kidmarc

Nothing to worry about there. Receiving advertising from a client doesn't itself guarantee a favorable/favourable review. What happens often is the review is finished in advance and separate of any acknowlegement and or knowledge of ad placement.

In addition, the cost of a website ad is far below the value of the review.

Peace
marcus

Doogy

RX8'ers.........there's a hi-res DIVX version (67mb) too.......here it is

http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forum...ear_231103.avi for direct download or the story thread is at

http://www.mazdarotaryclub.com/forum...0&referrerid=1

Cheers

Doogy

azianakuma

i wonder how much those foolz get paid to test drive bad *** cars like that?

Gord96BRG

In the UK, the reviews tend to be very honest, sometimes brutally honest. They are far more likely to highlight the flaws and shortcomings of a car than any of the US based magazines, where they seem to follow the mantra "if you can't say something nice... dance around it and say something else nice".

Jeremy Clarkson (btw, this RX-8 Top Gear video has been the subject of 2 or 3 other threads already) is famous for being bluntly honest - he caused a full-blown strike and shutdown of the Vauxhall factory once when he gave such a bad review of the then-new Vectra (~1995 or 1996). You can read more of his stuff in the Motoring section of the Sunday Times web site, www.timesonline.co.uk . Really funny stuff, occasionally relevant to cars , but always opinionated and blunt, good or bad. To get a rave review like that for the RX-8 is, in all honesty, worth huge business to Mazda in the UK, because Clarkson tells it like he sees it, and certainly can't be bought.

Regards,
Gordon

MEGAREDS

I loved the review... everyone, go get it! I completely agree that Mazda execs in the U.K. must be happy about it. Still...

Clarkson made no mention of the fuel economy issue, which was at least enough of a point to be mentioned prominantly in the other British TV review, done by Fifth Gear. (Also worth watching, BTW). In that review, the commentator pointed out that the TT gets 6 miles per gallon over the 8. That's a fair point to be made in an objective review. How could it not be mentioned by Clarkson?

I have my own criticisms of the FIfth Gear review... That review downplayed the significance of the rotary engine's size, which I thought was not particularly fair in light of the fact that its the size of the rotary that allows the car to have back seats (which both reviews made an appropriate fuss about).

I'm also a bit skeptical the track times posted in the Top Gear review, which happened to be exactly the same as the Z's time. Perhaps Top Gear has explained its testing procedures on other Top Gear shows, but the clip I saw did not explain how "the Stig" tested the car. For example, did the show test both cars the same number of pre-determined times and take the best time for both, or just stop testing the RX-8 when they got a time that matched one of the Z's times? It's much better television that way, and I have to think most American T.V. producers would push hard for that outcome if it were possible.

Of course, the Fifth Gear review has its own problems... they didn't even test the RX-8 on the track. What's with that? The idea that the RX-8 had "just been delivered" is cute, but I'm not buying it.

Red8

MegaReds,

Maybe you should check out the video again...Clarkson does mention the fuel economy as a negative. He just didn't dwell on it for very long...

Red8

Hmmm, just watch it again and you may be correct about him not pointing out the fuel economy. I swore I heard something about it the first time I watched it. I stand corrected...

MEGAREDS

Actually, I watched it (yet) again and you're right, Red8. He says that the engine is "not the most economical." I suppose that's enough -- just barely, but enough.

I did go to the link Gordon provided; big surprise... the man can write. That explains why his delivery is so good.

Since we're picking the Top Gear review apart, I have two questions...

1. He says that a committee gave the RX-8 a rear passenger window from a ... ? I can't understand what he's saying... a Ford ___?

2. The tail lights are busier than a what? A bishop's hat, perhaps?

I bet Gordon is happy about the tire comment at the end... it seems that eveyone agrees that the car's grip on a less-than-dry surface is "a bit twitchy."

kidmarc

Gordon,

I thank you for that personal insight (of Jeremy Clarkson) and for the link as well.

And now for a wee bit of British humour on the teley... [British House of Commons]

Peace
marcus

Gord96BRG

1. A Ford Anglia !

2. Yup, "a bishop's hat".

Actually, I disagree with him about the twitchy grip in the wet - I find the OEM tires to have terrific grip dry AND wet in temperatures above 32F, and even in wet weather I never felt the car was twitchy.

As for Clarkson's objectivity - he has none! His reviews are very subjective, don't count on him for a reasoned balance of pros and cons to decide if he likes one car more than another, for example. He's an entertainer as much as an auto journalist.

Regards,
Gordon

MEGAREDS

LOL! :p