Fighting Fit
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000
Navigation - link to other main sections from here
Jeremy Clarkson's greatest hits
Prepare for some shock and awe, petrol lovers. Despite the greens trying to wipe it out, the car is about to offer us the most exciting year ever
Read reviews of the 25 best cars Jeremy has driven
Hello and welcome to a look back at all the best cars I’ve driven since 2003. But first, a hearty welcome to a rose-tinted peer into what the next 12 months has in store...
Recently a plump woman with short hair appeared in court, where police explained how they’d found her driving a Perodua – it had to be a Perodua, didn’t it? – along the M32 at just 10mph. This meant there was a 60mph speed difference between her crummy jungle car and everyone else. And that’s more dangerous than driving at 120mph, because then there’d be only a 50mph difference.
Of course, in court the plump woman explained that she was frightened of driving and that she had been receiving treatment for her fear for three years. What’s more, she said, she had a sign in her back window saying, “I do not drive fast. Please overtake”, and she’d got on the motorway by mistake.
Related Internet Links
I don’t care. Plainly we are talking here about a woman who cannot drive and who should, under no circumstances, be allowed near the wheel of a car again. Allowing her on the road is as daft as allowing me to be an air traffic controller.
And yet, in these strange times when all speed is perceived to be bad and mad and the preserve of those whose penises are too small, she was banned for seven days. Whereas if you did 120mph, magistrates would almost certainly order you to stand in a bucket of sulphuric acid for the rest of time.
Meanwhile, all over the country, councils are dreaming up new and increasingly barmy ideas to squeeze a few more lumps of money from motorists. In Norwich longer cars will pay bigger parking charges, in Richmond drivers of 4x4s will be beheaded and in London Ken Livingstone will measure the amount of carbon dioxide you’re producing and bill you accordingly.
And it’s no use blaming the loony left for this pitiful state of affairs. In The Mail on Sunday the right-wing columnist Peter Hitchens says cars have caused the ruin of so much of our landscape that we must use them less.
His dream may be realised when America invades Iran because this, surely, will inflame the fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, and if that happens, well, you can forget about the £5 gallon and start thinking of converting your car to run on racehorse sperm. It’ll be cheaper.
The future for Britain’s 33m drivers, then, is not orange. It is somewhere between green and nonexistent. And yet despite this, there’s plenty of evidence that the next 12 months will see the arrival of more motoring excitement than any time in automotive history: 2008 may well be the Chinese year of the rat but here it’s the year of the car.
Heading the list, of course, is the Nissan GT-R, the long-awaited follow-up to Nissan’s giant-killing Skyline. Unlike the Skyline, however, which was a normal production saloon converted to greatness with tweaks and turbos, the new car was built from the ground up as a demonstration that Japanese attention to detail is capable of crushing European passion and American power. Some testers are even mentioning the £60,000 GT-R in the same breath as the Bugatti Veyron.
They say that you can enter a corner at a suicidal speed and as you feel the tyres give up their struggle to hang on, you accelerate. They talk about how you can feel the computers working out a solution, and how the grip is restored, harnessed and exploited in a way that leaves you wide-eyed with startlement.
It’s not a pretty car and that’s half the appeal. You have the sense that everything on it, from its gormless bottom lip to its angular stealth bomber roofline, was designed to make it that little bit faster. And that’s before you get to the plasma-coated cylinder bores. Or the computer-controlled four-wheel-drive system. Or the twin turbocharged 3.8 litre V6.
This is a car that uses PlayStation electronics to tackle the laws of physics. And from what I’m hearing the results are almost beyond comprehension. They’re even claiming it lapped the Nürburgring in 7min 38sec. That’s faster than a Porsche 911 Turbo. Sadly, demand for the GT-R will be so high that official imports won’t start in Britain for another year, by which time they’re saying the even more incredible V-spec model we’ll get will be £65,000.
That’s still astonishing value for money, but if it’s too much, don’t despair, because for about half the price you can have much the same sort of thing in the shape of Mitsubishi’s Evo 10 – the first Evo that doesn’t look like it was modelled on those cardboard tramp houses you find under inner-city flyovers.
