By on March 27, 2012

Give the crew at Motor Trend some credit: they aren’t even pretending to be anything other than an advertising outlet for the automakers. Witness this particularly succulent bit of bragging by Ladyboy-Editor-in-Chief Edward Loh, published yesterday:

Ever wonder what it might cost to borrow a brand-new Nissan GT-R Black Edition for a year? Try 33,482,741 views. What’s that, you say? As of this writing, that’s the total number of views of the top 16 GT-R related YouTube videos Motor Trend has produced.

Until recently, Motor Trend at least kept up the mildest of facades that its million-dollar fleet of brand-new vehicles served some purpose that would be beneficial to the mixture of waiting-room residents, caged parakeets, and ESL students that makes up approximately 99.97% of its readership. That facade has now been thrown aside with a shameless flourish worthy of Messalina. Motor Trend, in its agent as an advocate for Nissan, has produced at least sixteen promotional videos for the Nissan GT-R. They have been duly rewarded with a one-year lease of a $106,000 car, something that would probably cost the little people out there in Readerland four or five grand a month if they wanted to have the same car under the same conditions.

There you have it. Editorial content, bought and paid for. But what’s this business about “meat in the face”?

The bizarre oral-sex metaphor comes about halfway down MT’s most recent blog entry:

It still drives like the beast we knew, with meaty chunks of awesome that hit you in face:

May I remind you that this “man” is Editor-In-Chief of what at least purports to be a major publication?

those Recaros, the smorgasbord of nerdtastic performance menus on the LCD screen, that purposeful steering wheel flanked by rubber-edged magnesium paddles, and, of course, gut-squashing acceleration and handling. There is a bit of polish and refinement that’s immediately noticeable, too, like the way the plastic radio knobs have been replaced by cool machined versions that twist with a satisfying clickety-click. Comfort mode is now truly more comfortable, and the buzzing/whirring from the dual-clutch, rear-mounted transaxle transmission seems softer and smoother.

So, it’s basically the same car as last time, then.

So, what are we going to do with a stronger, yet smoother Godzilla on its second go ’round? Same thing we did the first time: match it up against everything we can get our hands on to generate a zillion more video and page views.

…because that’s MT’s sworn duty to Nissan: to make their payment worth the effort.

On its off days? Well, I like to think that this our victory lap with the GT-R, so it will spend time with each and every staffer — like Lord Stanley’s Cup. You’d better believe we’re going to enjoy ourselves all over again.

The correct analogy, of course, given the talent on offer over there, would be if the Stanley Cup were given to a last-place youth hockey team.

Does any of this matter? One might suggest that the GT-R sells in such dismal numbers (877 units moved last year in North America) that it hardly matters if MT openly services Nissan’s meaty awesomeness right out in the proverbial street. Assuming that Nissan’s actual cost in providing this car is somewhere south of $40,000, and that their net profit on every GT-R is ten grand or so, all that has to happen is for four lottery winners or drywall contractors to see a GT-R on the cover of Motor Trend in order for their investment to pay off. Any GT-R “intender” stupid enough to bypass the forums and the reputable sources and take their information from the same people who made the Vega, Citation, and Volt “Cars Of The Year” probably deserves to have meaty awesomeness smack them in the face.

The squick factor will come into play the next time MT reviews a Sentra. Will the “Stanley Cup winner” who arrives in the GT-R to work that day have anything bad to say about Nissan’s compact car? Rest assured we will take our Cipro and read that test very carefully to see what influence Nissan’s $106,000 gift has had on the results.

Remember, everybody: taking a thousand bucks from Nissan to promote its product will get you fired. Taking a $106,000 car from them? Why, that will only make you the Editor-In-Chief. Mr. Loh may get to have the meat slapping him in the face, but anyone who is hoping to get an honest opinion on a Versa or Altima from his magazine should look away while that particular sausage is being made.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

69 Comments on “Motor Trend’s Edward Loh Takes “Meaty Chunks Of Awesome” To The Face...”

  • avatar

    Bummer. Certainly different than his SCC editor days.

  • avatar

    It’s like the old saying: Owe the bank $1,000 and it’s your problem. Owe the bank $100,000 and it’s THEIR problem.

  • avatar

    Ouch! That certainly was entertaining!

  • avatar
    John R

    “Ladyboy-Editor-in-Chief Edward Loh…”

    Hmm…not sure if I’m a fan of that…

  • avatar

    Motor Trend is an advertising agency that I would love to work for.

