Jeremy Clarkson on the GT86 in the Sunday Times

[TheRipler]

Originally Posted by TuxedoCartman

Am I being too nerdy being distracted by the fact that 1000 MPH is faster than the speed of sound?

Probably took me twice as long to read the article as it should have because I got stuck thinking "Why are the Fast Fords going around a hairpin over 200mph faster than a GT-R?"

[DuMa]

clarkson ftw. and i smiled like an ape reading his review

[Bristecom]

Originally Posted by Marrk

My Fit is as ugly as ugly gets. Fun as hell to drive, but dang ugly.


I didn't see Clarkson drive the F430, but I saw him in the 458. He was laughing his head off and saying that he couldn't believe how great the car was. The 458 is too big for a road car. Beautiful, but big. I saw two M-B SLSs and yet another Audi R8 in town today. The SLS is huge, a land yacht, but the R8 is about the right size and scale for a supercar.


Every time I see the FR-S, I like its looks a little more, but it still seems big, and tall, to me. The Celica GT that preceded it was just the right size. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If they had slapped some rwd on the Celica GT, they coulda hadda sports car.

Well at least you admit it's ugly.

But yeah, that's true about supercars. They are low but they are damn wide. I prefer my cars under 1800 mm width. Interesting you consider the Celica GT sportier and more compact... Did you know that it's actually and inch taller and over 10 inches longer than the FR-S?

But what really turns me on is the one piece roofs like my Eclipse and the older Celicas and many supercars. I'm pretty sure it's more rigid that way too. But I guess there's no way to repair/replace it if it's damaged and it's also probably more expensive to make it that way.

But anyway, I would consider the 86/FR-S one of the best looking cars. The lines don't flow from panel to panel as well, nor is it as curvy and smooth as my Eclipse though.

[Marrk]

Originally Posted by Bristecom

But yeah, that's true about supercars. They are low but they are damn wide. I prefer my cars under 1800 mm width. Interesting you consider the Celica GT sportier and more compact... Did you know that it's actually and inch taller and over 10 inches longer than the FR-S?

Doesn't look it, though.

Celica GTS 170.5 (l) 68.3 (w) 51.4 (h)
FR-S 166.7 (l) 69.9 (w) 50.6 (h)

[switchlanez]

Originally Posted by Marrk

Every time I see the FR-S, I like its looks a little more, but it still seems big, and tall, to me. The Celica GT that preceded it was just the right size. I've said it before and I'll say it again: If they had slapped some rwd on the Celica GT, they coulda hadda sports car.

The classical RWD proportions of the FR-S does make it look bigger. The dramatic swooping front, elongated middle, and abbreviated butch rear with bulging fenders at the extremities throw you off. But when you see all of it in person the size gives you a sense that a lot of business was efficiently packed into a compact space. It's low, serious, and nimble. I owned a Celica GT then a Celica GT-S between 1999-2009 and its singular wedge styling (which worked as a FWD car) makes it look smaller in pictures but if you stood next to both the Celica/FR-S you'll believe the difference in those dimensions you posted.

[Dazza]

Originally Posted by TheRipler

Probably took me twice as long to read the article as it should have because I got stuck thinking "Why are the Fast Fords going around a hairpin over 200mph faster than a GT-R?"

Haha I did too...I'm sure he wrote 100mph not 1000mph and somewhere along the line a mistake was made to drive us nerdy (or engineering) types mad!!

[TuxedoCartman]

Originally Posted by Dazza

Haha I did too...I'm sure he wrote 100mph not 1000mph and somewhere along the line a mistake was made to drive us nerdy (or engineering) types mad!!

Or.... he's like 99.9% of the world, and doesn't actually know what the speed of sound is. Which is cool; I freely admit I'm a nerd, so no big whoop.

Still highly entertained by this editorial, and by the man himself usually (even if we do clash on some political views now and then).

[czar07]

hes ONLY an entertainer. you can hardly call him a journalist

[dietz]

Originally Posted by TuxedoCartman

Am I being too nerdy being distracted by the fact that 1000 MPH is faster than the speed of sound?

I noticed that right away too, lol

[FRiSson]

There are almost no real journalists among auto writers. They just have fun yammering about cars and some are very entertaining.

I disagree about the sound. I've owned a lot of four cylinder cars, and the rasp of the flat 4 is really growing on me.

[Turbowned]

The GT86 has the Clarkson stamp of approval, and that's all the approval I need!

[Jeff86]

Originally Posted by deucethemoose

Anyone else read that in Jeremy's voice?

Very enjoyable. Love that neanderthal and I'm pleased with his appreciation of this car

[naikaidriver]

As usual, I absolutely loved his article and it just goes to show why Top Gear is the best motoring show on television, hands down. While I don't always agree with them, I do find myself agreeing with them a lot. Especially when they poke fun at American's obsession with accelerating quickly in a straight line for a few seconds and when they do want to turn, it must be to the left or they'll crash.

Still, I don't agree with his assessment of the 86's looks but then again, Clarkson also thought that the front of the Ferrari 430 looked "like a leering idiot". Other than that I think he was spot on and can be summarized by what most here say routinely...

"if you have to ask why someone would buy a car like this, you wouldn't understand anyway"

Scott

[Josh B]

Originally Posted by Zagmeister

No you're not. He is pontificating a lot, making his article rather cumbersome and definitely boring.

He took one third of the article length to get to the point, and then he missed it all together.

What a lop-sided writing style..!

Not a fan of Top Gear then? I read that entire article in his voice in my head. I love his reviews.