<chucks unthrottled's jacket out after him>

We all have different definitions on what makes a 'great car' obviously.

I agree with most of those criteria but matters of luggage space depend on whether you need it or not etc and aesthetically pleasing is a matter of opinion.

I love cheap good value cars, cars which are 90% as good as the snobby badges but for half the price, thats my type of car. I would buy a Mazda 6 over a BMW 320 for example. But i also look at a car of how much i like it, in general, on paper a car can be 'not good value to run' but if you love the car then it becomes worthwhile, even if it doesnt fit right on everybodies balance sheet.

When i get rid of the Jag next year, and it probably will be next year about August time my next purchase will be made more on the criterias above rather than on 'i want a big Jag' because right now im fulfilling my childhood dream which was to have a big Jaguar. I dont care if its not economical, i dont care if other people hate its face, i dont care that the boot is shallow or anything like that. People who dont 'like' cars just wouldnt understand that, they'd buy an Astra diesel, and thats fine.

See cars like the Veyron are just magnificent engineering, nobody at Bugatti was trying to build a car for shopping, it was all about the thrill of being the best and fastest. And unless you're into cars to that point you wont understand it. Try and explain the magnificence of a Lamborghini Gallardo to an Astra owning accountant who would go 'heavy on petrol and no boot' is pointless. You either understand it or you dont. Cars like the two you mentioned were built to do just one thing well, and it does those things extremely well, thats mission accomplished. The Veyron in particular should go in a Museum before some supermodel crashes another one of the 9 which were made as a timepiece for all of humanity to remember. To me it was as important as Concorde, the Apollo rocket etc tremendous feats of engineering. The channel tunnel is magnificent, we couldve built a raft out of wood and used sticks to ferry cars across but we didnt, we did it the hard way, the absurd way, the brilliant way. In about 100 years when green campaigners and road safety charities finally get their way and we're all banned from driving and instead travel in mass transit at 4mph or on an electronically powered Japanese armchair at 6mph everybody can look back at things like the Veyron and remember or learn what humans could make when we really put our minds to it.

*puts down megaphone*

The cheap Yank mobile may match its top speed but its not as good a car. If a handglider could go faster than a 747 which would you prefer to be in?

The Veyron not just has the power or the speed, but it has the ability to deliver it without bursting into flames or making its driver feel like 'its about to fall apart' as most American cars do. And on a normal road you're probably right, its a very heavy car and on anything but flat straight road it struggles to put its power down but the Yanks wouldnt of bothered making their flimsy box of rubbish if it wasnt for Bugatti trying for years to achieve this goal of 1000hp and 250mph. If they hadnt of done it, nobody else wouldve tried to beat them. In 50 years time the Veyron will be remembered for its magnificence, the cheap Yank pile of fast rubbish wont be remembered. I could beat its top speed with a jet engine and a chair on the front but that means nothing. The Veyron is a benchmark, a 'normal' or as close to normal road car which can do that is just astonishing. But again you go 'American is just as fast but cheaper' and thats the end of it, only someone who doesnt love cars would say that. You dont get it, you dont understand. You're the Astra diesel driving accountant i referred to earlier. Its about something which you cant explain.

Edited by jamie745 on 18/08/2011 at 23:59

I would still pay extra for a Veyron instead, if i ever had the choice. Thats what i mean by 'cant explain it'. You talk about perameters, the Veyron was a car with no parameters. No boundaries. No restrictions. The Aero is an ugly rotbox and the Venom is a waste of space, the Veyron is where its at.

You call them Veyron beaters, but the Aero and Venom werent even thought of until VW took the step of saying 'we will make a 250mph car' and everybody said they were mad and that it couldnt be done. They proved it could be.

Its parameters were to be better regardless of cost. You bang on about being cheap, emissions etc none of that was considered with the Veyron. They knew it'd be sold at a loss, it was just a shop window to show what VW's engineers could do.

Theres very few bits of tarmac road where 250mph is safe and attainable i admit, about four worldwide locations i think.

If you want to talk about tit for tat leap frogging then what about the horsepower war with the Germans? Mercedes, BMW and Audi keep cramming more and more and more power into their big cars but they're all still limited to 155mph and for at least five years now its been entirely pointless. All its done is make old cars which could do 155mph, into new cars which still do 155mph but with a very stiff ride and big pricetag instead.

....... but tedious.

Thank you both for keeping this discussion civilised!

Hear hear!

Don't say you're in Breakfast with Frost club too? So dull.

Is that on the radio or the telly? Sorry unthrottled I have no idea what you're talking about.

Frost could host a debate show about the Riots and end up talking about the colour of his curtains. You get the idea..

On the other hand, his interview with Richard Nixon was a masterpiece - recently made into a successful movie,

A long time ago he was brilliant with cutting edge fights - for the time - with a Rachman-like landlord called, I think Savundra, and Reginald Maudling, over the Paulson debacle.

But then, I'm very old.....

Edited by Neiltoo on 19/08/2011 at 15:01

I saw Frost/Nixon. I used to watch Through the Keyhole with my grandma when I was little too. Super.