http://tinyurl.com/6ofumh

Does anyone remember the car reviews from “Uncle” Tom McCahill in the old Mechanix Illustrated magazines? No nonsense, usually funny, and no pretensions.

Our spiritual forefather. RIP.

The good news is, whether you subscribe to global warming, upcoming ice age, or yet another fad/religion, I think at least most of us can agree we would be much better off if we managed to cut ourselves off from the bloody Middle East.

EXACTLY

Q: You seem to write only about expensive gas-guzzlers and tout highway mileage when most people drive in the city. Only rich people can afford guzzlers.

Q: Your statemet about the Pontiac GTO lasting only a short time based on styling and performance (Transportation, March 30) isn’t quite accurate, at least as I see it.

I didn’t buy one, but it wasn’t the looks and performance that stopped me. The moment I saw the trunk, or lack of one, I got turned off.

The other “feature” that I wasn’t happy with was rear-wheel-drive. Here in Chicago, we get something called snow, which tends not to mix well with RWD cars.

The people get what they deserve.

The worst? Car and Driver and Autoweek. These two magazines are borderline boring.

The first phone calls were from readers. I particularly like his description of an incredulous woman who’d just put a deposit on one and insisted it was a typo. She just couldn’t believe the window sticker wasn’t right. Winter gas, he explained, cold weather, a giant heavy AWD vehicle with a V-8–would she have been surprised if it was a Tahoe?

The second calls were from dealers. To their credit, the paper stuck up for him, but you’ll notice he doesn’t work there any more. I suggest that if you ever do see an honest writeup, it’s worth a call to the editorial desk in praise–it might mean another paycheck for someone who deserves it.

I would go a step further and say these writers likely never drive the car, and just write the review from PR materials.

Commmenting on Don Hammonds at the Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh), while he is always positive in his reviews, he does throw in some mild jabs where needed–just toned down compared to other objective reviewers.

It is weird the place that cars occupy in newspapers.

As opposed to the COMPLETELY unbiased “studies”, comments and “findings” paid for and\or published by enviro groups… right?…

Your are correct in that regard. However, if you remove those who profit from ignoring environmental issues (oil/energy/auto industry, etc) and those who profit from regulating it (enviro groups, industry that profit from such regulation), the remaining group of the scientific community still tilts its support toward issues like reduction of CO2 emissions, etc.

It’s VERY hard not to be influenced in this business. I would even argue that most publications can be just as influenced by their readership as by their advertisers.

But between all the fog I would say there are moments of clarity. The MX-5, Corvette, Wrangler, Fit, Prius, Explorer and Nissan Sentra (ooohhhh, thanks for the 18 karat watch and neat pen thingy) are all representative examples of the very best in our auto industry.

What’s that? My own pad in Vegas and enough gourmet food to satisfy a beached whale? We’re there dude!

As opposed to the COMPLETELY unbiased “studies”, comments and “findings” paid for and\or published by enviro groups… right?

As with most such articles, it uses GM press release material for some of its content and it talks about the vehicle as though it already exists and that all of GM’s claims and design goals are in fact reality.

Sickening.

I have actually written to the editor of the driving section before. I can’t remember exactly what it was about, but it was spurred on by a review of the Lexus LS460h. In the letter I levelled some harsh criticism at their lack of editorial integrity (something I did again recently, this time regarding the entire paper).

Note to self: cancel the f*cking paper.

LOL, guilty as charged. I haven’t spent more than 30 seconds with a copy of Motor Trend in decades.

There, Mr Keane, that wasn’t that hard, was it…..

Well put. GM intentionally went with a “mild” hybrid version on this car, and the economic picture actually pays off in a reasonable amount of time. From a purely dollars and cents point of view most people can get a real payoff with this system without having to drive 190,000 miles. GM actually got this right!!

How is it that TTAC can so defiantly lambast the automakers faux pas and all the Kool Aid sipping newspaper\magazine journalists but at the same time promulgate, without so much as a whimper, the politically correct enviro dogma in nearly every posting? Honesty, Integrity and Objectivity only apply when scrutinizing automakers? Is that it? Just curious.…

One is a case of pandering to those who purchase ad space. Writers with no automotive experience, or those who compromise theirs, prostitute themselves for money. At least the environmental stuff can be substantiated by the vast majority of the scientific community who have absolutely nothing to be gained by whatever the author writes. Environmental comments written by the Heartland Institute or Exxonmobil’s scientists are no less biased than Tom Kean’s automobile reviews. Less humorous, too. I almost choked over his “smart styling” and “three note” horn comments.

How is it that TTAC can so defiantly lambast the automakers faux pas and all the Kool Aid sipping newspaper\magazine journalists but at the same time promulgate, without so much as a whimper, the politically correct enviro dogma in nearly every posting? Honesty, Integrity and Objectivity only apply when scrutinizing automakers? Is that it? Just curious.

The real question is, “If this is the way cars are sold, how do you think the news is sold?”

A question to ponder…

GM “Special Advertising Sections” look almost identical, from the layout to type font. The only difference is, GM’s ad agency takes better pictures.