Just What the World Needs-Another COTY Award

by Frank Williams

Published: June 13th, 2009

just what the world needs another coty award

We’ve been quite vocal in our opinion of “Car of the Year” awards such as those sold handed out every year by Motor Trend. Even worse are those awards bestowed by non-automotive rags where a COTY announcement ranks right up there with their pronouncements of the years trendiest sunglasses or the best place for killer mojitos. Yet, for whatever reason, Esquire has decided the world needs yet another of these useless (to everyone but their advertising department) awards.

At least “the magazine for men” is up front about their selection criteria and admits “picking a car of the year is not a scientific business.” They have their “own set of priorities.” They explain a Car of the Year “should be able to stir the ol’ loins . . . it should also be attainable for most men . . . be sharp enough to impress a date and restrained enough to park next to your boss . . . [be] thrilling but not profligate, handsome but not faddish . . . [and] fulfill the mundane, practical needs of year-round transportation but also pack enough beans under the hood to give you a queasy feeling when you realize the guy in the Porsche is instigating a race.”

So their selection criteria are totally arbitrary yet are things to which a pistonhead can relate. Fair ’nuff. However, the one criterion that you’d think essential is missing: that you can actually buy one. Their “first ever” COTY? The 2010 Ford Taurus SHO. That’s right. They gave an award for the best car you can buy to a car that isn’t even for sale yet. The 2010 Taurus won’t be seen in the showrooms (SHOrooms?) until some time next month. But hey! Once it’s there, it’ll have a ready-made advertising campaign; a state of affairs that I suspect also applies to Esquire. Whatta deal!

[TTAC welcomes former Managing Editor Frank Williams back to the autoblogosphere.]

Frank Williams

More by Frank Williams

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 62 comments

Anonymous on Jun 14, 2009
I am sorry, but your Ford prejudice is getting the better of your rational thinking. Ford sales were down year over year, but they were significantly up over the past month. In addition, market share was up for the 7th month out of 8th. Their cash burn was a lot less than Toyota and clearly somewhat better than GM and Chrysler. It was also significantly down on last year and remains at a level that is totally sustainable. How is losing almost $2 BILLION dollars in one quarter sustainable? Mulally attended Congress in November to show support for the Auto industry as a whole (suppliers and dealers included). He did not, has not and will not take any government bail-out and for that he should be commended. Wow...you can tell the future? He DID accept money from the Swedish government for Volvo (see the TTAC article)...and he did SECURE $9 BILLION from our Government...he just hasn't made the call for it...yet. But the time is coming. Ford will either take money or be heavily considering taking money by the end of the year. I am still waiting to see your list of Mulally’s false statements. I have already listed them...numerous times...but here they are again: He SAID Ford would turn a profit in 2009. Oops. He SAID that Volvo was not going to be sold. Oops. He SAID that Ford's stake in Mazda was not for sale. Oops. The level of blindness people have towards Ford is uncanny. They foolishly believe that they are a healthy company. Saying Ford is the healthiest of the big three (which, now, they are not), is like saying you only have SARS, Bird Flu, and rabies. Ford is as healthy as a horse with a broken leg. They are quickly using uo the last of the money they borrowed and soon will find themselves in the bailout boat with GM and Chrysler. Nothing short of a miracle can save them. This economy is not going to recover any time soon...and as gas prices keep inching up, auto sales will drop. And let me tell you something. A silly, overpriced hybrid that Ford loses money on, a overpriced large sedan, a overpriced truck, and an overpriced, supersized Scion xB are not going to save them. And by the time the goofy looking Fiesta gets here (it really is Ford's Camaro), it too will be outclassed by just about everything on the market. They have overhyped it and it will be old and tired when people have a chance to buy it.

Like Reply
Matt51 on Jun 15, 2009

"And let me tell you something. A silly, overpriced hybrid that Ford loses money on, a overpriced large sedan, a overpriced truck, and an overpriced, supersized Scion xB are not going to save them." You speak the truth.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Ollicat Another Biden attempt to say, "Look over there!"
Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh Who cares. Price of gas is not the issue. spending an extra 100$ a month over 4 tanks of gas is not the issue.this a political scam to distract really dumb people from the real issue. if rent and house payments were not up by 50% to as high as 150% higher in a ton of locations, then paying an extra 100$ in gas would be annoying but not really an issue. But the real-estate market with hedge fund investors, power-relator groups bought a ton of houses and flipped them into rentals and jacked up the rates uplifting the costs on everything else. and ironically no-one seems to be in any hurry to build more houses to bring those costs down because supply and demand means keeping less houses available to charge as much as you want. It is also not the issue as a secondary issue is child care costs and medical... again 100$ extra per month in gas is *nothing* compared to 800$ a month in ''child care'' and 300$ per visit to the doctor office, 300$ for a procedure less dentist trip..
Ajla Is there something proprietary or installed on the moon with these that I'm not aware of?
Tane94 Awaiting the EV3 unveil this month. Kia continues to lead, though I will miss the Soul
Jeanbaptiste I know this will never be seen, but the real answer is NO Government mandated tech. The reason why is that when the government mandates something, we miss out on signals that the free market will give to weather or not people actually want this or that this tech would actually help. It's like mandating AM radio for cars when people could just buy a $10 am radio if they really like am so much.