Although it doesn’t have the wallop of the Nissan or the technical sophistication – it’s mechanical rather than electronic – it will still inspire your awe on those occasions when it’s raining and you’ve been told you can have life-saving liver surgery as long as you can get to Durham in 25 minutes.
And then we have Audi, which has decided the horsepower battle between BMW and Mercedes is all a bit limp-wristed. At present the M5 offers 507bhp, and the E 63, 514bhp. Well, the new twin turbo V10 Audi’s put under the bonnet of the RS6 will deliver 580bhp. Game, set and match to the gentlemen from Ingolstadt, it seems.
Other cars I’m looking forward to? The Abarth version of the Fiat 500, the Jag XF with the new V8, and quietly, because it’s a bit embarrassing, the Lexus IS-F. Theoretically, this stands no chance of being better than the BMW M3 or the Audi RS4, leave alone the gloriously insane Mercedes C 63.
And yet deep down inside, I have a sneaking suspicion it’ll marry the sheer blood-curdling, ear-bashing excitement of a rear-drive 5 litre V8 sports saloon with the sort of quality you normally find only in a mechanical heart. It’s good looking too, in a Wilmslow sort of way.
There’s going to be some glorious idiocy in the next few months as well. Maybach is set to launch a landaulet version of its limo, in which the rear portion of the roof can be folded away. This will enable people in the back to drive along in the open air. Which will make it easier for us to throw eggs at them.
Equally silly is the hybrid version of the Cadillac Escalade. Although, that said, a part of me rather loves the idea of a three-ton car made slightly heavier with the fitment of several weighty batteries and another engine being exempt from the mayor of London’s green-based congestion charge. But the prize for swivel-eyed lunacy goes to Alfa Romeo, which has just started to build its new £100,000 8C. What this is, most of all, is a public-relations exercise. Only 500 will be made, and the idea is that we all gasp with admiration at Alfa’s genius.
You’d imagine, then, that it would be keen for the likes of me to have a go, so that I can tell the world just what a marvellous car it’s created. Sadly not. It says all 500 have been sold already, mostly I suspect to people who’ll simply lock them away in air-conditioned bunkers and never drive them.
Shame, because this is the car I was most looking forward to driving in 2008. First, it’s an Alfa Romeo, which, if you’re a disciple of all things motoring, is like the love child of every god there ever was. Lamborghinis are all right if you want to show off. Alfas are for people who don’t.
Second, this is one of the most beautiful cars I’ve ever seen. Ferrari, of late, has forgotten the importance of style. Its cars are no longer pretty. This is. So pretty in fact that in metallic cherry red, on 20in wheels, it makes my hair start to itch and my knees stop working properly.
And then, to justify the price tag, there is the technology. It has the same 450bhp 4.7 litre V8 that you’ll get in Maserati’s new coupé, and the body is made from carbon fibre and draped over a steel spine. The result is strength, lightness and speed. Sure, Nissan’s GT-R will be faster, but that’s like being married to Keira Knightley and then being jealous of someone who’s married to a horse with a first from Oxford.
Inside, you have carbon fibre seats clad in Ferrari leather, simple old-fashioned dials and a sense that all is well in your little world. This could be one of the great cars. Designed by enthusiasts and styled by gods. It’s only a shame I’ll probably never find out because it’s being marketed by absolute morons.
I’ll bring you the lowdown on the other cars once I’ve driven them, but in the meantime let’s remind ourselves of the glories the car world has brought us in the past five years.
We list the specification and price that applied on the date of Clarkson’s original review for each car and indicate whether a model has been discontinued. Current prices are correct at time of going to press (source Newspress). The fuel consumption figures are based on the combined urban and extra urban cycle
Am I imagining it, or didn't Mr Clarkson write a rather lukewarm review of the GT-R which has now disappeared from sight? I curious as I have my name down for one. Perhaps it was in some other publication he put this different point of view.
Max, Sevenoaks, UK
UK motorways have a 30mph minimum limit.
