# data.attributes.title
These are your most disappointing performance car follow-ups

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
These are your most disappointing performance car follow-ups | Top Gear

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
The follow-up acts that never delivered, according to you

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
These are your most disappointing performance car follow-ups

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
The follow-up acts that never delivered, according to you

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
These are your most disappointing performance car follow-ups

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
The follow-up acts that never delivered, according to you

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
These are your most disappointing performance car follow-ups

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
These are your most disappointing performance car follow-ups

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
The follow-up acts that never delivered, according to you

# data.attributes.body.value
There have been some disastrous follow-up acts in the performance car segment over the years, and this week’s question set about determining the very worst of them. Let’s start with the most upvoted comment of the week, sent in by Peterson.

“The Swift Sport is a massive contender. Suzuki managed to get rid of all that made the Swift attractive, fun and approachable, and to add even more dread to the mix, it refined that car over the years to be even more dead. That takes talent, dedication to the craft, and absolute refusal to innovate, instead throwing on the malaise treatment of lowering power outputs to squeeze emissions.

"Who needs innovation when an ECU flash is basically free?”

Ouchy. Kenji’s up next: “Ford has to be one of the biggest culprits here. From the Mustang Mach-E to the new Capri, trying to boost sales by naming a crossover after legendary performance cars is not something that I, or many others, appreciate.”

Ford got on the receiving end of a lot of stick this week, with another high-voted comment written by Robin: “Ford Puma. Such a slap in the face to take a Fiesta-based sports car with a sweet engine, and looks to swoon for, and give its name to a deliberately hideous crossover. For me, worse than the Capri because the Puma was far more recent, but they both sting.

"And don't get me started on the Ford Mach-E and its middle name.”

Let’s redirect the heat with Pikkle: “The Mk3 Impreza WRX STI was such a letdown. When 2008 arrived, Subaru seemingly forgot the brief of making an Evo-rivalling performance saloon, instead creating a dull hatchback which was trounced by the Evo X. The Impreza namesake was tarnished because of it, never to regain its legendary status again.”

Let’s keep the Japanese theme going a bit longer with a much older vehicle. Leo Paul Del Rosario said: “Does the Nissan Cefiro count? The first-generation model is a drift-happy rear-wheel-drive saloon we all love. When the second generation arrived in 1994, it became front-wheel-drive. Such a shame.”

Next up is Sebastian Van Cartier, who opted for a car that did sell well, though the argument is logical: “I'm going for the second-generation Jaguar XF. It lost the fabulous 5.0-litre engine, with the much-ballyhooed replacements being largely underwhelming. The styling was dully derivative and had none of the freshness of the X250, and the reliability went down the toilet.

"It went from a characterful sporting saloon to a 'will this do' executive car park vehicle. Jaguar could and should have done better.”

Time for a few solely EV-based comments, beginning with Arvin Adilaksono: “The new Charger. What was Dodge even thinking when it decided that a name that is very much the epitome of V8 American muscle should go electric? Here’s a reality check: nobody buys a muscle car because it’s good for the environment. They buy it to go fast, do burnouts and make noises that troll local police departments.”

Meanwhile, Karol Jalowy decided to have a look into the future and make a bold predetermination: “I think that the biggest disappointment is yet to come in the form of the electric Boxster. This car going electric is - unless Porsche makes something truly magical - a denial of all the things that the Boxster did well.

"We love the original because it was lighter and cheaper than the 911 while potentially matching, or some would say bettering, the driving dynamics. An EV version will be much heavier, affecting handling, and would also be way more expensive than the ICE-powered Boxsters.”

We’ll leave you with one more, penned by Rick Moritz: “Expanding the scope from sporty to special cars: the Land Rover Defender. From a farmer's tool with rugged coolness to just another off-road-capable SUV for the posh. Or how about the Renault Espace? A once forward-looking space-age but reasonable people carrier to just another SUV. Arguably, SUVs are worse for car enthusiasts than downsizing, auto-gearboxes and all the rest.”

The next Question of the Week drops on Monday, and we’ll make sure it’s not as depressing as this one. See you there.

# data.attributes.body.processed
There have been some disastrous follow-up acts in the performance car segment over the years, and this week’s question set about determining the very worst of them. Let’s start with the most upvoted comment of the week, sent in by Peterson.

“The Swift Sport is a massive contender. Suzuki managed to get rid of all that made the Swift attractive, fun and approachable, and to add even more dread to the mix, it refined that car over the years to be even more dead. That takes talent, dedication to the craft, and absolute refusal to innovate, instead throwing on the malaise treatment of lowering power outputs to squeeze emissions.

"Who needs innovation when an ECU flash is basically free?”

Ouchy. Kenji’s up next: “Ford has to be one of the biggest culprits here. From the Mustang Mach-E to the new Capri, trying to boost sales by naming a crossover after legendary performance cars is not something that I, or many others, appreciate.”

Ford got on the receiving end of a lot of stick this week, with another high-voted comment written by Robin: “Ford Puma. Such a slap in the face to take a Fiesta-based sports car with a sweet engine, and looks to swoon for, and give its name to a deliberately hideous crossover. For me, worse than the Capri because the Puma was far more recent, but they both sting.

"And don't get me started on the Ford Mach-E and its middle name.”

Let’s redirect the heat with Pikkle: “The Mk3 Impreza WRX STI was such a letdown. When 2008 arrived, Subaru seemingly forgot the brief of making an Evo-rivalling performance saloon, instead creating a dull hatchback which was trounced by the Evo X. The Impreza namesake was tarnished because of it, never to regain its legendary status again.”

Let’s keep the Japanese theme going a bit longer with a much older vehicle. Leo Paul Del Rosario said: “Does the Nissan Cefiro count? The first-generation model is a drift-happy rear-wheel-drive saloon we all love. When the second generation arrived in 1994, it became front-wheel-drive. Such a shame.”

Next up is Sebastian Van Cartier, who opted for a car that did sell well, though the argument is logical: “I'm going for the second-generation Jaguar XF. It lost the fabulous 5.0-litre engine, with the much-ballyhooed replacements being largely underwhelming. The styling was dully derivative and had none of the freshness of the X250, and the reliability went down the toilet.

"It went from a characterful sporting saloon to a 'will this do' executive car park vehicle. Jaguar could and should have done better.”

Time for a few solely EV-based comments, beginning with Arvin Adilaksono: “The new Charger. What was Dodge even thinking when it decided that a name that is very much the epitome of V8 American muscle should go electric? Here’s a reality check: nobody buys a muscle car because it’s good for the environment. They buy it to go fast, do burnouts and make noises that troll local police departments.”

Meanwhile, Karol Jalowy decided to have a look into the future and make a bold predetermination: “I think that the biggest disappointment is yet to come in the form of the electric Boxster. This car going electric is - unless Porsche makes something truly magical - a denial of all the things that the Boxster did well.

"We love the original because it was lighter and cheaper than the 911 while potentially matching, or some would say bettering, the driving dynamics. An EV version will be much heavier, affecting handling, and would also be way more expensive than the ICE-powered Boxsters.”

We’ll leave you with one more, penned by Rick Moritz: “Expanding the scope from sporty to special cars: the Land Rover Defender. From a farmer's tool with rugged coolness to just another off-road-capable SUV for the posh. Or how about the Renault Espace? A once forward-looking space-age but reasonable people carrier to just another SUV. Arguably, SUVs are worse for car enthusiasts than downsizing, auto-gearboxes and all the rest.”

The next Question of the Week drops on Monday, and we’ll make sure it’s not as depressing as this one. See you there.

# data.attributes.field_standfirst
The follow-up acts that never delivered, according to you