And if you truly think TTAC is biased against imports, I encourage to look at the cold, hard facts.

You do realize that that post does nothing to address the tone of posts? Furthermore, it doesn’t begin to explain why an offhand comment that chooses to attack a domestic vehicle in a “news” item isn’t bias.

Frank Williams :
March 28th, 2008 at 10:04 am

If you can write a totally unbiased editorial or review of anything, we welcome your contribution.

Here’s where your logic, and the logic of some of your fellow posters, breaks down- the Niedermeyer post I referred to was neither an editorial nor a review. It was ostensibly a news item, and basic news doesn’t generally require an editorial interjection.

I wouldn’t begin to pretend I could write a bias-free editorial or review. I could, however, tell you that manufacturers are developing new technologies without mocking a product.

See the difference?

Choosing to mock a specific thing/person/company in a news item that requires nothing more than who/what/when/why is a sign of bias. Period.

If your local paper had a front page article about the new sanitation contract your city signed (simple reporting, right?), and at the end the reporter said something along the lines of “Maybe they could pay XYZ Garbage Co. to haul away the mayor”, you’d view that as an attack on the mayor.

It would be an appropriate comment in an op/ed piece about the mayor’s conduct, but it’s a clear sign of biased reporting in a “news” piece on the front page, and since it wasn’t about the city manager or district attorney it’s fair to assume that the writer (and the editor that allowed it to print) dislikes the mayor.

If you want to hold TTAC to a different standard, that’s okay, but stop pretending that the editors and many contributors aren’t biased.

In fact, I would bet that hundreds, if not thousands, of auto reviews contain snide remarks that even the author did not agree with. He put them in the review because he wanted to show off his wit.

I guess that you didn’t also notice the potshots taken at Toyota’s donation to the Audobon Society or the pronouncements of Lexus’ failure in Japan. Very selective reading glasses.

Do me a favor. Go read Niedermeyer’s news blurb about CGI developments in design and advertisement and then explain why the last two sentences do not indicate an editorial bias.

So using your logic, if he’d said, say, “bring the man an xB,” we would have a indicated an editorial bias against imports. ANY comment made for or against ANY car can be twisted to show a bias for or against something. If you can write a totally unbiased editorial or review of anything, we welcome your contribution.

And if you truly think TTAC is biased against imports, I encourage to look at the cold, hard facts.

Do me a favor. Go read Niedermeyer’s news blurb about CGI developments in design and advertisement and then explain why the last two sentences do not indicate an editorial bias.

Given three choices- report the news, report the news and mock an ugly domestic vehicle, or report the news and mock an ugly import- a TTAC editor/writer chose to mock an ugly domestic.

Surprise, surprise.

Most people assume that when you go out of your way to make fun of something, it indicates a bias. I would characterize a snide comment in what appears to be a factual reporting of events as “going out of your way”.

Like I said- it’s not necessarily bad, but quit pretending it doesn’t exist.

I have no vested interest in this site, and I note several others here that don’t either who agree with me that there is no real anti-domestic bias here. Sorry, that means you are incorrect.

On the star system:

I think a star system w/10 being the max is desperately needed. Actually, make that a must as I feel the site’s integrity is at stake if one carefully peruses the reviews, then the awarded stars. There should be consistency in awarding stars from one reviewer to the next. Like many here, I cannot fathom how the Altima Coupé received 5/5 stars… At least one point should be devoted to styling, something that the automobile in question lacks just like the Caliber lacks soft plastics. Yes, styling is subjective, but in my eyes generic styling is worse than Asstech styling.

PS: Please keep the tone and comments. It reminds me of Clarkson, but it applies to cars we get here in NA. And that, is a good thing!

The American auto industry could make substantial progress if they would first cop to the fact (at least internally) that they just don’t measure up and are second rate compared to the best competitors in the field.

Nobody, but nobody, is upholding Mitsubishi as a noteworthy or best competitor. In the US car market, it is a non-entity.

Mitsubishi just doesn’t do much that’s worth talking about. It’s a bit like saying that if we are going to criticize the business mistakes of McDonald’s that we should devote equal time to critiquing Bob’s Burger Stand and Auto Repair.

I know that you are a domestic fan. Let’s face it — you just don’t like the domestics being criticized, or the idea that Toyota, Honda or BMW are better managed companies that do a better job of identifying or serving their customers.

Again, in the business world, everybody understands this as fact. Nobody, but nobody, with any expertise or knowledge believes that GM offers the most effective business models, while everyone finds much to criticize.

You don’t see it, but Mr. Farago is doing you a favor. I don’t agree with everything he believes (not that I have to, it’s a free country), but much of what you find in the Deathwatch columns is a summary of what any business consultant would tell you about what ails the company.

All of this information that shocks the gearheads and angers the domestic fanboys is already commonly accepted as Automotive 101 by businesspeople who understand these industries. To someone with business knowledge, the mistakes are really, painfully obvious.

So stop shooting the messenger. You can read Bob Lutz’s blog if you want some fantasy version of the auto biz, but the happy chatter over there won’t sell any cars.

The employees and shareholders deserve to see these companies return to profitability, and there doesn’t seem to be much of a plan to get there, which saddens me as a car guy and pisses me off as a business person. If you want the Death Watch columns to stop and get the last laugh on Mr. Farago, then it might help if you could GM to hire a new CEO.

But the failings aren’t equal.

Mitsubishi makes horrible cars with very bad reliability ratings. Their sales are in the tank and I dare you to name a Mitsubishi you would drive.

The last review of a Mitsubishi by TTAC was nine months ago. Nine. The last I checked they still sell cars here, and TTAC routinely criticizes GM models older than that.

Mitsubishi may not make as many product mistakes as GM, but the ones they do make are every bit as deserving of scorn as GM, or Ford, or Chrysler. Where’s the outrage, the commentary about how you wouldn’t touch a base lancer with a 10′ pole?

This site, and it’s commenter’s, flame domestic manufacturers every day. But.. a company that built a car that TTAC described as dangerous to drive and that hasn’t improved since that review comes in for almost zero scrutiny. When it is mentioned here the choice of language- with a few obvious exceptions- is no where near as caustic as it is when a domestic makes a cheap, oddly styled, poorly selling rat trap.

It should be enlightening that the only people denying that bias exists are the creator and the regular contributors. Everybody without a vested interest in the site claims a bias exists.

Whether you are comfortable admitting it or not, TTAC has a bias. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but denying it is both pointless and futile. Accept that it’s there, accept that it’s part of the culture, and move on.

First let me say that this site is a must-read for me nearly every day…if away from home, I still check out this site whenever possible. The articles and reviews, not to mention the insights provided by fellow readers, are entertaining and informative.

Regarding the anti-domestic bias – it’s true that the domestics (to varying degrees) are the ones making the biggest mistakes. And it’s just natural to focus on the hometeam. A Chrysler decision to file for bankruptcy or discontinue vehicle production means more to Americans than similar decisions by Mitsubishi.

There does, however need to be some perspective in the criticism. For example, Bob Lutz does make outrageous statements and, like too many of his fellow executive suite members at GM, still thinks that the car-buying public is just itching to abandon their Toyotas, BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes for the all-new, next-big-thing from GM.

BUT – let’s be fair and note that Mr. Lutz HAS made improvements in GM’s vehicle development processes. The new cars are trucks ARE much better. Whether they are better enough to get satisfied customers out of their current ride is certainly a worthy topic of discussion.

Mr. Lutz was brought in to tear down the self-imposed barriers that hobbled GM’s efforts to develop more competitive products, and, based on the improvements to the newest products, it does appear to be working. Take him to task for too many off-the-cuff statements, or failure to sort out GM’s brands, but at least give him credit where it is due.

With Chrysler, it needs to be remembered that DAIMLER owned the company from 1998-2007, and had installed its management team there, and therefore bears responsibilities for such abortions as the Sebring/Avenger and Compass and Chrysler’s lackluster quality. Daimler was calling the shots, and basically ran the company into the ground during its ownership. Shouldn’t Daimler be held accountable? Has there been an article noting that the pride of the German auto industry tried to crack the American mass market by buying an established company, and failed miserably? And that the blame for this failure rests largely in Germany, not Auburn Hills?

As for Ford – the recent editorial describing Mr. Laymon’s remarks, and Ford’s treacherous culture, could have described every place I’ve ever worked (and I’ve worked in both government and the private sector). It wasn’t terribly illuminating on Ford’s current condition, or regarding much progress Mr. Mulally is making in his effort to save the company.

GM is improving vs. GM is declining;

GM is making better cars vs. Too few, too late;

GM management is doing a great job vs. GM management are a bunch of unaccountable parasites.

And I wonder, how many of the commentators KNOW first-hand, if their beliefs and opinions are true?

How many commentators have been in the RenCen, met any members of the GM executive team, and dealt with them and have known them?

I have.

Some are arrogant, over-promoted, self-important suits who wouldn’t know a great idea if it showed up in their Brooks Brothers pocket.

Others are self-effacing, generous, earnest, thoughtful people who look both within and outside themselves and the organization for help and direction.

You’ll find bigwigs blathering about big ideas, taking risks, leading the charge — and then once presented with making a go-forward decision about a big idea or taking a risk, you’ll find them cowering in a bathroom stall. Stalling. Waiting for someone else to make their decision for them. Posers exposed.

Beneath them are countless minions in every corner, charged with infinitesimally small, trite tasks, whose only purpose is obstruction and unnecessary interjection — if only as a means of self-preservation and job justification.

But there are still many at GM who still believe. Who know that this huge, dysfunctional organization has the ability to fix itself, to show the world again how good American technology and innovation can be.

So what do I think?

About GM?

About its mere survival?

Or, dare I say, success?

When you add the naysayers to the cheerleaders, you about have GM figured out.

Cuz it’s just like the completely screwed up organization all of us work for (or have worked for, at one time or another).

Only GM is bigger. And probably more public.

Very few companies have synergy from management on down, throughout all functions and systems…and those that do will eventually lose it as they grow.

GM as an organization is epic in its size and complexity. Like an entire country. Its own civilization, even. In its good years, it became bloated, over-complicated, over-layered, and it eventually became an impossible place for ground-breakers and independent-thinkers to thrive. Visionaries like Earl, Mitchell and Duntov need no longer apply. Go-along, to get-along became the company mantra. And why not? When things were good, who cared? What’s to fix?

And now that bloated labyrinth of systems and procedures and gate-keepers and divisions and managers has fallen on bad times — a natural consequence of previous excess. And success.

GM, the civilization, has so much standing in the way of brave decisions and outstanding product, the mind boggles.

The enemy, then, is not the Germans or the Japanese. It’s GM itself.

I’ve been in the automotive marketing industry twenty years. GM is by far the most frustrating and rewarding of all accounts I’ve ever worked on.

It’s been responsible for both the best and the worst leadership and decisions I’ve witnessed.

Some of the greatest minds, and the absolute worst, reside inside.

I cheer for them. And curse them.

So will they make it? Will it survive?

Maybe if one reads through all of TTAC’s (Farrago’s) opinions, you’ll arrive at his overarching premise….

It’ll survive. Just be very, very different.

And I agree.

GM is already waging that battle for change inside itself. It’s painful. It’s slow. And there’s going to be a lot more pain before it’s all done. Sooner, rather than later.

So take up your positions, positive or negative. Either position is sound and can even be factually supported.

But in the end, something leaner, more streamlined, will emerge. The bloat will be cut – there will be no other financial choice. The posers and politicians inside the RenCen will be exposed. Some may even float off in golden parachutes. Unfortunately, it’s the corporate, American way.

Haters will be justified.

Cheerleaders will celebrate.

Both confident their positions were correct all along.

Pontiac recalls cars because they catch on fire. My first vehicle, a 1990 aerostar, had to have the engine replaced at 120,000 kilometers. The 2005 Focus I had almost killed me. At high altitudes the brake bootser loses vacuum when parked and idle for a couple of hours. The warmer the weather, the worse it is. I had to use two feet to stop the car during the first 2 minutes of driving. I had it in 9 times to be fixed and it never was (despite ford issuing a service bulletin for the problem…yeah a bulletin, not a recall) and I got in an accident as a result. Ford refused to accept responsibility and would only let me out of my lease if I signed into a lease for a 2006 Focus, and tried to force me take a car with chipped paint on top of all that. The brake issue is still present in the 2006 model…to be safe I pump the brake before I start to car so it builds up proper vacuum right away.