HC, Macclesfield,
As I see it there are two actions that could be and should be taken ,to reduce the risk of accidents on the roads.1st a much more stringent test and examination process , stop the morons from getting behind the wheel in the first place, make the driving exam more about safety and skills than a revenue raiser.2nd , supply transport alternatives , public transport for instance , the argument about personal transport equalling personal freedom is spurious,it allows you the freedom to sit in the traffic jam with everyone else ,or to travel at the same speed as the vehical in front . Some countries allow vehicels with 3 or more occupants to use the bus/taxi lanes . A quick and easy survey that even Jeremy can do is count the number of occupants in each car in the traffic jam .
steve, Bergen, Norway
To those commenting on slower speed is better on motorway. Consider this, if average sped of the flow on the motorway is 70mph and there is a slow driving vehicle (10mph) that does sudden maneuver - what are the chances that overtaking car will be able to react safely at a speed 70mph?
In UK there are no lower speed limits on motorway but in some countries are - motorways are limited to about 40mph a few former Soviet Union countries.
In general I think DVLA and government are giving a wrong idea aith their fight against speeding and slogans like "Speed - kills". It is stupidity that kills in almost all the cases not speed.
Alex, Fleet, UK
I invite jeremy to Kabul Afghanistan where he can use his mobile phone wherever he likes,don't have to wear seat belt and drive as fast as he can.
Only one problem, jeremy have to buy a Toyota Corola so no body knows he is a foreigner as in Kabul everyone drives a Toyota corola
Tamim, London, uk
I think Mr Clarkson is referring to the closing speed of a 70mph vehicle hitting a 10mph vehicle (60Mph)... as opposed to a 120mph vehicle hitting a 60mph vehicle (50Mph)... come on guys, read the article!
James, Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire
Speed limits on motorways shoould be removed. Speed limits in built up areas / School Zones etc should be halved.
Mobile phone use while driving, drink driving, re-loading the CD player in the car, doing makeup in traffic, reading the paper in traffic, sorting out the kids in the back seat while moving should all be reasons to get an instant 12 month driving ban.
Instead, we make all roads slower so that you don't get wiped out by an idiot on the phone.
James, Melbourne, Australia
Ladies,
Umm maybe my grasp of basic physics is not as elevated as some are purporting theirs to be on this page, but surely if cars aren't going so fast then it is easier to stop them?
ie fast cars are the problem, not slow ones, and especially when they are not being driven by someone with the skills of a Nigel Mansell or Magnum PI - as they generally aren't.
simon, sydney , australia
I love all the one brain cell comments and the totally false insinuations of nonexistent statistics but the fact remains that the incidence of death as a result of being struck by a stationary car
is less than the chance of Jeremy Clarkson writing something not deliberately aimed at causing comment. If any of the Clarkson statisticians want to do some reseach try jumping from the bottom stair to the floor--twice.Now see how many times you can jump from the top of the Eiffel Tower.You will find that 1) speed or 2) lack of oxygen kills.Or perhaps you are just as stupid as the rest of the in-denials and refuse to accept that you are dead; but then nobody would notice and if by chance someone did it certainly would not be you.
Jack, Brighton, Sussex
Rob,
Although you are correct in stating that a 120mph car needs more stopping distance due to its speed, you are incorrect in saying that someone driving at 120mph is more of a threat. As Clarkson has said and is fond of saying, "It's not speed that kills, it's the sudden deceleration of speed that does". Stopping distance is only relative to the speed in which other cars are driving. If every car on the road is averaging approximately 100mph, then there is always ample distance in front of the car to stop without crashing. Where does the accident occur though? When the car behind is incapable of slowing down properly because the car in front suddenly decelerated, thereby limiting the distance.
I am not denying any of the physics involved in stopping a moving object; there just needs to be a sense of practicality when applying the concept.
Daniel, San Francisco, California
Actually driving faster is safer because your body will give you such an adrenaline rush that you are 100% concentrated.
Driving with speed limits lets people eat, use their phone and falling asleep in their cars.
Drive first in Germany on the AUTOBAHN and then over the boarder into a country with speed limit. Boredom is gonna kill you >>> Sleep
When you know that cars can appear in your rear view mirror that haven't been there just a few seconds ago ( incoming Porsche at 180mph ) you will drive completly different. Its a whole different world. When a German is driving - he is driving . Not chatting, eating, or listening to stupid politicians on the radio. Otherwise you get killed - and thats the way it should be...