    I honestly don’t know how else you would advertise a car like the GT-R though. Cars like this need to have enthusiasts get in them and tell all the less fortunate enthusiasts why they should sell their home to get one…

    • 0 avatar

      You have a good point, but I think the root of Jack’s gripes are the magazines posing as objective journalists who honestly review products, while the truth is they are advertising. A GTR does need to be advertised in a way that’s different from an Altima or Odyssey, but if it’s done under the guise of impartial journalism it isn’t right. It’s like Super PACs saying they aren’t connected to political candidates, when they most certainly are.

  • avatar

    A bit testy are we? While I agree that the excerpts from the review are juvenile at best, I don’t understand your problem with them divulging how they acquired the Nissan. Do you or anybody else honestly think that car manufacturers provide cars to any of these magazines (other than Consumer Reports) and car reviewers without an expectation of a good review? Certainly those expectations are nto always met, but the reviewer always finds something good to say about a car no matter how bad the overall review might be. This gives the manufacturers quotes for their advertising. The only news here is that Motor Trend published how they got access to a GT-R for a year long test drive.

    Also, I’m pretty sure that the reason only 877 GT-Rs were sold in NA last year is that Nissan only shipped 877 GT-Rs for sale in NA. You make it sound like there is no demand for the vehicle because it doesn’t sell in Sentra-like numbers, which I believe is completely misleading.

  • avatar

    As always, very entertaining but I could have done without the somewhat homophobic overtones. We know MT sucks and its fun to point it out but leave the trans/homosexual innuendo out of it.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      I don’t think I’m a talented enough writer to discuss that particular blog entry without doing so. What other hobby/occupation/activity could there be where people take meat to the face? I suppose I could have made some kind of James Herriott references about turning calves inside their mothers with one’s arms in up to the shoulders, and called the article

      “All Bribes Bright and Beautiful”

      but face it, that’s verging on the painfully obscure.

      • 0 avatar

        – “What other hobby/occupation/activity could there be where people take meat to the face?”

        Slaughterhouse worker? Boxer? Competitive eater? Pilot in an open-cockpit plane flying through seagulls? Or, you know, you could go straight to ladyboy if that’s easier.

        I love a good juvenile insult as much as the next guy, but there’s some really reprehensible conduct here on the part of MT, and this article would have been more than scathing enough without resorting to the fixation on the meaty chunks bit.

        And “not talented enough” is a cop-out – I’ve read enough of your articles here to know that’s far from the case.

      • 0 avatar

        >“All Bribes Bright and Beautiful” but face it, that’s verging on the painfully obscure.

        I would have gotten it.

      • 0 avatar
        CA Guy

        “I love a good juvenile insult as much as the next guy, but there’s some really reprehensible conduct here on the part of MT, and this article would have been more than scathing enough without resorting to the fixation on the meaty chunks bit.

        And “not talented enough” is a cop-out – I’ve read enough of your articles here to know that’s far from the case.”

        +1. He is talented enough. And way too aware to be a homophobe so why go there?

        In retrospect I feel sorry for the mailman in our small midwestern town in the late 50s/early 60s. He had to suffer through with this car-crazed little kid who would literally stalk him during a certain time each month when Motor Trend was due to arrive. I remember the exact look of covers of favorite issues, especially the new car preview editions with sneak preview drawings on the cover and inside of what to expect in fall showrooms (Those 61 Imperial free-standing headlights! The split-window 63 ‘Vette! The 66 front-wheel drive Toronado!). Even in the heady days of Walt Woron, Michael Lamm, and Michael Gottlieb, editors of more “serious” car magazines referred to MT as the “Charlie McCarthy of Detroit” (not entirely true – they had the wonderful Gunther Molter writing about European cars). But we loved it, and compared to today it was pretty credible, with fifth wheel testing and reasonably critical analysis amidst the industry promotionalism. I still have some of those issues.

        Today none of the car magazines are worth a damn. They are poorly written, contain puff pieces about the same cars each month, and have no feel of being fueled by people who grew up worshiping steel, fiberglass, chrome. Today I subscribe only to old car magazines and once in a great while read the others in the library or at newsstands. I had to Google Edward Loh’s videos because I had no idea who he is. The ones I viewed were exactly as Jack writes: the work of a lightweight, so much so that I don’t think he is worth the effort here. I saw one video of Loh driving (and lounging in) a series of Rolls-Royces through Beverly Hills, filled with glib comments, that was so laughably bad I cringed. It is not just the corruption of automotive journalism (and look at what Rupert Murdoch has done to journalism at large) that Jack bemoans but the shear unmitigated laziness of these so-called automotive experts.

