Log in

View Full Version : False Advertisement in Programme 4..

dutchmasterflex
05-29-2006, 08:35 PM
I noticed some people caught the Hamster's error in saying that the Z4-M has the engine out of the CSL..

But did anyone notice that Clarkson covered for Mercedes mistake of testing the radar in a steel tunnel by saying "Mercedes forgot to tell the test driver they turned off the radar system". It really sounded like he was all over Mercedes' jock piece (Trying to get a free S-Class maybe?). Then again, he might just be a MB fanboy ;)

Any thoughts?
r2r
05-29-2006, 08:46 PM
As I mentioned in video section, to me it really sounded like Mercedes paid him to do that S-Class review.

Plus, he always finds something bad to say about a car, but not for the Mercedes.
bmagni
05-29-2006, 08:51 PM
yeah, the Z4 M was a huge mistake, and the mercedes error of the sensor not being turned was rather stupid and it sounded pretty fake...

As I mentioned in video section, to me it really sounded like Mercedes paid him to do that S-Class review.

Plus, he always finds something bad to say about a car, but not for the Mercedes.

yeah, he never reviews a car so good, specially a saloon, i bet it cost mercedes a big amount... everyone has a price :P
r2r
05-29-2006, 09:03 PM
^^ Yeah, I guess it's just a shame that Jeremy would do that.
dutchmasterflex
05-29-2006, 09:27 PM
Man, that really sucks.. Damn sell outs!!
nthfinity
05-29-2006, 09:44 PM
so, jaguar have paid ol JC billions by now then ;)

you know, he bought, and loved his SL55 AMG (or was it S55, or E55?) and loved everything about it except its voice activated phone...
saadie
05-29-2006, 09:46 PM
^^ SL ;) ... he even said ... it can do everything that my old 355 could do .. but this car can do even more lol ... like what .... dial 911 when you tell it to dial you wifes phone :lol: :lol: :lol:
ZfrkS62
05-29-2006, 09:59 PM
Technically the S54 is the same engine from the CSL :wink: So he wasn't entirely inaccurate in saying that. I'm trying to scrounge up the technical book on the CSL but i'm having a bit of trouble as it's not posted on the BMW technical site like the rest of them are.

There aren't many differences between the two though. The CSL only produces 30 more bhp than the non CSL, so they couldn't have done much with it. I'm thinking maybe cams, headers and compression :bah:
dutchmasterflex
05-29-2006, 11:44 PM
The CSL engine comment didn't really bother me too much.. I mean they are the same engine.. Its just tuned for more HP in the CSL..

But the segment on the S-Class really got to me.. My trust in Clarkson's reviews have gone way down..
bmwmpower
05-30-2006, 07:37 AM
problem is that S class is so good, maybe is perfect, as i saw few reviews in mags, its briliant car

btw that turning old Mamut S class in to the living room was one of the most idiotic things that i saw, not funny , also that porsche cayene vs. parachute, car always loose
dutchmasterflex
05-30-2006, 08:33 AM
Ok, his review of the S-class wasn't that unusual.. but what REALLY pissed me off was what he talked about the radar failer.. claiming MB "turned off" the radar..
TopGearNL
06-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Ok, his review of the S-class wasn't that unusual.. but what REALLY pissed me off was what he talked about the radar failer.. claiming MB "turned off" the radar..

yeah, they showed that video of that test earlier last season, and they didn't say anything about something switched off, they just said and laughed at it not working, I just don't understand why it suddenly was switched off :roll:
DeMoN
06-01-2006, 01:35 PM
Especially since there is another video showing that the sensor was incapable of detecting due to fog.

Guess Merc wants to be trusted with their faulty system.
TopGearNL
06-01-2006, 01:53 PM
Found this, and now I know for sure that is was a false advertisement by JC, too bad :|

Just read this and watch the pics :!: :wink:
:arrow: http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=10734
TopGearNL
06-01-2006, 01:57 PM
here's the vid if anybody wanted to see it again :wink:

:arrow: http://www.stern.de/tv/sterntv/549835.html?nv=cp_L2
Shinigami
06-01-2006, 02:13 PM
The theory goes that the hangar where they were testing the S class, was unable to reliably set the radar detector to detect a stopped/slowing car, so Mercedes turned the geature off and told that someone will need to drive the car and when they go over a piece of wood, they need to apply the brakes to stop the vehicle.

However, at the last minute, some journalist was given the job of driving the car, but someone forgot to told him that it was just a simulation.

So he ended up driving into the other car...

The story then got leaked against MB's wishes (because obviously it's bad publicity) and MB sued the newspaper for what was done (it was leaked by the guy who crashed the car, probably to get revenge or something... some say he crashed the car on purpose).

So basically MB wanted to cheat during the "public viewing" that was being aired, simply because they couldn't be bothered to reset everything in a wooden hangar or outside (lack of time?) and just thought nobody would know the difference.

*shrug*

Doesn't stop me buying a Mercedes, I rather NEVER use such a feature anyway. Even if it worked perfectly well, I wanna be in charge of my driving. That's at least ONE thing I want to do. Automatic lights, windshield wipers etc... that might still be ok to leave them as automatic in a "luxury saloon" (I got the options on my car, but don't use them), but asking the car to drive for you is going too far.

Was JC honest? Who knows... only his banker does. He's been known to hype a lot of cars and put down others, even MB's at times. Car reviews are purely objective anyway.
r2r
06-01-2006, 02:20 PM
Found this, and now I know for sure that is was a false advertisement by JC, too bad :|

Just read this and watch the pics :!: :wink:
:arrow: http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=10734

I remember reading a similar article a while ago in a car magazine.

What I really don't understand is why Jeremy didn't just say that "Safety Centre's steel walls interfered with the crash-avoidance system's radar unit." istead of lying and saying the system was off :roll:
DeMoN
06-01-2006, 03:28 PM
Thats sort of what I read. Only that what I read was a summary.
dutchmasterflex
06-01-2006, 04:18 PM
I thought I heard soemthing bout Radar not working correctly in steel/lead tunnels or something..
fsandys
06-01-2006, 05:26 PM
Doesn't stop me buying a Mercedes, I rather NEVER use such a feature anyway. Even if it worked perfectly well, I wanna be in charge of my driving. That's at least ONE thing I want to do. Automatic lights, windshield wipers etc... that might still be ok to leave them as automatic in a "luxury saloon" (I got the options on my car, but don't use them), but asking the car to drive for you is going too far.

It would be other things that stopped me from buying a merc, I totally agree about things interfereing with driving.

Helpers that can be turned off like traction control and luxury things like you mentioned are acceptable to a point but things that interfere with my driving like that, I would NEVER use.
DeMoN
06-02-2006, 01:42 AM
what if its not meant for it to interfere with your driving, but aid you when it detects that it will crash if .5 seconds more is too late?
AlienDB7
06-02-2006, 06:26 AM
Technology is good as long as people aren't dependant on it. Personally I never use the cruise control myself since I like to play with the gas pedals myself. However, there're people who just want to drive from point A to point B with the minimal effort.

IMO, cruise control by itself is more dangerous than mercedes' radar guided one. As long as people dont wait for the auto-braking to kick in, it is no more dangerous than the brake force assist system on many new cars today. However, there're always people who think they're better driver simply because the stability/traction control allow them to get closer to the physical limit of the car.