Saw a Phaeton

michaelanthony

Saw a Phaeton for the first time today outside Woodies in Lucan - I though it was a Passat untill I saw it from behind, I don't think it was the W12 as there where no tailpipes on view.

alleepally

What price are they running here ? must be 80k would it be? Can't figure why someone would spend that on a vw when an Audi A8 could be had for another 20k.

unkel

Originally posted by alleepally
What price are they running here ? must be 80k would it be? Can't figure why someone would spend that on a vw when an Audi A8 could be had for another 20k.

All the same make m8

Audi=VW=Bentley=Skoda=Seat

dcGT

Originally posted by unkel
All the same make m8

Audi=VW=Bentley=Skoda=Seat

Maybe, but badges mean EVERYTHING to some people , perhaps even more so in the top end car market

DC.

jm2k

Originally posted by michaelanthony
Saw a Phaeton for the first time today outside Woodies in Lucan - I though it was a Passat untill I saw it from behind, I don't think it was the W12 as there where no tailpipes on view.

Wasn't dark grey was it? ..cause i saw one for the first time near Clonsilla railway station about a week ago

michaelanthony

No it was blue. The phaeton is a different car to the the A8.

alleepally

Originally posted by unkel
All the same make m8

Audi=VW=Bentley=Skoda=Seat

Yeah, well aware of that but wouldn't you rather spend it on an Audi if you had that much money to throw around (that's not to say you don't of course)

ToxicPaddy

Couldnt imagine spending €250k on a skoda.. but on a bentley I might..

The seats look a bit softer and more comfy

Tox

Interceptor

I've been in both the w12 Phaeton and the new A8 and the Phaeton is better specc'ed and built to higher quality. It has come in for a lot of stick since it shares design signatures with the Passat but it is a deceptively large where the A8 is too 'snug' in the front. The A8 is a bland-mobile and still isn't the class leader despite 4wd and alu construction.

BTW did anyone see those two t*ss-pots on the that god-awful Irish car prog this evening - they were reviewing the Phaeton/745i/Jag xj/A8 and couldn't argue the merits of one or the other - that program makes me want to shoot my telly....

'ceptr

jesus_thats_gre

At this stage, I would consider the Audi brand to be only slightly better than the VW brand...

impr0v

Originally posted by interceptor

BTW did anyone see those two t*ss-pots on the that god-awful Irish car prog this evening - they were reviewing the Phaeton/745i/Jag xj/A8 and couldn't argue the merits of one or the other - that program makes me want to shoot my telly....

t*ss-pots is a nice way of putting it.

unkel

I've never seen that program - maybe I should keep avoiding it

leeroybrown

As motoring shows goes it's dreadful. Everything from small little details (like giving tech specs for most of the cars but now all) to the chopped down format where cars get eliminated early irritates me. Ultimately what they want to win will win but do they have to go about it in such a laboured and boring manner.

As for the Phaeton, I havn't seen one yet and I'm no more enlightened having seen the Car File test of it.

Bring back Drive, all is forgiven ...

impr0v

I don't watch a whole lot of TV and so it was just bad luck to have had it on one day, (I think for one of the euro matches) at just the right time to catch an episode of above mentioned horror. Needless to say it will be the last time that happens, and not just because euro '04 is over either.

On that particular episode, about 75% of the show was taken up with a comparison of 'hot hatches'; one of those old Rover 45's with the awful MG disguise cunningly applied, a Civic Type R, an Alfa 147 GTA, Mini Cooper type something fast and single digit and a Seat Cupra. I suppose at one level it could be an interesting discussion, but it turned out to be a lot less than that, for a number of reasons.

1) The cars.
Fair enough, having a selection of 'hot' hatches is going to interest the boy racer market, but it's not really rooted in reality. The majority of the cars tested seemed to me to be a)unaffordable, and b)uninsurable by their target audience, and are aimed predominantly at the uk market. Even so, sure, I'd like to hear about them, and see how much performance you do get after you spend 40k+ on a hatchback, but not for 75% percent of a short (luckily enough as it turns out) program.

2) The two presenters.
T*ss-pot A, the Irish guy, seems to be presented as the emotive part of the car-buyers ego, dealing mostly with how the car looks and why one would want it, and the other misshapen lump, t*ss-pot B, as the technical half of the double-act, though you usually get the impression he's bluffing. Both are wooden, smarmy, and uninteresting. They are horribly attired in shameless Clarkson brand apparel of jeans and shirt, which on them just looks like they couldn't be ar*ed dressing up for work. There is nothing natural about their interactions, i.e. no chemistry between them, their dialogue being so forced it sounds like one of them found the other in a passionate embrace with his fiancée just before they started shooting, and they haven't had time to beat each other up and clear the air. One particular segment towards the end stands out, where A is driving the winning hatch, revving it in second gear, while B is in the passenger seat trying to look excited about their choice, but coming across as being scared by A's drunken appearance and refusal to change up a gear.

3) The on-road camera work.
Doing road work is fairly standard in this day and age surely. You find a deserted section of road which looks like a British B Road, beloved testing ground for the genre proto-type, Top Gear, then have one camera car and the car being reviewed. All well and good so far. You then do a few shots of the review car trailing the camera car, before speeding up and overtaking, to suitably dramatic music. This is too risky for the shows insurance policy however, so they do they takeover manoeuvres at about 35 mph, including one attempt where the driver of the review car seemed to be stuck in two minds and just hovered out in the incoming lane, off the camera cars rear wing. And this took place on what was obviously a live road environment, because there was a traffic jam behind the muppets.

4) The off-road camera work.
While delivering one tranche of the afore-mentioned wooden dialogue, t*ss-pot A was walking towards the camera, in the scenic grounds of some period estate house and gardens or something similar. Some genius had decided that it would be wonderfully dramatic to have him doing this just off the footpath and under a row of trees. Again, all well and good except that when they were advertising on the RTE canteen noticeboard for presenters they did mention 'Clarkson-like' so not only do the presenter's wardrobes consist primarily of denim, both t*ss-pots are in or around the 6 foot plus mark. Because of this, the emotive Irish guy is delivering his lines while repeatedly having to duck under branches as he walks through the wet grass. It looked stupidly amateurish.

5) The review process
There seemed to be little logic applied to this, presented as it was as a contest of presenter A's favorites versus presenter B's. The marks awarded were similar, sit on the fence marks, which didn't always tie in with what had just been said. For example, emotive guy was reviewing the 147 in terms of practicality (and there seemed to be a large overlap between the criteria for practicality and aesthetics in the mind of the presenters). He drove it along looking perfectly content, talked about the great burbling sound of the XXX horsepower engine, blah blah, very nice inside, blah blah, said nothing negative about it, then gave it 6 out of ten, about two less than one of the other cars, where a number of faults had been pointed out. Something that was very annoying about this whole segment as well, was that as soon as they skipped to another topic, such as one of the other two mini-segments they had, or an ad break, they would pedantically summarise how the review process had gone up to that point. Good practice this may be, but I can't emphasis how frustrating it was for anyone watching the thing since the start to have one or other of the two idiots slowly go over the whole process car by car in patient and condescending manner, accompanied by some horrible cheesy Marty Whelan-esque graphics multiple times. Also, when given the opportunity to be emphatic or decisive with their marking, they spurned it and stumped for mediocrity every time. All the cars they are reviewing are similar type models, similar prices, similar power, similar format. To the production team this meant similar marks out of ten. I think the only marks awarded were between 6 and 9 for all cars, though I can't really remember as it was a thoroughly forgettable program. For example, the Rover or MG or whatever they are calling the third evolution of a car that was utterly uninspired and bland in it's first evolution was being judged on it's aesthetics. Now it's obvious that this car is not going to do well in this category, Helen Keller would know that it's far and away worse than any of the other four, yet the fence sitters give it a 6. How would giving it a 2 have harmed the process? The car was eliminated after that round anyway, and it might have sent some sort of message to MG/rover's design department about how they need to advertise for new staff.

I could go on, but I'm in danger of communicating the boredom of the program by replicating it. None of the above matters is enough to condemn the program, but together they add up to make it a very much less than pleasurable experience. I know I'll certainly be switching off the TV and trusting the salesman's word about how good his hot hatch is before I'll watch more of that.

(Forgive any inaccuracies in the above, as it was about two weeks ago and I had to struggle to concentrate)

Silvera

Was it Irish-registered ?

michaelanthony

Yeah 04-D something.