        I relied on Edmunds until it became total crap. Then I found TTAC and a community of folks who care about cars. Once in a while an article by Jack or others here arouses some of the childhood excitement generated by the arrival of Motor Trend in the mailbox. And sometimes Jack and TTAC hit some wrong notes. But as Osgood says, “Well, nobody’s perfect.” At least they are not just selling product.

    • 0 avatar

      The innuendo was MT’s, originally. Jack is stating the obvious. If MT wants to avoid overtones, they could clean up their writing style.

      It happens here at TTAC, but the credit/blame goes to the originator, not the commenter.

      • 0 avatar

        Please – Jack was not “stating the obvious.” He pulled a lousy attempt at hyperbole out of context and and beat Mr. Loh silly with it.

        Jack was the originator of both the clever and the offensive material – I’m sure he’ll stand by both.

    • 0 avatar

      I suppose the scare quotes around “man” might be what bothers you, but “meat in the face” is hardly gender specific.

      Lenny Bruce was once arrested for using a ten letter word for fellatio that begins with C and ends with sucker. He joked that it applied to any woman that he would even think of dating. It seems to me that “meat in the face” would be a perfectly apt metaphor for cunnilingus.

      Maybe JB was calling Loh a lesbian.

  • avatar

    I think EICs of major print publications should probably (unless they’re reviewing internet memes from 5 years ago) refrain from using the word “awesome” as a noun.

    A) It’s soooo 2005.
    B) using it un-ironically just proves that you don’t get it.

  • avatar

    Cool headed, understated tone makes for a more credible argument.

    As it is, it’s too easy for them to dismiss you and an angry, bitter, jealous man with some kind of personal grudge against MT and/or their staff.

    Is your goal to rant for your own gratification or actually be successful in effecting change in automotive media?
    (That’s a real question)

    • 0 avatar

      I think it is just a warning to people that believe what they read in the monthlies. Chances are they won’t get it though. If they haven’t noticed the percentage of MT COTYs that have burned early buyers, then this will have them finding excuses to dismiss its message.

  • avatar
    W-30 two scoops of awesome.

    Well this is also proof that knowing how to drive a high performance vehicle is not a prerequisite to be employed, or drive, for Motor Trend.

  • avatar

    How many days a decade does Car and Driver not have a Porsche in their long term test fleet? I don’t think the Motor Trend staffers are pioneers in selling their editorial content for free cars.

  • avatar

    See, I’m a new subscriber to MT (late last year I bought a subscription from a neighbor’s son to help his school), and I never noticed anything that might look like “payola” until I read the eight car sport-sedan comparo featuring the new BMW 3-series sedan.

    Clearly the G25 and even the Buick Regal GS were brought in as ringers.

    There was nothing in the article that explained the criteria for choosing the cars that were used. It wasn’t until I got through the article that I could see why a G37, Hyundai Genesis Sedan, or Cadillac CTS: the new Bimmer had to look like a better car than everything else or why would anyone think of getting a new 3-series sedan when they could get a Genesis Sedan or a CTS?

    Definitely won’t be renewing my subscription when it comes time.

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Yeah, I was reading this (in a doctor’s office waiting room!) and was wondering the same thing, at least about the G25. Although specification-wise, it’s not much different than the IS250 (also included in the test). Something about doing a comparo of the based model . . . but many of these were not the base models of their manufacturer’s offering.

      What might really have been interesting is if they’d had thrown a Jetta GLI in the mix. Sure, the Jetta’s interior is less lux than the group that was included . . . but lotsa folks seem to find it a sweet ride.

  • avatar

    Does it really matter if Motor Trend is used for advertising? Reviews aren’t factual anyway, it’s all opinion. I don’t really care if they say every Nissan made from here on out is amazing. So what? One test drive generally obsoletes a car review anyway.

    Meat to the face? I love beef jerky.

  • avatar

    Some very interesting imagery there, Jack. It’s both depressing and belly laughable at the same time. Interesting effect…

  • avatar

    To anybody who complains about TTAC being a shill for GM/Domestics/Toyota/whoever, THIS article shows how TTAC looks when blatantly supporting one side of an issue. No subtlety to hunt beyond.

    One must therefore conclude that TTAC is not a blind supporter of any automotive brand. You just don’t read articles here that go this far (in the opposite direction, obviously) in puffing up any particular brand.

    OTOH, Are you off your meds again Jack? This crusade is getting a little whiney.

    • 0 avatar

      One of the few things that annoy me about TTAC is its “punk rock” attitude and its love of calling all other auto journalist media “posers.” I enjoy articles here about the politics of auto journalists, but sometimes, they just try way to hard to put TTAC on a podium of truth and awesomeness, while anyone else doing it differently is doing it wrong.

      Relax Mr. Baruth, keep writing great articles and let readers decide what’s important to them.

  • avatar

    It always seemed that the purpose of the automags was to write about Detroit’s next big thing, how they FINALLY have a real contender to the Civic, Accord, BMW 3-series, etc., give them extremely positive reviews, harp about them until their credibility is toast, and then run a comparison in which they rate them dead last, but promise the next REAL CONTENDER is coming down the pipes.

    Does this mean that the Detroit ad bucks are drying up?

  • avatar

    “… if the Stanley Cup were given to a last-place youth hockey team.”

    So it would be like if the Maple Leafs got it?

  • avatar

    “Does any of this matter? One might suggest that the GT-R sells in such dismal numbers (877 units moved last year in North America) that it hardly matters if MT openly services Nissan’s meaty awesomeness right out in the proverbial street.”

    Yeah. Sales are so bad that they raised the price of the 2013 GTR by 5k for the premium and 10k for the Black edition! Also, dealers have been selling the car for MSRP or higher for the most part. I guess there must be NO demand for the GTR!

    Don’t let the facts get in the way of an argument.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      2011 was the worst year yet for GT-R sales. If that means the car is becoming more popular, then, um, okay then.

      • 0 avatar

        The 2011 model was a limited release since the 2012 was going to have a facelift and other improvements. Sales went back up in 2011, when the 2012 models were released.

        “The 2011 Nissan GT-R receives a number of improvements including a slightly revised suspension and more standard features. Unfortunately, the base trim was dropped and possibly only 315 are bound for the U.S., all $84,060 GT-R Premiums.”

        Sales in North American by year (not model year, but calendar year)
        1294 Sold to date in 2011
        877 Sold in 2010
        1,534 sold in 2009
        1,730 sold in 2008

        So after the initial ramp up, 2010 sales were down because of limited 2011 model release. Back up in 2011 after a huge price increase.

      • 0 avatar

        So basically, one could buy, what, TWO Mustang Boss 302s for what ONE GT-R costs?

        And the Boss is NOT GPS ‘limited’. :)

  • avatar

    Inspired by the post, and then out of curiosity, i just did some math. In the last 2 years I’ve made 15 videos with Ford SVT/Shelby product, mostly the GT500 and Raptor. I’ve amassed 7,222,116 views. By Motor Trend’s math, I should be granted a 3 month long term loan for the new 2013 GT500. I’ll be sure to mention that to Ford.

  • avatar

    Shouldn’t a car magazine be publishing articles (and in this day and age, videos) that the readers want to read? Judging by the amount of views these videos are getting that’s precisely what MT is doing. So you’re saying that MT publishes articles and videos that people want to read and view and then the manufacturer lets them borrow a car. This is wrong why? You guys have cars provided with tanks of gas and insurance and whatever all the time. If your articles on the GT-R got 33 million views and Nissan gave you one to borrow for a year, would you turn it down? If not then it sounds like you guys are just jealous.

  • avatar

    This is exactly the kind of bare-knuckleish craftsman-grade work we’ve come to expect from JB.

    The guy put an engraved & autographed “Kick Me” sign on his own back and so Jack takes it off, smacks it down onto his face, and then wheel-kicks him out like Edzon Barboza fighting Terry Etim. Boom!

    Well Done.

  • avatar

    Is there some bad blood or history between the author & Edward Loh? Why this level of vitriol? It’s a given that all car mags are reliant on advertising income and factory provided test cars. Why the focus on MT specifically.

    As an aside, Consumer Report doesn’t take advertising and does not use manufacturer provided ringers. And as you’d expect, they are the only media outlet that TTAC hates even worse than MT. Go figure.

