So Jonny tells me that he's returned from a first class junket to The City by the Bay and by the way his new best bud ace auto scribe Dan Neil's coming over to his for a poker night. Suddenly I'm feeling like I'm on the outside of the carniverse looking in. Then Andrew Dederer submits a rant condemning The Big Two Point Five for insularity that makes Rhode Island seem like it won the genetic sweepstakes– instead of earning itself the ancient and not-so-venerable nickname "Toad Island." I suppose commentator Humourless is more than a little right: the internet subordinates physical geography to psychological geography. But that does not make me feel 100% clued-in, nor does it excuse The Big Two Point Five for their bunkering. Ever, since I began the GM Death Watch, I've tried to get The General to write a rebuttal. To say my requests have fallen on deaf ears is like saying that TTAC's scribes won't get access to the GM press fleet until cold fusion (the nuclear event, not the Nebraska-based Ford sedan) becomes a practicable proposition. Surely by now there's someone with power within The Big Two Point Five who reads our stuff, who wants to "set the record straight" (a.k.a. spin the company line like an F5 tornado). Yes but– if a domestic mover and shaker took on his or her critics in this e-venue, they would face The Wrath of Khan: the humorless bastards within their organizations who brook no breach of corporate omerta. Well guess what? The new media will win. The truth will out. And when it does, I'll be the first to say I told you so. of course, none of my neighbors will give a damn. Which is exactly how it should be.
Find Reviews by Make:
Nice photo at the outset of a 1961 Chrysler 300G convertible, you posted by the words. As far as being on the outside looking in, admittedly a person who handles press fleets over where I live, told me that some manufacturers are asking him, “Who there writes for The Truth about Cars.” Initially, I took that to mean that there was a boycott. But as he and I talked, and he admitted that the site’s buzz is helping it grow, I saw a positive side to things. The question seemed to imply that whomever was writing for TTAC should get cars (of course, then like mother hens, they will look at what appears later at TTAC). Thing is, you make a valid point. It is indeed a numbers game. As more people look at this site, the manufacturers will be forced to give anyone writing for this site vehicles. Many years ago, GM pulled the advertising plug from not only Car and Driver, but any publication affiliated with (then) owners of C/D, Ziff-Davis, after the late Leon Mandel (then editor) allowed a staffer to just rip the Opel station wagon. The writer called it “a eunich on four wheels.” Doesn’t that sound like TTAC? But after enough time elapsed and the first oil embargo hit, GM came back; because they had to. The same deal applies today. But then again, I could be wrong.
I think everyone needs to get over “sitting up high”. Making a vehicle taller than necessary is just inherently dumb. Why force the engineers to fight physics. There’s nothin goin on way up there anyways. The action’s on the road people.
I think I’d like to see a physcological analysis of people who think they need to be up high, and who prioritize that while shopping for their vehicle.
There’s no good color for ugly, gentlemen.
And for the record I’ve never owned a Taurus (though I’ve driven two SHOs and got several A+’s on management term papers that used the Taurus as a case study) but you can count me in as a lifelong fan. Too bad the Edge ain’t no Taurus.
re: Buzz about TTAC
I am always pleasantly surprised at press junkets when people walk up and say, “So YOU’RE Jonny Lieberman… what’s Farago really like?”
Your review of the Edge showed up on an internal Ford website that provides an overview of the day’s auto-related news yesterday . . . credited correctly, of course. I think there was even a link to the actual article (didn’t check, but there usually is). I was pretty surprised to see it . . . you’re on the radar, at least.
you’re on the radar, at least.
Wait until the Ten Worst Automobiles Today winners are announced. We’ll go from “on the radar” to “in their crosshairs.”
Frank,
Not that many Fords on the list, I’m afraid. The ones that are in the running (not Top 10, mind you) are pretty obvious . . . who could argue with Freestar or Crown Vic? I don’t think that’d surprise anyone, assuming they actually make the final cut. You must be reading with your biased goggles on.
Ar-Pharazon,
You haven’t seen the complete list of nominees, which is now over 130 vehicles long (and the nominations haven’t closed yet). There are a number of Ford/Lincoln/Mercury cars and trucks – and at least one nominee from just about every other manufacturer – on it. Right now, the most frequently nominated Ford products are the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr triplets. Does that mean they’ll be on the finalist list? I don’t know, but just playing the odds means something from Ford will be.
Well, perhaps I didn’t see the complete list, but I have read all the posts in the three versions of the article, which I assume is where the list is coming from. Frankly (no pun intended), I’m surprised that you say Fusion/Milan/Zephyr are the tops for FoMoCo . . . I didn’t read that at all! Certainly Freestar, Crown Vic, and 500 have all gotten more mentions based on my rememberances (I didn’t count them). The only mentions of Fusion et al came from a few jabs at the Zephyr for being ‘badge engineered’ and a few indictments of the entire Mercury brand. What counts do you have?
Nonetheless, in comparison to others and given the amount of negativity shown (by posters) in all the Ford Death Watch articles, I’m still pleasantly surprised at the relative lack of FoMoCo vehicles cited. OF course this is probably a jinx, so I probably shouldn’t post it . . .
Between my father and I we have put over 700K miles on three generations of Carmry (each of three cars had over 200K miles!). I have a fond place in my heart for the Camry as a utilitarian form of transportation. Since I gave up my 3rd-gen Camry for a Mazda Protege5 I have longed for the refinement and calmness that come with owning a Camry. But I don’t miss the fact that the Camry, when pushed hard, was like a chubby 9th grade girl in the shuttle run; lots of huffing, leaning, and bouncing while moving very slowly.
This new Camry gives me hope that with the V6 and some help from TRD I can have the best of both worlds; Toyota relaibaility and refinment, AND sporty composed handling.
Terry Parkhurst:
The picture is of a 1960 300-F.
Thanks “Joeypilot.” I am glad you could tell the difference. Some of the 300 cars had four-speed manual transmissions – rare option indeed. I wonder if the car in the photo is one of those. It sounds as if you might have seen the car pictured in person.