Where did you hear that? I'm pretty sure they will at least show the remainder of the taped episodes to see if it will pick up steam. The show is far from great...but I'd love to give it some time to incubate and see if it improves enough to be worth the time.
I Posted this on TCL:
I just watched both episodes last night. The pilot was horrible in every aspect. The second episode obviously was more polished and had a better flow to it, but its no where close to the UK version.
Rutledge(SP?) is good, probably the only person there worth keeping. Like it was said earlier, he needs to up the charisma and take on the "Clarkson" role. There will never be another person that has the ability to pull the absolute most appropriate metaphor out of thin air like Jeremy Clarkson. That, in and of itself is why I think a lot of people are simply not going to like this show, and it is for that very reason that the American version needs to be just that, American.
Top Gear America needs to be more about American automotive enthusiasm, done with the composure and polish that the UK version has. Right now, TGA is a really awful carbon copy of the UK version without ANY sort of polish or style. It reminded me of a car show that is produced by the same people as House Hunters or Mythbusters.
BTW, having a pro driver with two obvious amateurs makes no sense from a comedic point of view. The UK show is funny because all three hosts are completely and utterly fallible. What's Tanner going to do every week? Get bent out of shape because he drove a slower car slower than two amateurs in faster cars?? TGA could even ditch the third person and make it more of a buddy show by adding someone like Adam Carolla with Rutledge(as they should have done in the first place). Either way, they need to be different, and start with the easy stuff by getting their own flippin theme song...
Adam Fererra has no place on this show, at all.
that cracked me up! payback for Clarkson always ragging on the vette.Is that a British thing? Lying?
i liked the 2nd episode a lot! I found myself laughing during few of the parts.
that cracked me up! payback for Clarkson always ragging on the vette.
After the first episode, I liked Faust the best, followed by Ferrera, and Wood a distant last. But after this ep, I like Wood the best.
That reminded me of the probable worst moment in TG:UK history (luckily, there are relatively few) :
When they dynoed the classic Mustang and a recent GT500, and complained that there wasn't 500hp to the wheels I'm fairly certain that they knew about drivetrain losses, and that crank hp =! wheel hp. It might have sounded tongue-in-cheek during the episode planning process, but it came across as complete bullshit in the episode, and less-car-savvy folks were probably left with a false impression, when in fact if you dyno pretty much anything, you're not going to see the advertised hp at the wheels (grossly underrated vehicles notwithstanding).
EDIT : Oh yeah, the other one that was blatantly stupid was the drag race between the SRT8 300 and the M5. Because comparing a $40k Chrysler with a $90k BMW makes so much sense.
1 - Dyno outputs are calculated to compensate for drivetrain losses.
2 - Directly comparable cars clearly in the same space. Price be damned, everyone knows Chrysler cars are cheap. Doesn't mean it should get a pass.
After the first episode, I liked Faust the best, followed by Ferrera, and Wood a distant last. But after this ep, I like Wood the best.
1 - Dyno outputs are calculated to compensate for drivetrain losses.
2 - Directly comparable cars clearly in the same space. Price be damned, everyone knows Chrysler cars are cheap. Doesn't mean it should get a pass.
1. Only if you do the calculations.
2. No, they aren't, one is a boxy-styled, 'cheap' cruiser with a big V8, the other is a 4-door sportscar with a trick motor. They don't really pretend to be the same thing.
A more detailed analysis :
http://www.speedsportlife.com/2007/03/05/a-sad-state-of-affairs-top-gear-lies-about-gt500-hp-rating/
Official 500hp rating : http://www.speedsportlife.com/2006/05/02/2007-ford-shelby-gt500-officially-rated-at-500-horsepower/
"The 500 hp rating was obtained using the Society of Automotive Engineers latest standard and was witnessed by an objective third party"
1 - Calcs are done by default on all but the most arcane dynos. Look, I've even had one of my old cars on a Dyno:
Numbers were adjusted for powertrain losses, AFAIK, unless you have info proving otherwise in which case I capitulate. Did TG state the numbers were with or without PT losses?
2 - Yes. They. Bloody. Do. And the CTS-v didn't exist at that time, so it was the only comparable 4 door uber sedan not from Germany. Deal with it.
No, dynos will give you the power to the wheels unless you have one running a program to do the calculations for you.
No way in hell are the M5 and 300C SRT comparable or in the same space. The closest thing to an M5 made by a US maker is the CTS-V, and we know how that turns out, even if I still prefer the M5 in the end. Just because something is a full-size RWD sedan doesn't make it a competitor. Does the 528i compete with the Maserati Quattroporte S? That's about as outlandish as the other comparison. Now if Chrysler was marketing the thing as a M5 beater and charging $80k for it, it would make for a perfect shootout. That's incredibly clearly not the case.
I looooooove TG:UK, but they do some odd things like that every once in a while that just don't make any sense.
1 - Calcs are done by default on all but the most arcane dynos. Look, I've even had one of my old cars on a Dyno:
Numbers were adjusted for powertrain losses, AFAIK, unless you have info proving otherwise in which case I capitulate. Did TG state the numbers were with or without PT losses?
2 - Yes. They. Bloody. Do. And the CTS-v didn't exist at that time, so it was the only comparable 4 door uber sedan not from Germany. Deal with it.
So nobody knows if the TG Dyno result was adjusted for PT losses then?
If it were run by a competent outfit, then it was pure wheel hp. The problem with trying to calculate crank or BHP from a dyno result is that different drivetrains can have dramatically different losses. Some cars will run 11-12% losses, while others will run over 15% easily, which leads pretty quickly to gross under/overestimation depending on the math used. I've seen some dyno sheets with calculated/adjusted hp that is astronomically off. It usually happens towards the higher end of the spectrum.
Google stock GT500 dyno runs, you'll see dozens out there on various forums and auto sites, and they all float in the same mid 400 range, which lines up perfectly with 500 crank hp.
Something else that's pretty important, different model dynos will produce vastly different results as well. You can literally take a car across town on the same day, same conditions/fuel/temp/etc, and get a result 10% off of the other run.
Dynos calculate the powertrain losses on the overrun, normally.
True, so the TG test could have been reading 10% over. :hmm: