In the last couple of years, there has been an interesting turn in the industry. Despite the race to be the greener brand, some interesting cars have been put out for sale. And one might think that, after years of complaining by petrolheads that car makers don't make anything but 1.2 ecocars, sports cars would be received like rain in May...
Well, one would be wrong.
The first example that comes to mind is the Toyota GT86/Subaru BRZ. I absolutely loved the idea. It was relatively cheap, rear-wheel drive, the horsepower wasn't bad, and I liked the way the first-gen looked, but the internet...oh, the internet. Turns out that you need at least 350 hp to be able to move your car, and don't dare to raise the price because some internet car guru says that it only cost a couple of cents to build a car.
The same happened with the MX-5. But hey, big companies listened; Honda made a new NSX, Toyota partnered with BMW to give enthusiasts the new Supra and Chevrolet decided to compete with European supercars and put the engine in the middle of the Corvette. I don’t know, but all of this sounds like petrolheads have a bright future. But no, not for the internet warriors because a middle engine Corvette is not a real Corvette, despite there being prototypes of mid engines Corvettes since the '60s, some even with a rotary engine. Then, of course, the new Supra is not a real Supra because it does not have a 25-year-old engine in it. And despite experts like Papadakis Racing saying the new engine has a lot of potential, nope, the new Supra is totally rubbish.
But that was last month because now every armchair engineer and off-roader who has only been to gravel parking lots has a new target - the new Land Rover Defender.
Yesterday all the thumbnails in youtube’s subscription box were the same: the all-new, modernized, off-roader, etc, Land Rover Defender. I have always been a fan of the old one. We even had a Land Rover Discovery 1 in the house when I was a kid. Great car, when it worked.
And just by judging the thumbnails, it looked alright. I clicked on the one with Hammond on it because well, believe or not, I actually respect his views on cars even though I usually agree more with Clarkson. Around mid video I checked the comment to see what the internet has to say about it… Why? Why haven’t I learnt the lesson of not reading comments? To sum up the Internet opinion: “The old one was a much better car because it’s been around forever and you can clean the inside with a hose.” I get that you might not like the styling; that is a subjective matter, but what do all of those keyboard car experts know that I don’t? How do they know that it's a bad off-roader, even though it has been tested in Africa, helping with Lions Conservation and Research? How do they know it's going to be unreliable if it has only been out for one day?
Now, this next complaint really gets me. Why are people complaining about the car being filled with technology? I’m the first one to not be interested in modern cars with infotainment. I mean, I drive a 1994 car by choice. But if I’m spending 41 thousand euros on a modern car, it better be able to tell me what the temperature is doing on Mars and what the chemical composition is of the soil that I’m driving on.
My point is: If you want an old car, buy one and stop complaining about car makers trying to keep up with modern times.