Top Gear in fake Ferrari scandal

[SilverSaloon]

i thought MR2's only appeared like 80's ferrari's?

http://uk.cars.yahoo.com/16022009/36/top-gear-fake-ferrari-scandal-0.html

arnt they also really small compared to the real thing aswell?

 

[crammy69]

DNA make a F360 convertible out of the new MR2. also their is a company that makes a F360 coupe out of a Peugeot 406 coupe!

 

[prprandall51]

There's also a company in Maranello, Italy, that makes Ferraris out of bits from the Fiat part bin.

 

[Doodle]

Perhaps I'm just being dopey today, but at the moment I'm failing to see what the scandal is?

Do the press really have nothing better to report on than this sh*te?

 

[prprandall51]

Perhaps I'm just being dopey today, but at the moment I'm failing to see what the scandal is?

Do the press really have nothing better to report on than this sh*te?

Well, I think in fairness, this is being reported on a car-related website, not the front page of the Financial Times. Therefore, given that Top Gear Live appear to be duping (or attempting to dupe) the paying public, then it is newsworthy, yes (in the context of motoring news). I for one would certainly be disappointed to find that the much enjoyed review of a classic Jaguar C type (for example) on Top Gear on a Sunday night turned out to be a faked test using a kit car.

To be honest, it's a lot more newsworthy than the non-story that their helicopter wasn't involved in a crash.

 

[Doodle]

Therein lies the issue - I agree completely that if they're claiming something to be what it isn't (as per your C-type example) then that's wrong.

But it seems the whole article is based on assumptions and conjecture, and the observations of "One keen observer who refuses to be named" - which given the authoritative tone they seem to be trying to adopt, isn't really enough.

As Crammy says, there are people who makes 360 kits out of MR2's, but it's patently obvious they aren't real from a country mile away. The 335 kit on the earlier MR2's was much more convincing.

 

[prprandall51]

Therein lies the issue - I agree completely that if they're claiming something to be what it isn't (as per your C-type example) then that's wrong.

But it seems the whole article is based on assumptions and conjecture, and the observations of "One keen observer who refuses to be named" - which given the authoritative tone they seem to be trying to adopt, isn't really enough.

As Crammy says, there are people who makes 360 kits out of MR2's, but it's patently obvious they aren't real from a country mile away. The 335 kit on the earlier MR2's was much more convincing.

Fair comment, it is a bit of shoddy writing. I will await the outcome of the official government enquiry.

 

[Pringles]

I wonder if the keen eyed anonymous observer was a Mr G Brown from London SW1 trying to prove a point!

 

[Doodle]

I wonder if the keen eyed anonymous observer was a Mr G Brown from London SW1 trying to prove a point!

That would be a one-eyed 'kin observer, surely?