    • 0 avatar

      Who says we hate CR?

      • 0 avatar

        TTAC has been crapping on CR for as long as I can remember. Mostly to the tune of, “What do a bunch of kitchen appliance reviewers know about cars?” That and their ridiculously self-biasing reliability “review” system.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        I read and trust Consumer Reports. More importantly, I have met a few of their test drivers and I have faith in their ability to assess dynamic characteristics of a vehicle, up to a point.

      • 0 avatar

        CR’s data is phenomenal – compare all manner of information: braking, emergency swerves, etc. They USUALLY note the same strengths and weaknesses I note in a car. However, I have on occasion found serious disagreement with their subjective impressions of certain models… I feel this has more to do with their priorities vs. mine in a vehicle, and respect their opinions on the vehicles. I’ll forgive a LOT in a car if the seat slides back enough for my legs!

      • 0 avatar

        Jack, I trust my 10 year old daughter would be able to asses a vehicles dynamic characteristics up to a point as well. For example (to paraphrase her) she prefers an AWD vehicle on the (virtual) track because she knows she doesn’t have the talent to push a RWD car to its limit and AWD wont push as bad under power as FWD. That doesn’t mean I would trust her to give an unbiased review of a car. I have read enough reviews in CR about things I know well to know that I can’t trust them. They certainly have brand preferences and they show up in the review, whether intentional or not.

    • 0 avatar

      I’ve been a TTAC reader for about a year now, and I sense no ill will from TTAC staff towards CR. Can’t say the same for some of the B&B though.

      BTW, I’m also a reader of CR. I like the reviews and videos made by CR’s Jake Fisher. I’ve never met him, but I hear he auto crosses.

  • avatar

    I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for why the Vega, Citation, and Volt didn’t deserve Car of the Year, and I doubt that I ever will. Most of the vitriol directed against those awards is usually carried on the back of a misunderstanding of what Car of the Year is supposed to mean.

    • 0 avatar

      Now, the Vega was before my time and all, but my understanding was that it was “Car Of The Year” in that it would last for about one year before developing visible rust holes. (Or, for the Cosworth Vega, a continuous oxidization-based weight reduction system).

      • 0 avatar

        The Vega’s reliability woes have nothing to do with the Car of the Year award. Nothing. Car of the Year is supposed to be for the most exciting, most innovative, and generally most talked-about car available. The Vega was certainly within that vein, because it was a very technologically advanced small car from the world’s biggest car company, which hadn’t taken small cars very seriously up to that point. As it turned out, the result was less than spectacular in practice, but that doesn’t mean anything to the validity of the Car of the Year award.

      • 0 avatar

        It actually worked out to about 18 months or two winters. We could call them “performance enhancing aerodynamic improvements”

    • 0 avatar

      @PintoFan – “The Vega’s reliability woes have nothing to do with the Car of the Year award. Nothing. Car of the Year is supposed to be for the most exciting, most innovative, and generally most talked-about car available. ”

      Ok, I’ll grant you that. But how does that explain MT’s 2012 Car of the Year, the Volkswagon Passat? :)

      • 0 avatar
        slow kills

        The criteria are explicitly listed as
        1. Advancement in design
        2. Engineering excellence
        3. Efficiency
        4. Safety
        5. Value
        6. Intended function

        Nothing about excitement, popularity, hype or any of that. And the Volt is atrocious at value and intended function (remember the initial claims?), and given the battery fire issue, pretty poor at the rest too.

  • avatar

    That MT (literally, ’empty’) is willing to prostitute itself is not news. Way back in the ’60s, when their COTY award first came out, Toyota bought and paid for the first year’s award for the Corona.

    They’ve done a few printed mea culpas over the years, but the occasional colon cleansing doesn’t mean they are going to change their ways.

  • avatar

    Nissan’s keeping that pimp hand strong. Gotta keep the chickenheads (buff books)in line.

    Ghosn to Motor Trend: Hey ho. Get on the corner and get my money…biiatch!

  • avatar

    “There you have it. Editorial content, bought and paid for.”

    Motor Trend is not my favorite read, not by a long shot.

    But they weren’t claiming to be proud sell outs. Rather, they were boasting about the size of the online readership, while dropping a big fat hint that they’ve managed to score an exclusive.

