Jump to content

Hurrah! for lazy journalism!


pogweasel

Recommended Posts

Oh look, the Suzuki X-90. Why on earth does this get on every crap cars list ever made? They're hardly the most offensive car ever made, I'm sure they drive absolutely fine. They're based on a Vitara so they must do. But Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like them and being hacks, they'll really want to aspire to being him.

 

Though how they can call any car ugly when they're advertising this at the top of the page beggars belief:

Posted Image

 

What a shitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, the Suzuki X-90. Why on earth does this get on every crap cars list ever made? They're hardly the most offensive car ever made, I'm sure they drive absolutely fine. They're based on a Vitara so they must do. But Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like them and being hacks, they'll really want to aspire to being him.

 

They drive like a complete bag of shite. What's the point in a 2 seater that looks like an off roader, but with no four wheel drive? They are top heavy, slow, heavy, drink juice, and are generally the biggest waste of road space ever made, and thoroughly deserve to be on that list [which is, I agree, a cliched load of old toss] Rank alongside the Volvo 262c as an attempt to makea silk purse out a sow's ear.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point in a 2 seater that looks like an off roader, but with no four wheel drive?

Or what's the point in having 4WD when most never use it? Extra parts to go wrong, make the car heavier, worse fuel consumption, more expensive.... :wink: When I was in Taiwan it was quite common to see a Mazda (I think) off roader with a big empty space where the rear diff goes. For most people in most climates, 4WD is never used.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest greenvanman

Oh look, the Suzuki X-90. Why on earth does this get on every crap cars list ever made?

Reliability aside, probably because it's completely pointless and looks ridiculous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll second the appreciation of the 340 pic, but that looks like an even earlier one in the background, judging by its colour.The article also describes Ladas as weak. Hardly. Any car that was substantially re-engineered to withstand Russias diverse climate and rough roads it pretty top-gadgey in my book.And they werent all beige, theyre just citing that one becuse its the best colour, particularly with vynl seats in basic 1200L format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 years later...

Where do newspapers find the wankers they employ to write about cars? Here's an excerpt from an Independent feature on the PA Crestas by Giles Chapman.

 

"The familiar part of the car was the 2.2-litre six-cylinder engine, carried over from previous Vauxhalls. This power unit, mated to a three-speed manual gearbox - just imagine enduring that - meant the car hit 60mph in 16sec and had an 89mph top speed. Even then, that was slow."

No it wasn't you spunkbubble.

post-7547-0-02654000-1514826189_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giles Chapman is one of the few motoring journalists working today who are actually capable of original research and critical thought (and spelling). I suspect when you write an old car piece for a non-specialist outlet you have to play to the crowd a bit. Obviously the point here is that '50s Vauxhall cars were pretty embarrassing pieces of kit (fair enough) amd whilst those figures are not what I would call 'slow', they don't compare too favourably to other big six-cylinder cars on the market at that time. A Rover P4 or Wolseley 6/90, for example, would wipe the floor with a Cresta. Ditto virtually anything coming out of Europe.

 

So, yeah, not exactly shimmering journalism but not that far from the truth. You read a lot worse in most major old car rags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giles Chapman is one of the few motoring journalists working today who are actually capable of original research and critical thought (and spelling). I suspect when you write an old car piece for a non-specialist outlet you have to play to the crowd a bit. Obviously the point here is that '50s Vauxhall cars were pretty embarrassing pieces of kit (fair enough) amd whilst those figures are not what I would call 'slow', they don't compare too favourably to other big six-cylinder cars on the market at that time. A Rover P4 or Wolseley 6/90, for example, would wipe the floor with a Cresta. Ditto virtually anything coming out of Europe.

 

So, yeah, not exactly shimmering journalism but not that far from the truth. You read a lot worse in most major old car rags.

 

This is true, but every now and then he seems to resort to ridiculous opinions, like comparing the 2CV with exposed razor blades in terms of safety. 

 

But describing a PA as 'slow' does seem a bit odd. I imagine they felt quite nippy compared to a Westminster, which had a huge 3-litre engine and a tiny Zenith carburettor that looked designed for a motorbike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate of mine had an X-90 for quite a while.

 

Vitara with two seats and a heap of weight shaved off.  Thing was a laugh to drive, especially in the summer with the roof panels out.  Low geared and his one at least certainly didn't seem to hang about.

 

It was a car that didn't really make any sense, it was just a bit of fun and I reckon delivered on that.  It's one of those cars which motoring journalists just seem to love to hate because it's the done thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...