Clarkson review on the 197

[ollie82]

http://www.ozrenaultsport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3989

I'm more thinking about the comments some of the aussies wrote. Is it me or are they being a tad unfair??

 

[Spiezels]

need to log in

 

[BenWall]

you have to be a member to view

 

[Fred@BTM]

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,12529-2435722_1,00.html

 

[iPap]

"Renault is well placed to do this because back in the Eighties it made something called the 5 Monaco. It looked like a conventional Renault 5 but it was kitted out like a Maybach with leather and luxuries oozing from every pore."



I had a 5 Monaco!!!

 

[Guy]

is that the crappest car review ever??
as in terms of information on the actual car/spec/value/drive

 

[Iain C]

lol i love the clarkson but wtf was that!?
After reading 2 pages of waffle we learnt it had a defuser.. We know that already!

 

[GordonD]

I don't like Clarkson and I don't like Top Gear because its full of Paganis and Ferraris and Aston Martins, not real tests of real cars that real people buy.

But I have to admit the core point in the review is a valid and good one. "fitting a 2 litre hatchback with all this pseudo-F1 stuff is like fitting your washing machine with a front wing. It makes you look a bit of a plonker."

If they took that sort of crap off it it would make no objective difference. If they'd put the effort into other things instead of the stupid pseudo-F1 gimmickry that only attracts w*****s they could have made a better car. Renault ought to leave to the w*****s to fit whatever of that sort of crap they want to the car and not force people who aren't w*****s buy a car with that sort of crap on it. It loses a company sales to assume the people who buys its products are w*****s.

 

[Cookie]

I don't like Clarkson and I don't like Top Gear because its full of Paganis and Ferraris and Aston Martins, not real tests of real cars that real people buy.

But I have to admit the core point in the review is a valid and good one. "fitting a 2 litre hatchback with all this pseudo-F1 stuff is like fitting your washing machine with a front wing. It makes you look a bit of a plonker."

If they took that sort of crap off it it would make no objective difference. If they'd put the effort into other things instead of the stupid pseudo-F1 gimmickry that only attracts w**kers they could have made a better car.

Real people don't buy expensive cars?

So if you have the money for a Lambo you are fake?

 

[oska]

is that the crappest car review ever??
as in terms of information on the actual car/spec/value/drive

Have you read a Clarkson review before? They are always like that!

 

[al]

I don't like Clarkson and I don't like Top Gear because its full of Paganis and Ferraris and Aston Martins, not real tests of real cars that real people buy.

Watch 5th Gear then

 

[andyroo]

I don't like Clarkson and I don't like Top Gear because its full of Paganis and Ferraris and Aston Martins, not real tests of real cars that real people buy.

Who wants to watch a tv programme about "normal" cars that we all own anyway? Would you watch a programme that tested average white goods? Heelllllllllll no!!!
If you want proper reviews then you go to Parkers or the Top Gear website, and compare them, and inevitably, you'd test it yourself. The real tests that make the difference are the long term tests, which I definately don't want to watch;

"This entire series. we're going to be testing the Ford Focus in everyday situations..." Got any paint I can watch dry anyone?

PLUS theres no point repeating all the info on the quality and suchlike from reviews of the slower models cos that would be boring. He only needs review the additional bodykit and the engine, which he does. Imagine every BMW review going in-depth on the i-drive system... that would be useless!

 

[oska]

Exactly! Top gear isn't about testing everyday cars. It celebrates the passion for cars and driving, like Evo magazine. If you want reviews buy Autocar!

 

[Timmay]

how can you not like clarkson or top gear? madness i tell you

 

[Ollie82.]

To be honest i think Clarkson is better placed than anyone of us on here to give a proper and fair opinion on the 197...you know why? Because he doesn't own a Renault Clio.
If its not as good as it could be then he's gonna say so.

Why do people throw their arms up in exasperation when they read a slightly unfavourable review of it?
Because of being biased, and the fact that they can't bear to believe that the newer hot Clio doesn't get the rave reviews that the later 182's got.

 

[ollie82]

Sorry guys didn't realise you had to log into see the page, if you get time register to ozrenaultsport.com, its free and you will get to see the aussies slating clarkson!

 

[172.com]

To be honest i think Clarkson is better placed than anyone of us on here to give a proper and fair opinion on the 197...you know why? Because he doesn't own a Renault Clio.
If its not as good as it could be then he's gonna say so.

Why do people throw their arms up in exasperation when they read a slightly unfavourable review of it?
Because of being biased, and the fact that they can't bear to believe that the newer hot Clio doesn't get the rave reviews that the later 182's got.

Good point that!

And there's an Ollie1982 and an ollie82. My head's going to explode

 

[ollie82]

Oh and I'm not kicking off because of a bad review of the car, I couldn't really care to be honest. I'm happy with my 172 but, Im a Clarkson fan so its that im "Throwing my arms up about"