    To be fair, an editor’s job is to bring eyeballs to the page, and those numbers would suggest that they might be doing OK with that. But it does come off badly. I may have actually been cringing when I read the bit about making a favorable impression on Nissan PR; here, I thought that it was the job of the PR department to impress the media, not vice versa.

  • avatar

    FWIW: isn’t the GT-R (as much as a tech marvel as it is) power potential still ‘limited’ unless GPS located to a track?

    It’s not like I could buy one and drive 170mph on I-94 in Minneapolis, for example.

    Furthermore, wasn’t it like $70k US when it was released? And now it’s how much, $100-110k?

    In my years working at an Acura dealer (among which feats was of the last to drive a brand-new NSX in the US), NSX floated between $82-90k (Y2K to 2005, end of model run).

    Does the GT-R pricing have to do with the ‘strong’ Japanese Yen, ‘weak’ US$ or a little of both? And the NSX WAS NEVER GPS power limited to tracks (although even ‘way back’ in 1997 they could have used the ‘worlds first commercially available’ GPS from the 3.5 RL if was desired. Which it WASN’T.)

    Payola, in any form, makes me sick. Doesn’t matter where from. The fact that in this instance it is exhibited in a ‘reputable’ (lol) publication, makes it that much more egregious.

    • 0 avatar

      @acuraandy- stick to Acuras. The GT-R sold in the US never had a GPS limiter.

      Its funny how many times you have mentioned it, and it flat out does not exist here. Japan, yes, US no. The car will let you take it up to more than 190 mph only limited by aerodynamics. Or in the case of some of the recently modified cars – 172 mph in the quarter, or 233 mph in a standing mile.

  • avatar

    I wonder if they will go into much detail of the servicing & maintenance costs of the car

  • avatar

    The “ladyboy” comment marred what was otherwise a well-written piece on the fluff that makes up car magazines.

    Why not just call Loh a brown-nosing, ass-kisser? That makes more sense since the only reason that he’s waxing ecstatic over a piece of crap is because he’s getting paid for it!

  • avatar

    “That facade has now been thrown aside with a shameless flourish worthy of Messalina.” Nice.

  • avatar

    rip lieberman

  • avatar

    I’ve read and disagreed with C&D, MT etc many times over what they claimed in their tests, especially the comparo’s. I don’t drive like a fool but I don’t drive like a Nun either, so when I get 7-10 more mpg on a car than they do I have to go …….huh?
    And you can tell when they’re tring to CYA when the published tests have 1 car faster, better handling, better braking etc and it comes in third in their rankings cause of cup holder placement or something equally as stupid.
    Lets’ see quit reading the daily newspaper, quit reading monthly car magazines, go with on-line research 99% of the time. Yep, times have changed.

    • 0 avatar

      Keep in mind that the average mpg for the short tests include 0-60, 1/4 mile and handling tests along with the “spirited” drives. I once averaged 16mpg in a car that usually averaged near 30mpg with so it doesn’t take much to drop your average.

  • avatar

    While MT will never persuade me to spend 80-100 grand on a Nissan and I find the GT-R to be a particularly hideous and soulless speed implement, the fact that they spread their cheeks to get this car for a year speaks volumes about how unbiased their opinions of other Nissan products will be (especially the consumer grade ones).

    I can’t imagine the gushing reviews about the NV1500 having “Miata-like” agility as it hauls half of a ton of AC compressors down the Numburgring while coddling its driver and passenger in vynil bliss with the gentle aroma of industrial grade rubber wafting from the spill-resistant floors, not unlike a Tuscan wine.

    It’s one thing to choose your words carefully in an attempt not to anger sponsors, and yet hold them accountable for a poor quality product, it’s another to take a faceful of meat and brag to your readers about it.

    Props to MT for walking the steets where the Nissan Johns stalk… since the BMW, Honda, and Porsche corners are already pretty full of C&D and Automobile editorial staff offering the 50 dollar special.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Dan: Keystone wasn’t one decision this January that wouldn’t have affected production nor prices 6 months...
  • ajla: EVs becoming a normie culture war battleground will be bad for everyone so I’m sure it will happen.
  • ajla: The Keystone Pipeline decision may not be impacting current prices but I do think it is worth debating the...
  • Inside Looking Out: It is not that we lost civility. The problem is that spoiled children who become young adults now...
  • Inside Looking Out: @dal20402: It is the learning experience for you. Next time you will go directly to local shop. I...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber