Top Gear - Merc CL 600

[englishdas]

Both arguments have their merit, to be honest is winding down a window such a burden. The more electronic gadgets we have the more scope for problems, there must be a market for cheap reliable easy self fix transport without the sophistication we now have. The electric adjustments on my seat, I'm the only driver so it was put in place and there it will stay, so the weight of all that additional gubbins is being carried around pointlessly.

I agree, as much as I love the crazy top gear antics, and hope the cl600 shows well, I am becoming more and more fascinated with no nonsense motors like the dacia duster (a James may favourite) purely because of its simplicity. It makes me wonder what the most mechanical car on the market is these days, excluding kit/track cars. Stuff that's practical and not buried in sensors and electrowizardry.

 

[Dieselman]

They've destroyed brand new cars just for a laugh, so wasting taxpayers money does not worry them.

Those brand new cars are pre-production ones destined for the crusher anyway.

 

[nick mercedes]

Those brand new cars are pre-production ones destined for the crusher anyway.

No, they were just cars brought by the beeb for the show to wreck, why would any car company give the BBC new cars to mock and smash up?

 

[MarkP80]

It makes me wonder what the most mechanical car on the market is these days, excluding kit/track cars. Stuff that's practical and not buried in sensors and electrowizardry.

- There's no escaping being buried in sensors these days, to meet emissions legislation. I can't say I miss the strobe light and feeler gauges personally.

 

[John]

It is a TV show - it isn't real you know

Uh oh, Coco has turned up. Just waiting for Buttons now.

 

[John]

They've destroyed brand new cars just for a laugh, so wasting taxpayers money does not worry them.

They said they did pay for them out of their own money but I can't see them actually doing that.

 

[Mr E]

No, they were just cars brought by the beeb for the show to wreck, why would any car company give the BBC new cars to mock and smash up?

You'd be amazed - the opportunity of getting your product onto a world-wide programme such as TG is worth it to the majority of OEMs. A number of "model 1s" (which are the first through the lines and not for sale) will be dished out for the daft stunts that TV and print media journos put them through.

From my experience with OEM marketing types, most know that buying decisions are not influenced by TG and crazy stunts. What they do know is that getting the brand into the marketplace is what counts. As yet, no-one that I know of has had their brand damaged by such stunts.

 

[NW_Merc]

No, they were just cars brought by the beeb for the show to wreck, why would any car company give the BBC new cars to mock and smash up?

If they are pre-production they cannot be used on a public highway as a normal passenger vehicle and hence can only be broken up or used in training facilities for mechanics so DM makes some sense.

 

[Scott_F]

They said they did pay for them out of their own money but I can't see them actually doing that.

What employer would ask you to spend £6k of your own money on a car that you didn't need and which was for their use ?

 

[John]

What employer would ask you to spend £6k of your own money on a car that you didn't need and which was for their use ?

They may have volunteered the idea themselves...

If they are only keeping them a couple of weeks, the value wont have dropped significantly if at all and maybe some buyers may relish buying a used car from them...

 

[Scott_F]

They may have volunteered the idea themselves...

Highly unlikely when there is a bottomless pit of TV licence payers money.

If they are only keeping them a couple of weeks, the value wont have dropped significantly if at all and maybe some buyers may relish buying a used car from them...

Filming and then broadcasting will take months and I doubt that the value would have gone up much after the forensic tests on the interiors !

 

[John]

Just as well some of my old cars have not been tested like that... although I have never done any drugs ever just to clarify.

 

[nick mercedes]

You'd be amazed - the opportunity of getting your product onto a world-wide programme such as TG is worth it to the majority of OEMs.

They destryoed a new Malaysian car to show how crap (borderline racism) they are, and a Korean car to show how usless the Koreans are at anything (Clarkson being to arrogant to notice that Korean cars are taking over the world), those cars were paid for with our television tax, no OEM would allow a car to be smashed to bits and the company mocked for cheap laughs.

 

[nick mercedes]

If they are pre-production they cannot be used on a public highway as a normal passenger vehicle and hence can only be broken up or used in training facilities for mechanics so DM makes some sense.

They just buy them, none of them are pre-production or scrap.

TG approaced me to buy an MG I was selling that they wanted to smash up for a laugh, as it happens, offered good money (cash!!) and instant collection too.

The uniquie way the BBC is funded (extortion) gives them plenty of money to play with.

 

[nick mercedes]

They said they did pay for them out of their own money but I can't see them actually doing that.

It's all scripted, and all done to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Given the presenters are on fifty or sixty grand per show, the cost of the cars is irrelevant.

 

[Scott_F]

Just as well some of my old cars have not been tested like that... although I have never done any drugs ever just to clarify.

So you've just mislaid a few sparkles off your vajazzle then ?

 

[Dryce]

They destryoed a new Malaysian car to show how crap (borderline racism) they are

That was on one of Clarkson's DVDs and not TG.

and a Korean car to show how usless the Koreans are at anything (Clarkson being to arrogant to notice that Korean cars are taking over the world), those cars were paid for with our television tax, no OEM would allow a car to be smashed to bits and the company mocked for cheap laughs.

I can distinctly remember Clarkson making a very valid point about Korean cars getting better and also at the same time pointing out that in the process the materials costs and about costs to manufacture were levelling out alongside other manufacturers in other parts of the world.

The Malaysian government was non-to happy with Clarkson's antics.

However they weren't too happy about the truth either. The Kelissa was well past its sell by date (recycled Diahatsu design) and the Malaysian car industry was so protected in their home market that the criticism was deserved. They kept the original Proton Saga - based on a mid eighties Mitsubishi - going until a couple of years ago.

If you really want criticism of a Malaysian car - go to Malaysia and ask a Malaysian. Standard joke in the 90s was that if a Proton hit a chicken crossing the road that the chicken would make it to the other side and the Proton would be a write-off.

 

[nick mercedes]

That was on one of Clarkson's DVDs and not TG..

It was on an eposide of TG.

 

[nick mercedes]

I can distinctly remember Clarkson making a very valid point about Korean cars getting better and also at the same time pointing out that in the process the materials costs and about costs to manufacture were levelling out alongside other manufacturers in other parts of the world.

But there was no need to buy a new car and smash it to bits (at the taxpayers expense) to prove whatever point he was trying to make.

Time for adverts on the BBC and no more TV tax...

 

[AlastairM]

But there was no need to buy a new car and smash it to bits (at the taxpayers expense) to prove whatever point he was trying to make.

Time for adverts on the BBC and no more TV tax...

Top Gear is (or has been) shown in over 100 countries. There's an article from the Guardian here: Top Gear helps BBC Worldwide to £40m profit | Media | guardian.co.uk on the profits made. I think this may help to explain the large budget they seem to have.