Aside from ad revenue, why would a car magazine want to position itself as a cheering section for General Motors? Well exactly. Car and Driver’s September review of the “new” Cadillac CTS is such a blatant example of boosterism it puts the "sub" in "subsidy." This will come as no surprise to regular readers who’ve watched the buff book slowly sink into a glossy ghetto of pistonhead prostitution. Even so, I feel compelled to use C&D’s CTS review as a re-launching pad for Between the Lines, so that TTAC readers understand what this website stands for. Or, more precisely, against.
By its very title, “Second Wind” pronounces the CTS refreshed, re-energized and ready to take on the transplants (which have been slaughtering it in the sales charts). According to the all-caps strapline, the model also represents a new dawn for General Motors.
“CADILLAC IMPROVES ITS ENTRY-LEVEL CAR AND PROVES IN THE PROCESS THAT THE FRONT OFFICE HAS UNDERGONE A REDESIGN, TOO.”
“Amazingly, each new product coming down the GM pipeline these days seems to signal that the once-defining beancounter bureaucracy has finally been replaced by a genuine desire to create top-notch products. And this latest CTS is the most comprehensively integrated vehicle we’ve seen yet.”
Not so amazingly, Dave Vanderwerp’s opening salvo fails to consider the “new” Chevrolet Aveo, a car so afflicted with beancounteritis it began life as a budgeting exercise. Anyway, one can immediately sense the author’s discomfort with the task ahead. The appearance of the word “seems” before an otherwise bold declaration of a product-led GM renaissance indicates a tension between editorial integrity and complete horseshit.
To wit: what the Hell is a “comprehensively integrated vehicle?” Do the newish CTS’ parts– suspension, engine, brakes, etc.– form a coherent whole, in a BMW 3-Series sort of way? Or does it mean all the parts fit?
Vanderwerp spends the next three ‘graphs contradicting the "new GM" thesis. He reveals that GM insurance regulations prohibited CTS lead development engineer Rob Kotrak from driving the car during its Nürburgring workouts. “What was that about a bureaucracy?” Vanderwerp demands of himself. Good question.
Literary self-flagellation aside, we get our first critical assessment. Blasting around the Green Hell, the CTS was "planted and predictable and never did anything unexpected.” Like what? Ascend above the asphalt like the cars in the TV ad? NOT overheat? The mind boggles.
Vanderwerp then lauds the CTS’ aesthetic perfection: “There’s no bad view of the new car…” Fair enough, but the author quickly hints that the CTS’ looks “might” have to be enough for buyers contemplating C&D’s favorite ‘Ringmeister.
“The redesigned CTS still might not stand a chance to be as responsive as the smaller and much lighter– by about 400 pounds– BMW 335i, but our favorite sports sedan has nothing on the Caddy’s aggressive looks.”
Apparently, there’s trouble down at the mill. After praising the CTS’ new 304hp V6 for its smoothness, “enthusiasm” between 4000 and 7000rpm, and ability to “run” with a Mercedes C350 and BMW 328i, Vanderwerp points out the new, portlier CTS is only a tenth of a second quicker through the quarter mile than the full-size Cadillac STS.
Hang on; why are we talking about tenths of seconds anyway? I mean, it’s a small Caddy, not a BMW. Who gives a damn?
Cadillac, as evidenced by the fact that GM’s PR flacks gave Vanderwerp a CTS equipped with the FE3 sports package; including super-sticky summer tires and revised dampers. Surely anyone looking for performance from the CTS would opt for the V-Series derivative. And every other CTS rides on more compliant all-season rubber. So… what are we talking about here?
From this point on, we’re talking about excuses and weasel words. Every criticism of the CTS arrives via a pulled punch or an ameliorative aside.
“The upgraded rack-and-pinion steering is linear and now offers more feedback, although its weighting is on the light side of perfection.” The manual “isn’t nearly as fluid as those from BMW” but the new “well-behaved six-speed automatic… will likely be the more popular choice anyway.” “Comfortable seats with surprising thigh and upper back support… will likely please the masses, but during exuberant driving, we wished for more lateral support.”
The CTS’ cabin earns Vanderwerp’s full, unadulterated admiration. THIS is where the aforementioned coherence resides: “Possibly the most dramatic improvement to the CTS is the upscale and coherently flowing interior, complete with classy materials and top-notch fit and finish.” Maybe so, but the author’s conclusion is a lot less credible.
“But with more style, power and features, we think the new CTS– and the new GM, for that matter– is destined to be even more of a winner.”
Yes, well, neither car nor company could be any LESS of a winner, could they? Or could they? One thing's for sure: the answer to that question will not be found in Car and Driver.
[Full C&D CTS review here .]
I am not renewing my CD subscription after 30+ years or subscribing and 40+ years of reading. This kind of garbage has become more common over the soon-to-expire three year term of my subscription.
Not-to-mention the months-late coverage of auto shows…
Those quotes make the body of the article sound like the auto journalistic equivalent of a girl telling you ’she likes you as a friend’.
“Car and Dribble”
Brock Yates, got fired, I canceled my subscription after 28 years. That firing was the turning point for me and apparently for the magazine. Shame.
Wouldn’t that be Car and Drivel?
This is why C&D has been reduced to giving away free subscriptions. I’ve been a 25+ year subscriber, but I wouldn’t get the magazine anymore if I still had to pay for it. The last redesign they did about 8 months ago was the last nail, IMO.
I think this is an important editorial (or reveiw of the review) because it shows the influence of technology on traditional media. As magazine and newspaper readership shrink, C&D and its ilk are now much more dependent on advertisers than on subscribers for revenues.
Which means that a car has to be truly Sebringesque (i.e. “lousy”)to warrant a less than stellar review. Fair enough, what did you expect when the review is squished between advertising pages paid by its builder?
You see the same thing on TV, where more shows are relying on in-show product placement for revenues, as TiVO makes the commercials less useful.
But for car fans, this development is a real pity, because it means that the sources of honest reviews are drying up (this site excluded, obviously).
Maybe that’s why there are so many G6’s and LaCrosses and Avengers and Gallants getting sold while Fusions sit on the lot.
I love those “between the lines” Op-eds! Thanks Robert, for the great read
I allowed my subscription to C&D lapse this month after 13 years. The firing of Mr. Yates was certainly one reason. The horrible re-design another. The general drop in quality was the kicker. I would say that C&D is on par now with Motor Trend at it’s worst while Motor Trend has improved immensely.
I would suggest that it might be time to start a “Buff Book Deathwatch” I would think that it might reach a conclusion before the GM one does.
Why are you reviewing a review of the CTS? Is there a new section called “The Truth about Auto Journalism” that I missed? Where do I find an editorial about Motor Trend? (laff) Maybe you could just review the car next time, as I’m genuinely interested in the new CTS.
True, you shouldn’t be afraid to say what you feel no matter how much icing you have to puit on the cake to cover it, but i guess advertising dollars mean too much these days. The car looks a damn sight better than the old one though.
Came across this article this morning, maybe theres hope….just maybe, can perception be changed?
THANK YOU for bringing back Between the Lines! It serves as a great reminder of why so many of us have given up on the mainstream press.
Steve_K: We will review the newish Cadillac CTS as soon as we can get our hands on one. For some reason, GM doesn't invite TTAC to their press junkets, or provide us with press cars.
Does anybody remember Leon Mandel? Those were the days, typified by the famous “Opel in the Junkyard” photo.
I like these “between the lines” eds also.
This explains why C&D recently gushed over the Chrysler Sebring convertible (placing it #2 behind the G6 of all things in a comparo), but just yesterday I read that the LA Times, presumably Dan Neil, bashed the same car to hell.
I’m not surprised with the latter, given the Sebring/Avenger sedans’ reputation (or lack thereof).
The sad part is… the CTS was GM’s best attempt at creating a segment-leading vehicle. It certainly doesn’t seem like a bad car, but it’s hard to imagine an enthusiast picking it over a 3-series, G35, or even the new C-class.
The all-expenses paid junket to the Nürburgring just might affect the objectivity of the review, don’t you think? BTW, did were any cars destroyed during the course of this review, by C&D or by other auto journalists?
I’m glad to see the return of these type articles, nailing the traditional auto press to the wall. The sad decline of the buff books has made them merely glorified press releases.
Having myself gone on these “all-expense-paid junkets” for 30 years now, believe me, car writers look upon these things as work, unless maybe you’re 22 years old and have never traveled farther than Canada. Though by the time you’re 24, you’ll be trying to avoid the next all-expense-paid junket.
To somebody who sits in a cubicle in Cincinnati all day, having to drag your ass to the Nurburgring to drive a Cadillac probably sounds like Nirvana. After you’ve done it 50 times, it’s actually work.
The Wall Street Journal did an “expose” of car-writer junkets 15 or 20 years ago, and I remember Pat Bedard being quoted in it, saying something to the effect that it was ludicrous for anybody to believe that somebody would prostitute themselves for a few free dinners.
Oh, and another thing about junkets: Jean Jennings was once quoted as saying that automotive junkets “were like going on a fabulous vacation…with 50 people you couldn’t stand.” How true.
“Or does it mean all the parts fit?”
In a kinda “J.D. Power Initial Quality Study” sorta way.
