Meh episode, each segment seemed lost.
A review about a Jaguar F-type became lust over a one off, marred by various poor comparisons. "This is the modern take on what a GT car should be." No, it is the cheapest version of a GT car available. A car designed to bring the essence of a GT car to the masses. The Toyota is around a quarter the cost of a par GT car, which is around a quarter again of the Eagle Low Drag GT... Don't get me wrong, I liked the car as well. I just feel it wasn't covered well for what it is.
Then there was the MX-5 segment which was brilliant and stunning visually, and then they spent more time discussing the Alfa Romeo 4C... I know there are not many cars in the category, but it is yet again not a direct comparison. You would expect the car 3 times the cost to be better. The question is whether it is 3 times better, and whether it achieves what the company set its objectives as.
Finally, the rallycross exercise was a waste. James May is never going to come close to competing on the professional stage. I'm just not interested in seeing whether he can avoid being lapped, especially when he nearly played a part in the actual outcome of the race by trying to hold the leaders behind him... And even if the segment had been revised to see James May take on a more realistic challenge (like improving his own laptime) it would have been completely ruined anyway by Clarkson and Hammond's needless intervention.
I know a lot of people have complained for years about Top Gear not being a car show, or that the cars featured are always far beyond the reach of the viewing public. For me, I don't mind a review or comparison when it makes sense. I see it as an entertainment show as it is, but that doesn't mean everything needs to be funny, or tested for fake thrills.
, Top Gear is just an entirely different level on that front.
