EVO
Author
Discussion

kenprotheroe

Original Poster:

112 posts

257 months

Monday 30th January 2006
quotequote all
I see the morons at
Evo again castigate the M400 and
stoop so low as to describe the rear end as ugly ! Further
misdemeaners apparently created
by a said cheap interior. Lee N.
must surely have upset such as Richard Meadens applecart?

>> Edited by kenprotheroe on Monday 30th January 14:45

micknall

826 posts

278 months

Monday 30th January 2006
quotequote all
Hi Ken,

I have to say that I thought it a very fair article. Styling is such a subjective issue that it would be churlish to criticise someone else's views (and anyway, these were put forth by a member of the public, not a journalist). The other comments - in the context of the other cars being compared - about the M400's interior and packaging were told as they were.

Bearing in mind that the car was never designed as a load-lugger, I don't think we have much to worry about. If Richard Meaden had said that our car was slow and didn't handle, then we obviously would have.

Simon Hucknall
Press Officer
Noble Automotive Ltd.

mad-doug

61 posts

280 months

Tuesday 31st January 2006
quotequote all
What struck me as odd about it was the fact they seemed to put the Exige 240 sport ahead of both the M400 and the Z06. This is £46k for something which is obviously underpowered compared to the other 3, even if it does have a boot.

I also wondered whether they rated the Z06 over the M400 "if you had to pick just one of them". If so the M400 would be 4th and last.

It seems that for some reason Evo really rate the 3R but are not quite so keen on the M400: I don't see why.

Anyway they are entitled to their opinion.

m12_nathan

5,138 posts

288 months

Tuesday 31st January 2006
quotequote all
Maybe Noble don't pay for enough adverts