The car rags are humorous. When a new model comes out from GM they will say “This is the best car on planet earth” (Followed by 4 pages of GM ads) and then 4 years later when the all-new redesign comes out, they will start their review with “We all know that the old model sucked Lama dung but this all-new model is the best car on planet earth” (Followed by 6 pages of GM ads).
I think an interview for a broadcast media journalist position goes something like this:
Lead Editor: “How’s your honor?”
Job Candidate: “What honor?”
Lead Editor “Your hired!”
It’s not just these “car” car magazines that do it. I’ve been a reader of Four Wheeler for years and this year they had three trucks to choose from for their Pick-up Truck of The Year: The GMC Sierra, The Chevrolet Avalanche, and the Chevrolet Silverado. The GMT 900 won. OK, it was the Avalanche. At any rate, they sugar-coated the hell out of the article and despite the Avalanches running boards (included in the off-road package) and 20″ wheels and smallest bed space, it still won. The GMT-900 is not an off-road platform and most of the options popular with customers do nothing to help. There are precious few rock-worthy 4×4’s being built these days and rather than bring that point up, 4-Wheeler mindlessly praised the virtues of a straight GM line while sugar-coating the fact that the running-boards were ruined and the skinny little low-profile tire found its way loose of its over sized rim.
First of all, thank you Mr. Farago for bringing more attention to this issue.
I finally let my C+D subscription expire after 18 years. Although they have always loved BMWs and Hondas, these “domestic cheerleading” types of reviews have been happening to a lesser extent since the early ’90s. Remember “DETROIT FIGHTS BACK!” with the Dodge Intrepid on the cover? Or the Lumina Z34 vs Taurus SHO vs Dodge Spirit R/T Turbo? Everytime Detroit rolls out a so-called import fighter, mags fall all over themselves and talk as if they are the second coming. Where are the aforementioned models today? Not taking on imports, because they’re dead!
To somebody who sits in a cubicle in Cincinnati all day, having to drag your ass to the Nurburgring to drive a Cadillac probably sounds like Nirvana. After you’ve done it 50 times, it’s actually work.”
Not just ‘probably sounding’ like Nirvana. :)
But I can definitely see how the whole plane-> hotel -> dinner -> Nurburgring -> dinner -> hotel -> plane -> write article cycle could get dull, especially if you’ve got to have it cleared with an editor to make sure that it’s “pro-GM enough”.
Anyway, GM desperately wants people to believe that the CTS is on par 3-series, G35, and C-class, as a sporty compact executive car. (whether or not it actually is, is another ball of wax) They can’t deliver that message extensively in a two page ad, or a 30 second TV spot, so GM turns to articles.
Still, it’s silly that anyone would take their CTS (or anything like it) to a brutal track like the Ring. You don’t see Infiniti, Mercedes, BMW, or Lexus taking journalists for a ride around a famous track in their non-sport models.
And then there’s the problem(?) of the Ring being used as a marketing tool for manufacturers….
I also let my subscription lapse this last March after almost 15 years. While Phillips still made me laugh, I couldn’t take the obsessive pandering to the automakers, the new “fresh” redesigns every six months (it seemed anyway), and the firing of Yates (though I rarely agreed with everything he had to say, he was a cornerstone of the magazine and entertaining to read).
I will echo the comment stating that C&D is now flirting with the low standard that Motor Trend had set and held until the last few years.
Actually the crux of why all of my automotive magazine subscriptions have lapsed in the last year is on this site right now. Between TTAC and Jalopnik, I find information in the buff books six months later than I see it here. That renders the mags useless in my mind. Well, other than fireplace kindling… but I still have the local paper for that.
So if C&D, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Winding Road and Edmunds (all involved with the Germany Preview) all have similar overall “feelings” towards the ’08 CTS, than I guess their opinions are useless for consumers.
I have little doubt that dependency upon the automakers for both advertising and test vehicles causes many a publication to pull punches. Even if the writer would like to be candid, you can rest assured that the writer has an editor, and that the editor has a boss or two to placate, ensuring that there will be some degree of self-censorship, at the very least.
That being said, I wonder whether some aspects of this are more a matter of nationalistic boosterism than a genuine desire for taint. For all their criticisms, I doubt that many enthusiastic American auto journalists are pleased to see the industry go down in flames, and have a glimmer of hope that the Big 2.8 will finally step up to the plate with profoundly competitive product. You don’t have to be a raving Red State flagwaver to want to see good things coming out of Detroit, even if you have to squint to see them.
SkiD666,
You’re missing the point. The point is that the mags are catering to the advertiser so much, (as the article shows) there is little objective journalism left. If they’re just a mouthpiece for GM, why bother? And in that case, yes, their opinion is useless for this consumer.
Stephan Wilkinson:
As we’ve written before (see: Press Junkets Must Die!), the whole PR massage thing is an enormous waste of time and money.
