Loved last nights Top Gear.

 

I enjoyed it. I love the new Vette and the Challenger (I don't think the Challenger was "slow", just not a king on the back roads).

The Abarth 500 looked really quick on the test track and they never mentioned the fact that it was nearly as quick as a Focus ST and faster than a Lotus Elise round there

If you don't like the show, stop watching it.(TM)

 

faster than an elise ..

 

Doesn't the Elise have (very wet) after it? Was the Fiat lap in the dry?

And I have stopped watching it. My complaint is there is no proper car programme anymore on the BBC.

 

Yes, better - but not by much to be honest.

I doubt I'll watch it next week though.

 

i was watching the fiat on the track and commented to the missus that it looked like it was cornering fantastic for what it was, she said "awgh its so cute"

 

I have to say, the tricksy camera work (the faux archive-y look) was reeeeeaaally getting on my ****!

 

Elise and 500 times were both dry. 500 was the SS optioned car. It was faster than the EP3 Civic Type R and Alfa GTA too

 

top gea ris amazing i like every show they have made so far! i am on there waioting list to watch the show live should be good when i get to somewhen!!
scooby_69er

funny bits last night was Jeremy and Hammond was revving the cars in the road to make the parked cars alarm go off haha. also when James crashed the Chevrolet after doing a wheel spin

 

I really enjoyed it

I must say I was surprised that Hamster didn't know how to do a smoking burnout in an automatic though

Apparently (according to his Wikipedia entry anyway) he personally now owns the Challenger they bought

 

I saw that 500 too, I want one!
astraboy.

 

How strange

Top Gear Test Track - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 500 is .1 of a second faster and the Elise has (very wet) next to it. The Honda has (wet) next to it, and the Alfa, well they're just sh1te anyway. The 500 has nothing next to it indicating it was a dry track.

Looking further down the board I suppose the 500 is a better track car than a 996 Boxster (very wet) a Honda s2000 (very wet) and a BMW Z4 (very wet)?

They go on to say that very wet conditions should allow -7 seconds a lap compared to a dry track.

Assuming this information is all correct I'd be quite careful about comparing lap times with quite obviously differing track conditions.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed it, but then i did past my test in an original Fiat 500, and i've also driven most of the roads they drove in the states... inc the lonelyest road.........

 

fantastic - you couldnt get more personal with your tester

 

my wife wants one. In purple.

 

I thought it was pretty good, did laugh when Captain slow went past Clarkson and the childish setting off the car alarms

 

Apparently, the Charger is for sale, and the cars whose alarms were tripped could be seen as the support cars in the background in a couple of places.

 

The Buggers

 

Ok,watched it now.

Quite enjoyed it actually

 

Nothing strange at all. The source I used doesn't indicate a wet time for either the Elise S2 or the Honda (although it does say foggy for the Focus ST) and the BBCs official list doesn't mention weather conditions for any time (which is, frankly, ridiculous). On the program itself, the Elise time didn't have a (W) or (VW) next to it to indicate a wet time, either. I don't remember the Elise test so can't say for sure what the conditions were.

Your supposition that the 500 is better car than the Boxster, Z4 and S2000 because it posted a beter time in the dry than their wet times would be idiocy of the highest order. As you say, you should be careful about comparing track time done in different weather conditions (and probably different drivers, too)

 

Use the source I have posted. I was being sarcastic about the 500 being a better car than a Boxster z4 and S200, quite obviously lost on you. No need to thank me for providing what looks like accurate figures of the track times and the conditions thus correcting your somewhat inaccurate musings.

Idiocy of the highest order for me is comparing track times between cars when one track is dry and one is very wet and not making allowances, nor even mentioning the fact in a post on here.

 

What's your problem? Why is your source any more accurate than mine? Wikipedia is very, very rarely a credible source.

Your sarcasm wasn't lost and I used irony to retaliate. Which was obviously lost on you, thus doubling the irony.

My source says not wet, your source says wet. Until I see the lap in question, it's clear neither source can be trusted. I have found a lap done by a Series 2 111S which was wet (not very wet by any stretch of the imagination) that resulted in a time of 1:35. Wikipedia doesn't list dates, so it's not clear if this is the lap they're referencing or not. My source says that the Elise time that was 0.1 second slower than the 500 was done in 2006, the video I have was from Series 1 (2002?).

Get over yourself.

 

There wasn't even a hint of irony in your post

What is this mystery source?

The only problem I have is people posting up events as 'facts' when there is obviously a problem with accuracy.

 

Source: Top Gear Track lap records - FastestLaps.com

Also, if you watch the point where they add the 500s time to the board on Sunday's program, there is no (W) or any other symbol to state that the Elise time was in anything other than dry conditions.

If it was wet, I genuinely don't give a rats ***.

It seems you have a problem with irony generally. Otherwise you wouldn't have used Wikipedia to back up your point of view and complained about people stating "facts" in the same conversation.

 

The Corvette looks like a very very tempting machine. In fact the sound of all three cars being given serious stick was a joy to my ears. Wonder if I can get a "V8 engines" CD one day?!

 

It was wet for the Elise......YouTube or TG's own vid

 

Jesus, someone wants to get out more!

Thanks Corradoboy. That track was so wet Stig was wearing arm bands.

Perhaps next time you champion a Fiat against an Elise Notrev you'll read between the lines of a fastest time board a bit. Seems the 'inaccurate' Wiki board is more accurate than the pants you've been referencing. OOoo the irony PMSL


All sillyness aside, I thought the videos were quite good, vintage TopGear even. If they were to return to that and showcase more affordable cars like the Elise I'd be watching every episode, I may not even mind a bit of pratting around

Watching them videos makes me want to get another Elise, fantastic cars.

 

I remember when I had a Golf R32 - the TG lap time was the same as a Merc SL55 and quicker than a Vanquish. Did I think my Golf was a faster car? No.

 

I did, in fact, reference that video above which was from 2002 and is a 111S. Fastestlaps.com claims that the Elise time was from 2006 and was a "standard" Elise, not the more powerful 111S.

I never "championed" the Fiat, I simply commented that it seemed quick and that it appeared to be as quick as some more serious equipment. The TV program didn't indicate that those laps were anything other than dry and the one source I used also showed them as dry.

As I don't need to get out any more than I already do, I usually don't bother to meticulously research every off the cuff comment I make. Neither do I try to memorize the lap time of every car. I will endeavour to ensure this never happens again, oh wonderous keeper of the truth. I will sacrifice my first born in your honour for making this unforgivable error, I can only hope you see fit to forget this abomination and that your personal offence will be short-lived.

 

Sorry would have sufficed