous cars. He recommended none of them in the form they were tested. It may be as fast around a track as a Z4, yes, but if you want it for that, just get a Z4.
 
DivideBYZero said:
SUVs that can actually go off road have rear ends like that so that they can enter and leave steep areas without catching part of their pink frilly dress on a tree. Fashion wagons like the other two can barely scale a large chocolate cake without getting stuck. Function, then form.


His point was they were all ridiculous cars. He recommended none of them in the form they were tested. It may be as fast around a track as a Z4, yes, but if you want it for that, just get a Z4.
Click to expand...

I think the form guy quit before they got to him. Why buy an expensive truck to go offroad when it'll get dinged to high hell when many beaters from America can do just as well, without the puke-tastic shape I may add?

If you want it for offroading, just get one of those. 1) Logic flaw. 2) He called all of it uninteresting because he thought it was all pointless, which it may be to many car enthusiasts with certain mindsets, but to make a huge truck able to compete with sports cars is anything but ho-hum uninteresting.

Many people who can afford these things have an M3 or the like as well. Point is when they have to carry more why should they have to sacrifice in the performance dept. when they don't have to? Hell these people can just get rid of the M3 and move onto other toys.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how you can think the Range Rover is ugly. May not picture well in that segment, but in real life they are really nice looking. Range Rover sport looks even better. Plus they do have a certain elegance about them both inside and out.

The thing is he has a point. The x5m is a rather pointless vehicle. Gets terrible gas mileage and not exactly going to be the most comfortable vehicle for trips. The whole point of an x5 is to carry stuff and have a comfortable vehicle. I doubt few are ever going to load up 5 people and go to the Nürburgring. If you wanted to do that you'd just get a regular m5, which would be faster anyway.
 
DEMO24 said:
Not sure how you can think the Range Rover is ugly. May not picture well in that segment, but in real life they are really nice looking. Range Rover sport looks even better. Plus they do have a certain elegance about them both inside and out.

The thing is he has a point. The x5m is a rather pointless vehicle. Gets terrible gas mileage and not exactly going to be the most comfortable vehicle for trips. The whole point of an x5 is to carry stuff and have a comfortable vehicle. I doubt few are ever going to load up 5 people and go to the Nürburgring. If you wanted to do that you'd just get a regular m5, which would be faster anyway.
Click to expand...

The X5M was exactly two seconds slower than the M5... and the M5 ran the track dry. That is ridiculous.

They estimate a wet track slows a car by 4 seconds.I would guess that the AWD system helped immensely and it probably did not have a full 4 second affect on the X5M, but that still puts it well within reason of matching an M5 at that particular track.
 
Last edited:
crazySOB297 said:
The X5M was exactly two seconds slower than the M5... and the M5 ran the track dry. That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

The X5M engine is a beast. Sure the V10 in the M5 is nice...but it is comparatively low on torque...and both of those vehicles are heavy. I'm sure the engine in the X5M is slightly under-rated just like the new supercharged V6 in the S4 is underrated and the Turbo-V6 in the GT-R is underrated. If you put that think in the M5, I have a feeling its times would improve dramatically.

I'm on the same page as Clarkson on the vehicles being pointless...all 3 of them. I would MUCH rather be driving a car rather than an SUV if driving dynamics is my liking (give me a wagon if I need the extra space). If I want a SUV with a high center of gravity..give me one with true offroad capabilities. Give me a 4 Runner or Land Cruiser. Give it to me with a diesel with a lot of towing grunt...but nothing special speed wise. I have a 2005 Toyota Tacoma. There are TRD supercharger kits for my truck...I have not interest in them whatsover. My wife's car on the other hand...we just bought it and I'm already looking at ways of adding horsepower.
 
rh71 said:
That Range Rover beat the other 2 in the ugliest fvcking design category too. Can that ass hang out over the rear wheels any more? Can it be more square?

86113857.jpg

WTF is that thing?

looks like every other range rover i've ever seen.

BTW, even on the wet track... did you see which cars that X5M competed with on the lap times? Of course Clarkson wouldn't make a point of it. Engineering marvel. Yeah real uninteresting...

96491140.jpg
Click to expand...

it's not the execution, it's the concept i don't care for. take a fake off-roader and turn it into a fake super car.
9.5 out of 10 for technical merit, minus several million for clarity of purpose.
 
The Boston Dangler said:
it's not the execution, it's the concept i don't care for. take a fake off-roader and turn it into a fake super car.
9.5 out of 10 for technical merit, minus several million for clarity of purpose.
Click to expand...

You could clearly argue that for the development of the X6 and the rest of the upcoming semi-SUV coupes from Audi and Acura. They're bigger without actually providing much room, actually only seating 4 max. It gets worst gas mileage too. The tagline has been... a solution to a problem they created themself. I don't understand it myself either, but it is different, and people are into that.

I've already mentioned a purpose for these SUV-class monsters... so the speed freaks can still love their ride along with their utility. WTF are you going to fit in a Z4? And if I own a Z4, do I want to drive a stumblin' bumblin' Explorer or a minivan on the side? Let's get real here. And "off-roading" on rough terrain is barely part of an SUV's purpose despite what the marketers like to throw on tv... people throw that around as a huge deal.
 
Last edited:
BTW, even on the wet track... did you see which cars that X5M competed with on the lap times? Of course Clarkson wouldn't make a point of it. Engineering marvel. Yeah real uninteresting...
Click to expand...

Cars with half the horsepower and 1/3rd the cost. What am I supposed to be impressed about again? Clarkson was right, it's completely pointless. Why on earth would you want an SUV with 550HP that would get bogged down driving on the wet grass in your front yard?
 
People say/said the same about the Porsche Cayenne, and look at where that got Porsche... People with money don't care. Now they have a big ass car and can drive like idiots that has the potential to keep up with a Gallardo on the race track, which ran around a 1:26.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top