RE: Eagle E-Type
Wednesday 27th March 2002
Eagle E-Type
Clarkson's Car of the Century tested
Discussion
quote:
Even below the legal limit, the car was all over the place. I felt like a novice skier barrelling down a black run. Towards a tree. Without airbags. Or a crumple zone.
Because you expected a car as easy to drive as a supermarket trolley??
quote:
Sorry, Henry. Sorry, Jeremy. I guess I'm not man enough for your machine.
Driving classic cars is an experience no modern machinery can achieve.
I'd prefer to drive a three wheeler Morgan instead of the Bugatti-whatever-they-called-it W16
>> Edited by thom on Wednesday 27th March 19:44
fact... this is not an original. It's supposed to be what the etype would be if jaguar made it today, that's what everyone alludes to. Comparing its numbers to modern cars invites criticism for the areas where it doesn't match, regardless of vintage. JC called this the car of the century, and if it can be found so easily fallible, then farago has it dead on that JC is truly an eccentric. Only someone who is afraid of being criticised for mainstream decisions would go to such dramatic sweeps of notion as to call an extremely rare and expensive version of a 40 year old car the car of the century, and then leave the mclaren f1 deliberately out of the list. C'mon, how many cars on the list do everything and emphasize the same thing as the mclaren but nowhere near as well? FU clarkson. You're one of the reasons I refuse to buy car at the newsstand. happy to see tiff needel doing some work for autocar tho.
quote:
I was rather hoping for an car enthusiasts view of a unique car rather than a demonstration of cynical prose as favoured in the mainstream media. Why didn't you attach your cv to the piece Mr Farago?
I agree in that I'd be interested in more in depth views of how the car stacks up on the road (Robert?).
As for your other comment, personally I don't think there's enough cynical prose about! Too much conformity in most of the motoring press these days.
quote:I'd disagree, it would appear that the cynical sarcastic approach is becoming the norm and that the personalities are becoming more important than the cars. The piece seemed to be a demonstration of Robert's writing style and it's ability to conform to this new media approach rather than a piece on what in my opinion is a classic and beautiful car given a rather thorough restoration but without the normal requirement to keep everything original. I think the approach to the car is brave and commendable and I'd like to read more about the car and the reaction it gets from buyers and the "keep them original" classic chaps and not a piece about Robert Farago if you see what I mean.
As for your other comment, personally I don't think there's enough cynical prose about! Too much conformity in most of the motoring press these days.
Just my 2p though. It is still an exceptional website Ted and most of the car reviews are enthusiastic and very enjoyable to read.
No worries. As I say, I agree with you to a certain extent.
I think one aspect of writing on PH that journo's don't 'benefit' from in the printed world is the instant feedback of the readers. We all learn a lot more about our writing styles on here than we would do in a static magazine. We can learn from that a lot quicker. It's all good fun
I think one aspect of writing on PH that journo's don't 'benefit' from in the printed world is the instant feedback of the readers. We all learn a lot more about our writing styles on here than we would do in a static magazine. We can learn from that a lot quicker. It's all good fun
This is a review, not a feature. A review is my personal opinion of a car. This I have given, openly, honestly, passionately and fairly-- to the best of my journalistic ability and automotive experience.
It is NOT cynical. Although I didn't enjoy the Sport's road manners, the review clearly praises the car's visual appeal, build quality and engineering integrity.
The piece also clearly identified my prejudice against the set-up as a personal preference, and deferred to both JC and Mr. Pearman as to the car's high speed abilities.
Lest we forget, I LOVED the GT, and said so. Hell, I said I was saving up to BUY one. What greater praise is there than that? What do you guys want, BLOOD?
It is NOT cynical. Although I didn't enjoy the Sport's road manners, the review clearly praises the car's visual appeal, build quality and engineering integrity.
The piece also clearly identified my prejudice against the set-up as a personal preference, and deferred to both JC and Mr. Pearman as to the car's high speed abilities.
Lest we forget, I LOVED the GT, and said so. Hell, I said I was saving up to BUY one. What greater praise is there than that? What do you guys want, BLOOD?
Blimey dude, take a happy pill and calm down.
The great thing about pistonheads is that we all feel part of it as it's a much more interactive format than a magazine. Just because you're a journalist doesn't make your opinions any more valuable or correct than ours. If you don't want feedback then don't write for pistonheads.
The great thing about pistonheads is that we all feel part of it as it's a much more interactive format than a magazine. Just because you're a journalist doesn't make your opinions any more valuable or correct than ours. If you don't want feedback then don't write for pistonheads.
quote:
I call it like I see it.
In that case, you only appear to see half the story - I was hoping to read about the car, not a poor imitation of a Clarkson Sun article.
I understand that you were using Clarkson as a counterpoint because he named the car his car of the century, but about the only paragraph about the car (rather than your preferences) was filled with third rate Clarkson-esque similies.
What about the car? You could have summed up everything you told us about the car in one paragraph, in fact the article might as well have read "drives like a big scary sports car, don't like it much".
Well, if you prefer laid-back cruisers, why are you writing reviews for a site whose byline is Speed Matters?
I like your opinion pieces Robert, and I feel they have a place here, but I want to read reviews of sports cars by people who appreciate sports cars.
PS. Ted, gissa job....
I resemble that remark. I LOVE sports car. I just don't like driving sports cars that require so much hard work. Some people do. Good for them.
BTW: "Speed matters" doesn't mean that the only way to enjoy a car is balls-out. Cruising is an equally valid way to enjoy the thrill of forward movement.
BTW: "Speed matters" doesn't mean that the only way to enjoy a car is balls-out. Cruising is an equally valid way to enjoy the thrill of forward movement.
No, no, I'm enthusiastic about all sorts of cars. The point was we would like to read articles that are also enthusiastic about all sort of cars and not dismiss them on the basis that they are too powerful or a bit skittish. Many people who come here have cars that are too powerful and a bit skittish... it's what we like.
I also think you just lost a lot of people when you wrote 'I know: some people like that kind of thing. They call it "driving". By the same token, some people like root canal surgery. They call it "dentistry". (There. I'm done.)' as you misjudged your target audience by about a country mile.
I also think you just lost a lot of people when you wrote 'I know: some people like that kind of thing. They call it "driving". By the same token, some people like root canal surgery. They call it "dentistry". (There. I'm done.)' as you misjudged your target audience by about a country mile.
By quoting 'Speed Matters' I was trying to convey the fact that for a large proportion of this site, big, powerful scary sports cars are precisely the kind of car they prefer. They either own one, would like to own one or like to watch them racing round tracks.
Mhibbins says what I was trying to, so I don't need to elaborate.
Mhibbins says what I was trying to, so I don't need to elaborate.
Gassing Station | Jaguar | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff