Comments on: Detroit’s International Award of the Year Awards

By: Rix

Rix — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:44:45 +0000

I hear Chrysler won “Most likely to enter bankruptcy.”

By: SherbornSean

SherbornSean — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 16:15:39 +0000

A Volvo that pushes $30K is “entry level”? These people need to get out into the world.

By: Frank Williams

Frank Williams — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:20:56 +0000

Geotpf

Of course, if foldable rear seats is all it takes, then my Scion xA is a “truck”. Hell, maybe it is actually classified as such, who knows. Sure would help Toyota’s truck CAFE numbers, balance out a few Tundras.

It’s a truck only if the seat folds into the floor or removes completely to form a flat-floored cargo area. This, in the minds of the bureaucrats, makes it a cargo vehicle (whether or not it’s ever used to haul cargo). Seats that just fold down or fold then tumble forward don’t count. In other words, if you can still see a the seat in the cargo area, it ain’t a truck.

By: jazbo123

jazbo123 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:12:18 +0000

It’s the Montgomery Burns First Annual Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of… Excellence.

By: Geotpf

Geotpf — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:53:32 +0000

I thought all vans were classified as “light trucks” merely because they are vans. Then again, maybe the fact the seats can go away (every minivan ever made has removable and/or foldable rear seats) means that it’s a truck.

By: jazbo123

jazbo123 — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:16:16 +0000

Well at least it sounded more exciting than the recent Golden Globe Awards. And about as relevant.

By: confused1096

confused1096 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:54:27 +0000

Frank Williams: That’s irrelevant. The EPA classifies it a truck because the rear seats disappear (fold down leaving a flat cargo compartment) or are removable) leaving a cargo compartment sans passenger capability. Other vehicles they classify as trucks that are built on passenger car platforms include the PT Cruiser, HHR, Magnum,and Taurus X.

Now you’re probably more confused. I know I am.

You’re right, I am. Thanks for the information though.

By: Stephan Wilkinson

Stephan Wilkinson — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:50:48 +0000

These choices had nothing to do with imagined female automotive dumbness. The choices were made not by the magazine but by the jury, which included such stalwarts as Dave Davis and Ed Lapham.

By: Sammy Hagar

Sammy Hagar — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:10:37 +0000

I saw the rear of a C30 in person for the first time last week…it reminded me of this terrarium coffee table my neighbor’s had, circa “The Regal Beagle.”

By: Martin Albright

Martin Albright — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:38:45 +0000

What makes a truck “athletic?” Is this another appearance-based category, again perpetuating the notion that women only care how a vehicle looks and neither know nor care about its performance? Shouldn’t people be insulted by this kind of lame stereotyping? Might as well add a “cutest car” or “Best vanity mirror” category they’re at it.

By: Frank Williams

Frank Williams — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 16:34:41 +0000

confused1096
Since when is the Town & Country a truck? Isn’t it built on a car platform?

That’s irrelevant. The EPA classifies it a truck because the rear seats disappear (fold down leaving a flat cargo compartment) or are removable) leaving a cargo compartment sans passenger capability. Other vehicles they classify as trucks that are built on passenger car platforms include the PT Cruiser, HHR, Magnum,and Taurus X.

Now you’re probably more confused. I know I am.

By: confused1096

confused1096 — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:46:08 +0000

Since when is the Town & Country a truck? Isn’t it built on a car platform?

By: raast

raast — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:18:51 +0000

@CarShark

I believe if you re-read the post (maybe between the lines, didn’t think it was that subtle), that was my point…

By: Queensmet

Queensmet — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:55:37 +0000

Hate to say it, but some those awards perpetuate the female stereotype of being dumb about cars. The publisher should be ashamed of herself.
Would be interesting though to know how “Most Sex Appeal” is measured or What “Most Compatible” is compatible with.

By: Redbarchetta

Redbarchetta — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 04:03:55 +0000

I feel for you guys having to stomach this stuff in the flesh, there must have been a lot of gasps or WTF’s at announcement time.

By: CarShark

CarShark — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:57:41 +0000

@raast:

Having “North American Car of the Year 2007″ on its mantelpiece hasn’t really helped the Saturn Aura.

@ajla:

I agree with you about that part. I think they hit those on the money. If anything, this shows how hit-or-miss these declarations based on a couple test drives are. I don’t think Motor Trend will ever let down voting the Renault Alliance in as COTY in ‘83.

By: Donal

Donal — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:33:28 +0000

Which car gets Miss Congeniality?

By: raast

raast — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:52:06 +0000

Memo to auto executives: Many MANY, people understand exactly how the system works, and why awards like this are simply the equivalent of advertising. The educated buyer ends up in areas like this, to find out what’s really going on. The bottom-line sales figures tell a somewhat different story in the grand scheme of things. The objective IS to sell product, right?

By: ajla

ajla — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:50:33 +0000

I get the problems with the selection of the ‘97 Grand Prix, the ‘99 Windstar, and the ‘02 X-type.

But, what was so bad about them selecting the PT Cruiser in 2001, the Intrigue in 1998, or the Charger in 2006?

By: Sherman Lin

Sherman Lin — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:19:16 +0000

I look at it this way these sham awards by questionable auto authorities are actually just another reason for why this site exists. The more banal, the more trite, and the more paid off these type of auto awards or reviews etc become from the existing established print media, then the more relevant TTAC becomes.

By: rollingwreck

rollingwreck — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:28:26 +0000

To paraphrase Jon Stewart, these awards sound like a “recipe for sadness”.

Are the folks who built the ‘winners’ (Grand Prix? Windstar??) in such deep denial that they actually believe those vehicles are the best in the world? Or is the cynicism so pervasive in their culture that the cars don’t really matter? Is it just about the celebs and free booze?

Rome/Fire/Nero/Fiddle

By: Steven Lang

Steven Lang — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:53:10 +0000

Hmmm… maybe the Hummer H2 should have won the award as the most ‘Most Resource Intensive’ Car of The Year.

Sorry, but what a sham. Toyota develops a hybrid which becomes a top seller, offers a car that gets nearly 40 mpg and is nearly the size of a Cadillac (Camry hybrid), and makes a long-term commitment to providing their hybrid technology throughout it’s entire product line by 2010. Not to mentione their willingness to license the technology to certain automakers that haven’t done jack squat.

And GM wins???

I’m sure the greenbacks of mutual sponsorship were alive and well during that transaction. Don’t forget to close the windows of reality when counting up those ‘votes’.