And before some greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen guy says :
oh hey listen - there must be 100times more accidents in Germany -> sorry pal, not true. Compare inhabitants of countries to traffic accidents and you can clearly see for yourself that Germany is pretty well off...
Bernd, Vienna, Austria
Actually, Jeremy, my friend, a Hyrbid full size SUV makes the MOST sense. Cost of the hyrid system scales favorably and therefore it is easiest to recover the capital outlay in a vehicle that is large and consumes significant petrol. And, from an environmentalists' perspective, getting a SUV driver to take on a hybrid saves more petrol and spares us more greenhouse gases than a Civic owner moving to a Prius. Additionally, once the system is proven, I can see the technology being rapidly accepted by white van drivers and bean counters around the globe. But what we really need are 600BPH hyrbid Mustangs, Camaros, Challengers and Corvettes.
Austin, Austin, Texas, USA
Is Clarkson in the real world?
Alan , Eastbourne,
I've been a Jeremy fan for many years - I love his writing style! But there's more writing on the wall for the infernal combustion engine that people think. How about test driving the Tesla, Jeremy? Faster than Many Ferraris, and all electric! There's a new future ahead, when China may even lead the thrust int electric vehices. By the time we do get to the five quid litre, it will be to late for most conventin cars. I wanna see the stig lap the Tesla!
Trev Meacham, Gosford, NSW Australia
heres an idea, if you don't like Clarkson's columns then don't read them!
will, Exeter,
i know you have the position and motoring stature to drive just about what you like; i admire your'e views and comments; but just for a change tell us what good second hand cars you would advise for meer mortals on a tight, taxed to buggery budget ; who still want some thrills but also a bit of reliability;
chheers jeremy; ..............gary from grafton
gary farrell, tewkesbury, england
I'm just bored about him banging on. Full stop.
Gerry Watts, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
I'm bored of him banging on about the Bugatti Veyron.
jack, London,
just about Alfa: i have to thank eternally mr. clarkson because i have bought an alfa GTV V6 ONLY because of his insistence about the sheer beauty and lunacy of it. and i have bought a 159 2.4 jdtm ONLY because of his review.
the 8c is out of my league, but if the air-conditioned bunkers are in the south of italy...any lock can be opened.
pietro, altamura, Italy
Rob
You might be right about energy being proportional to the square of speed but then what isn't?
Either way its safer to drive on a motorway at 120mph than it is past a school so where else would you do it?
david pengilly, surbiton,
Clarkson and other Europeans, you guys are no so lucky because some of the dealers which is not official has some new GT-R in my place, Hong Kong. And I have actually saw a few of them, which most of the time with a 911 Turbo, F430 or even a Ducati 1098 which Hamster likes... It dosen't eel that fast, but It goes like a absoulety rocket,.....Once you have saw that, try it or you'll feel nonsense
Timothy , Hong Kong, China
I think that Jeremy Clarkson should be the House of Commons.
That David Attenborough should be the House of Lords, and that all existing MP's and Lords should be sent on 5 years unpaid leave, until these two have sorted things out .
The Civil service would stay to do the admin. but no new ones would be set on. Their numbers would be reduced annually, as Clarkson and Attenborough reduced the number of rules and laws we currently have to put up with.
Alec Skirrow, Bristol, UK
Clarkson, you say that driving at 120mph is safer than driving at 10mph on the motorway. While I don't diagree that driving ar 10mph is very dangerous, driving at 120mph is more so. You always seem to neglect one crucial point: that the energy of a moving object goes as the square of it's speed. So drving at 120mph means that you have nearly 3 times as much kinetic energy than when you're driving at the speed limit. When you brake (or indeed crash) you are converting that energy into heat (or mangled wreckage) which is why braking distances increase with the square of the speed, give or take. So please stop making linear comparison's with speeds purely on the difference. It is misleading and quite wrong. And I thought you were supposed to be a doctor...
Rob, London, UK
The lady driving at 10 mph on the motorway was ordered to resit her test, which is effectively a ban assuming she wouldn't pass.
John, Spain,