I will never, ever buy a domestic again. An A4 is likely my next car. Are there reliability issues with Audi or VW? Sure. The radio might flake out or the door remote might stop working…but the car will never put your life at risk by catching on fire or brake failure.

I say, criticize away and be as snarly as you like TTAC. The domestics deserve nothing less.

My over all feeling on this thing is that anyone who would choose the kind of discourse on Jalopnik over that on TTAC because of bias isn’t thinking very hard. The stories on the site itself are often interesting, but there can be no useful discussion there.

People who believe that bias is like an accent (it’s something other people have), and people who think having a strong opinion is a clear sign of bias, are the worst sort of idiots we have. The former survive only if someone else manages to stop them from running off a cliff, while the latter live like parasites. Both have contempt for those whose talents and efforts are responsible for their very survival.

In the parlance of Jalopnik – they are a bunch of worthless gits.

You should have a permalink to such an explanation available for your various “Watch” series. The regulars get it, but the less sophisticated among the non-regulars clearly don’t. Then again, maybe that intellectual barrier to entry keeps such folk over on Jalopnik posting pictures of feminine hygiene products for grins.

On second thought, forget I said anything, you rabid Detroit hater, you.

Overall the skeptical tone of the content is what makes this site far more interesting than any other automotive news/editorial website.

Thanks for the feedback. Bring it on! I’ll interject myself here to answer three points…

1. I asked the question to Bob Lutz– “Is your pension bankruptcy” proof– because I believe it speaks to the heart of executive accountability.

When I read that GM CEO Rick Wagoner’s pension was bankruptcy-proof, I was shocked. How could the CEO charged with turning around GM, a man asking union employees to take one for the team, possibly justify removing himself from the consequences of his own actions? After all, it’s not as if Mr. Wagoner is being paid, say, a dollar a year for his efforts. Surely Mr. Wagoner should face SOME measure of accountability, somewhere– even if it is symbolic.

IF Bob Lutz pension is bankruptcy-proof, it would reveal that GM lacks faith in its own survival– on a wider scale than just one savvy CEO. And I want to know: are these guys planning to float away on their golden parachutes if the company goes tits up?

As today’s Ford Death Watch states, there is nothing more important than corporate culture. And that culture starts with the guys at the top. My question was trying to find out if they are corrupt to the core.

2. As for “Death Watch” and “Suicide Watch” as series titles, it is what it says it is. A watch to see if any of the Big 2.8 are going to die or (in Chrysler’s case) deliberately kill themselves (i.e. file for Chapter 11). Yes, the title is deliberately provocative. These are important issues that deserve the automotive media’s full attention. It’s our way of putting a flag in the ground and saying we are NOT going to blithely accept the spinmongery coming from these companies. Millions of people’s livelihoods hang in the balance. Again, if and when any of the Big 2.8 are out of financial peril, the respective series will end.

3. As for the “glee” we take in reporting these events, it behooves those who accuse of anti-domestic bias to check our coverage of Toyota, Nissan, Kia and the rest of the transplants. Yes, it’s less frequent than our coverage of the Big 2.8. As PCH101 pointed-out, that’s because they don’t do as much stupid shit as the so-called domestics. But when they do, we’re there. (Not to mention our “call it like we see it” reviews.)

But back to the tone, I make no apologies for our snarky, sarcastic style. As many of you suspect, we’re angry because we care. And it is not our job to share the good news the industry PR folk pump-out on an hourly basis. There are plenty of outlets happy to reprint press releases or accept the party line when it comes to “challenging” news. We’re here to rake muck. To say what the other guys won’t or can’t say. And, frankly, to keep both our readers and ourselves amused while doing so. Sad but true: being nice isn’t funny. And we do like to laugh.

Can we laugh at ourselves? Or am I, the writers and commentators pompous, self-righteous pricks? Ultimately, that’s your call. Meanwhile, I urge those who think we’re arrogant to consider the fact that we take time to listen to the criticism, respond to it and, yes, change. Otherwise we’d be as guilty as those we condemn.

But the failings aren’t equal.

The American auto industry could make substantial progress if they would first cop to the fact (at least internally) that they just don’t measure up and are second rate compared to the best competitors in the field.

This desire to claim that the A students should be treated like the D students is in itself a form of bias. The Big 2.8 are to get our tea and sympathy, a handicapped parking space and their own Special Olympics just because they are “American”? Thanks, but no thanks.

