BlackHorse Posted September 17, 2007 Share Posted September 17, 2007 Those of you that have been around here for awhile know that I think Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear is a self impressed blow hard who's full of shit. Turns out I'm right again. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uq94J2xlI8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Well, to be fair, the engine he called rubbish was the old 2V 4.6. And it's really not that great for this time and place. That other odd-ball car undoubtedly has the 4v model, probably with forced induction. And anyone that takes Clarkson at his word.............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 (edited) He's rubbish. I drive a 99 Mustang GT with that "rubbish" engine and it doesn't get 9 mpg. It gets 26-27 mpg generally, and 30 mpg if I am doing only highway - which is better than any other car we have in our fleet (even V6 engined cars). I'll admit, that is when I have driven it conservatively, but it still gets very nice mileage for a 260 hp V8 engined car. I think the 5 spd helps a lot (no surprise). 5-speed becomes a pain sometimes though. Today I pulled into a full gas station and had to turn around. I need my clutch adjusted because the catch point is too far up ... it's so annoying because sometimes the car bucks around when you are trying to drive it at low speed and you're damned if you ride the clutch, and damned if you don't. I'll admit, I've only got a couple of months of stick driving under my belt, but still, I've driven other stickshift cars (like my girlfriend's 93 Probe) and it isn't that hard to drive in a parking lot in 2nd gear - Mustang tries to argue with that though ... Clarkson isn't particularly good at telling how many cylinders an engine has anyway. He drove a V6 Mustang convertible and told the camera that his car had 300 hp. See it for yourself. Edited September 18, 2007 by SVT_MAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 Well, to be fair, the engine he called rubbish was the old 2V 4.6. And it's really not that great for this time and place. That other odd-ball car undoubtedly has the 4v model, probably with forced induction. And anyone that takes Clarkson at his word.............. Richard, you defend this toad everytime the truth about him is pointed out around here. The truth is, he's no better than that toad at Time that you dislike so much or any of the myriad of staff writers at MotorTrend that you detest. Worse even because at least Motortrend doesn't just set their default preview of cars to "all things American suck." where as Clarkson does. There's no defending what this asswipe did here. He called the first engine rubbish because it was under the hood of an American car. He heaped praise on the second one because it was under the hood of a european car. It's the same engine Richard regardless of which 2v or 3v head might be on it. That doesn't make it go from rubbish to one of the greatest engines of all time. The man is full it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 The difference, IMO, is that Clarkson has a sense of humor. While Dan Neil may make the odd funny remark, he's not a funny guy. Also Clarkson doesn't claim to be unbiased. And there's a heeeeeyouuge difference between the 4.6L 260hp engine in the 99 Mustang GT and the 400hp beasts that ran around in Cobras and Mach 1s of that vintage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZanatWork Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Even the more mundane 4.6 motors don't get their due. My fleet customers see them get acceptable economy while producing more than ample power...and going past 300,000 miles constantly with only routine maintenance. For people that like keeping their cars past the end of the payment booklet...what a great engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 He's rubbish. I drive a 99 Mustang GT with that "rubbish" engine and it doesn't get 9 mpg. It gets 26-27 mpg generally, and 30 mpg if I am doing only highway - which is better than any other car we have in our fleet (even V6 engined cars). 30 miles per gallon from a 99 Mustang GT?? The jokes never stop in this place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 And there's a heeeeeyouuge difference between the 4.6L 260hp engine in the 99 Mustang GT and the 400hp beasts that ran around in Cobras and Mach 1s of that vintage. There a heeeeeyouuge difference between a 190-205 horsepower NPI 4.6L 2V that was in the early 90's Crown Vics and TBirds and the 260hp 2V in the 99 Mustang GT. The difference between a 190 hp NPI 2V and a 390 hp (more like 420) s/c 4V is astronomical. When my GT was new and stock, it would get 27 mpg on the interstate at 70 - 75 mph. Not quite 30. My 95 4.6L TBird with 3.08s would pull off 30 on the interstate though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I have got to agree with Black horse on this one, two pick-up trucks reports, one report says we don’t need them in the UK they are unpractical rubbish, the other report says they are the best toughest thing money can buy they just go on for ever. On he worries about scratching the paintwork the other he dropping a ball and chain on to show how tough a pick-up is. Does Jeremy Clarkson have a split personality? F-150 (Jeremy says pick ups are unpractical we dont drive pick-ups in the UK) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyC6vjsGeRE Toyota Hilux (Jeremy says we love cars like this cars on Top Gear, tough pick up trucks) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tom3OUKDM9I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 Regardless of the gas mileage claims of various years of mustangs I think most of us can agree that Clarkson is in fact extremely biased against American cars, even Richard. I'm fully aware that the 260 hp 4.6 liter engine in the Mustang was not as powerful as the amped up 4.6 liter engine in the Itallian car. Hell look what Koneigsagg did with that motor right? Regardless, he's on and on about about how its rubbish because its made of volcanic rock and pig iron and produces lots of CO2. His first words about it? "it's a terrible motor". But gee golly suddenly when you put the volcanic pig iron motor in the Itiallian car its one of the worlds great engines. I mean I agree, the 4.6 is a fantastic engine, but Jeremy Clarkson my friends, is a biased volcanic pig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 I have got to agree with Black horse on this one, two pick-up trucks reports, one report says we don’t need them in the UK they are unpractical rubbish, the other report says they are the best toughest thing money can buy they just go on for ever. On he worries about scratching the paintwork the other he dropping a ball and chain on to show how tough a pick-up is. Does Jeremy Clarkson have a split personality? F-150 (Jeremy says pick ups are unpractical we dont drive pick-ups in the UK) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyC6vjsGeRE Toyota Hilux (Jeremy says we love cars like this cars on Top Gear, tough pick up trucks) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tom3OUKDM9I