That being said, I will agree with some that it would be wise to tone the snarkiness just a tad, at least on occasion. Again, I know that it is really intended to serve as an ongoing homage to the likes of Hunter S. Thompson and Jeremy Clarkson, but not everyone understands or appreciates the intent.

As far as the flaming policy, I wish more sites had the same policy you guys do. Ad hominem attcks are not discussion or debate; they are just what a person runs to when they don’t have anything to back up what they are saying and don’t want to admit that they either don’t know or are wrong.

There’s enough indication that both companies are in the same boat as the Titanic – sinking quickly. The question becomes can they be saved? The Malibu is a nice example of GM appearing to be paying attention to customers and genuinely trying to get a good car out there. The question becomes is that enough? From GM’s financial stand point, no. They need nearly every model to be that good or better.

Personally I don’t want to see either of them go under. Or Chrysler for that matter. But the truth of the matter is they are three companies in business to sell cars and trucks. As we all know business is about turning a profit. When was the last time any of the domestics turned a profit? When companies continually turn losses what happens?

As for bias, it may appear that way. Farago and company have ripped on BMW, Porsche, VW, Toyota, Honda, and Hyundai recently. They are not as biased as you might think. The companies I just mentioned also aren’t losing money every quarter, nor are the in danger of going belly up soon as the domestic manufacturers are, so they don’t really deserve a death/suicide watch column yet. They could in the future, but at this point in time they are all profitable and staying in business.

Since Toyota and GM seem to be the one compared most lately as far as quality, let me be the first to state that Toyota takes the initiative to recall and fix their problems as soon as they can. GM, Ford, and Chrysler take years and lawsuits before they will fix some of their quality issues. A prime example is GM’s 3.4 V6. It has a known issue with the lower intake manifold gasket and has for years, but GM has never once recalled it. Same with Ford and the fire hazard a majority of their trucks posses up to the 2005 model year. How long did it take for them to finally fess up and recall those? Toyota realized there was a problem with the cam in their Tundra and recalled it ASAP. That is another example of why Toyota will succeed even with some initial quality issues and the big three will continue to flounder until they pick up the practice of correcting their mistakes in a timely manner.

As for Robert’s question to Bob Lutz, it wasn’t really the best question, but it does shed light on how he thinks. As a man in a leadership position for a large corporation he should have an idea about not only his financial standing all the time, but that of his employer too. If he thinks this way, does the rest of GM’s leadership do the same? It makes me wonder.

I don’t always agree with TTAC’s positions on things, but Mr. Farago allows me and everyone else to come here and discuss it civilly, and he responds maturely and civilly. For that he earns a lot of respect from me.

I’d also like to point out that he gave a polite, and valid, critique of the “tone” of posts and all anybody focused on was the fact that GM screws up more than the imports.

Yes, GM is in self-created trouble, but Phil’s point that the tone of articles about GM mistakes is more “vituperative” than articles about import mistakes is dead on.

GM may make more mistakes than Toyota, but that doesn’t excuse the difference in adjectives when discussing cheap plastic in a Cobalt versus cheap plastic in a Corolla.

I read TTAC every day I’m at work, and sometimes on the weekend, so I don’t think I’m a “casual observer”.

There is clearly a bias here. That bias isn’t indicated by the number of articles about domestic failings vs. import failings- it’s indicated by the language chosen to decribe fundamentally identical failings and the relative amounts of scorn heaped on various cars.

You can cherry pick specific reviews (I’m looking at you, Corolla) that make it appear that TTAC is unbiased, but when you read all the reviews a different picture emerges.

Ressler is right- decide how you want to be viewed and ignore anything that doesn’t matter to that goal.

There’s a reason the casual observer believes TTAC has an anti-domestic bias. Just like there’s a reason the casual observer believes the quality of domestic vehicles is below the quality of imported vehicles.

Well not to flame, but I’m just a Modo. IMHO I have loved all my vehicles, mostly domestic, but as I stated earlier, my Xb kicks the butt of every domestic I have ever owned. And it’s FUN. My Toyota dealer is profesional and friendly, and thats more than I can say for the domestic dealers that I had to deal with over the years. I truly wish the American auto companies would get their sh:t together though, cause I would really love to buy American.