Great post Jelly. Naturally of course the super indestructable truck is, . . . not an Amercian truck. At least not in Jeremy land. I'd wager you could take a 13 year old Ford ranger and do the same thing with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Clarkson owns a Ford GT. About as 'American' a car as you can get. If he's biased he's got an odd way of showing it. He's just addicted to the sound of his own voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 Clarkson owns a Ford GT. About as 'American' a car as you can get. If he's biased he's got an odd way of showing it. He's just addicted to the sound of his own voice. I don't care what Clarkson does in his private life. When he gets in front of that camera and starts trying to influence the opinion of millions, he sings a different tune about American cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I don't care what Clarkson does in his private life. When he gets in front of that camera and starts trying to influence the opinion of millions, he sings a different tune about American cars. His ownership of the GT is grist for the mill on the show. And the idea that he's influencing the opinions of millions is hogwash. Friend of mine from Britain enjoyed the Robin Reliant Space Shuttle episode, but pointed out that Top Gear is, in Britain, a very low-brow show. I mean the guy is the equivalent of David Letterman or Conan O'Brien on cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I think you are forgetting the heritage of the GT40. I believe JC's comment was that it was like the British Navy, it was invented by the British and improved by the Americans. That is why he like the Ford GT GTX. JC is extremely biased. Clarkson owns a Ford GT. About as 'American' a car as you can get. If he's biased he's got an odd way of showing it. He's just addicted to the sound of his own voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackHorse Posted September 18, 2007 Author Share Posted September 18, 2007 (edited) His ownership of the GT is grist for the mill on the show. And the idea that he's influencing the opinions of millions is hogwash. Friend of mine from Britain enjoyed the Robin Reliant Space Shuttle episode, but pointed out that Top Gear is, in Britain, a very low-brow show. I mean the guy is the equivalent of David Letterman or Conan O'Brien on cars. I wasn't talking about his influence on just the Britons. Incidently I wonder how Clarkson feels about the motor in his own car, given that that 5.4 in the GT is really just a derivative of the 4.6? Is it also rubbish? lol His ownership of the GT just proves that he is not only biased, but also a hypocrite. Edited September 18, 2007 by BlackHorse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sranger Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 On come on guys..... It is pure entertainment, no one watches the show for it's technical content.... NO ONE TAKES Mr Clark Seriously.... The show is a spoof of the "serious" car shows.... I like the show because it is funny..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 it was invented by the British and improved by the Americans. Well, for cryin' out loud. About how many things can that be said? American colleges and universities derive from Oxford and Cambridge. American government is heavily derived from British antecedents. American architecture was historically heavily influenced by British architecture. No DUH! It's almost like America -used to be part of Britain-!!! And as far as complaining about fit and finish on the Lightning. Well, did you see it? Nothing like a shoddy RHD conversion. Steering numbness? Well, did you see that too? Now how much of -that- is also due to an RHD conversion as well, I couldn't say, but it's hard to believe that there wasn't a connection. The difference between Clarkson and Csaba Csere, David E Davis, and Dan Neil, is that Clarkson does not insist that he be taken seriously. Those other stuffed shirts wrap themselves up in some tattered cloak of journalistic respectability and give vent to their own unreconstructed biases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenJ Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I believe Clarkson gave back the Ford GT because of a faulty car alarm system the dealer installed and then tried to blame Ford for it. The guy is a pompous ****! I used to like watching his show but he just gets really annoying at times and is pretty arrogant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 No. He returned it and then had a change of heart. In the Top Gear 100 sexiest cars, one of the staff refers to Clarkson as owning one. A 5.4-litre supercharged V8 with 550bhp through the rears, retro styling and the coolest use of stripes since the Viper. The GT is sexy. Except for the fact that Jeremy Clarkson owns one. Oh dear... http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/...sexiestcars/72/ I mean, what do you think would happen if you told Clarkson people were basing their car purchase decisions on his opinions? "Oh Good Lord! I hope not." What if you said that to Dan Neil? "Well, I did win a Pulitzer...." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Clarkson owns a Ford GT. About as 'American' a car as you can get. If he's biased he's got an odd way of showing it. He's just addicted to the sound of his own voice. Did own a Ford GT for a month, but got his money back. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/d...ticle540942.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 He changed his mind. Remember, at the end of the article, he's got all kinds of misgivings about giving it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalepsy Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 ...By the way, everything you listed are Roman influenced, not British orgin. Well, for cryin' out loud. About how many things can that be said? American colleges and universities derive from Oxford and Cambridge. American government is heavily derived from British antecedents. American architecture was historically heavily influenced by British architecture. No DUH! It's almost like America -used to be part of Britain-!!! And as far as complaining about fit and finish on the Lightning. Well, did you see it? Nothing like a shoddy RHD conversion. Steering numbness? Well, did you see that too? Now how much of -that- is also due to an RHD conversion as well, I couldn't say, but it's hard to believe that there wasn't a connection. The difference between Clarkson and Csaba Csere, David E Davis, and Dan Neil, is that Clarkson does not insist that he be taken seriously. Those other stuffed shirts wrap themselves up in some tattered cloak of journalistic respectability and give vent to their own unreconstructed biases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 ...By the way, everything you listed are Roman influenced, not British orgin. I thought English speaking culture was based on England and Frence on Roman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Take a look at his top cars. Top 9 Cars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.