Just hand the cars over to journos where they live ASAP and be done with it.
Oh, and don’t get me started about specially massaged “press” vehicles.
SkiD666: So if C&D, Road & Track, Motor Trend, Winding Road and Edmunds (all involved with the Germany Preview) all have similar overall “feelings” towards the ‘08 CTS, than I guess their opinions are useless for consumers.
Good guess. Have you seen the gushing review of the ’08 CTS in Road & Track? Read it and then tell me it’s impartial.
Steve_K:
“Why are you reviewing a review of the CTS? Maybe you could just review the car next time, as I’m genuinely interested in the new CTS”
Agreed—I’m truly interested in hearing about the new CTS (vs a review of the reviewer) I saw it at the Chicago auto show and thought the style was now better iteration of what a 4 door premium sedan should look like—it was certainly better than the prior CTS, bangle-ized 3 or the sebring-looking MB C.
When is the TTAC review scheduled ?
I think we’re forgetting that buff books are entertainment, not squinty-eyed appraisers of product. If you want a logical assessment of a vehicle, go to Consumer Reports. Yeah, we all whine about how they’re _too_ squinty-eyed and that they don’t understand what the enthusiast needs and wants, but of course CR doesn’t care what the enthusiast wants; it’s a tiny fraction of the market.
One of the basic purposes of the car magazines is to create a tiny (in the grand scheme of things) readership of presumed “experts.” (At least they/we/us’ns think we’re experts…) And Joe from down the street comes to us once a year and asks what we think of the new Saturn Aura, because he sees us reading Car and Driver and this validates us as experts, in his eyes.
I’m sure we’ve all had the experience–the acquaintance we hear from every so often, and it’s always for car-buying advice. They’d never dream of inviting us out for dinner, or for a weekend on their boat, but they’re all over us at car-buying time: we’re the “car guys.”
The advertisers aren’t so much trying to sell units directly to the small group of people who read C/D, R&T, winding Road and the rest (and most of them are the same people, reading multiple magazines), they’re trying to reach the rest of the car-buying population through us presumed decision-makers, decision-enablers, opinion-makers.
If we allow ourselves to believe the fact that C&D is in part supposed to be “entertainment” should excuse it from journalistic ethics then I was correct in allowing my subscription to lapse.
I like Automobile’s review of the new CTS. They took the car along with a Merc C-Class and BMW 3-Series and more or less exposed the new Caddy as not good enough.
I quit reading those magazines (C&D, MT, etc) in the 1990s after they chose the new Chevy Malibu as the car of the year. Shortly thereafter, the new Malibu proved itself as one of the most unreliable cars produced by any manufacturer that year. Why bother reading the rest of the magazine when they are capable of botching the COTY selection so terribly?
Here’s another thought – as virtually all vehicles get better, maybe it’s getting harder and harder to write reviews?
The new CTS may not be as good as a 3-Series, but it’s no Sebring, either. And the fact that the Sebring and Avenger regularly come up in this sort of conversation could be seen as an indication of how rare it is for an all-new (or even heavily revamped) car to be truly awful.
Instead of “good, mediocre, awful” we now have “great, very good, good” in most categories.
Somehow, given what else I’ve read about the new CTS, I would be very skeptical of a journalist who really ripped it to pieces. Just because it isn’t as good as the class leader doesn’t mean it’s terrible.
geeber’s is a very good point. I remember chatting with Pat Bedard a few years ago about how we live in an automotive paradise compared to the old days when we were together at C/D: with the absolute rarest of exceptions, there’s no such thing anymore as a bad car. Oh, you may not particularly like this Buick or that Hyundai, but there’s not a thing truly wrong with it.
Mr. Danda…
You parted ways with those mags for pretty much the same reason as myself; the day I saw the golden calipers handed over to the 1997 Chevrolet Malibu I realized something was horribly amiss with the publications I had so religiously followed up to that point… I won’t say much more, but suffice to say that trying to read those mags as a means of making an informed objectively based car-buying decision is akin to watching CNN to form opinions on political candidates and the state of US Foreign Relations… I have no sympathy for those who make decisions and form opinions based soley on “information” relayed by mass media in all its wonderful forms… dig deep people
Is it just me, or has C&D gone completely over to the fringe right, politically? The “Al Gore is the anti-christ” and “global warning is a hoax”, editorials are not what I want to see in a car mag. I used to really like this mag.
Stephan Wilkinson “I think we’re forgetting that buff books are entertainment, not squinty-eyed appraisers of product.”
I don’t know, true you may know that it is entertainment but consider it from the general public’s perception. Car & Driver, Motor Trend and the like are seen as experts so to speak. They do call them product reviews don’t they.
I use to subscribe to them during the 80s and 90’s but I cancelled them well before the Internet came of age because they ceased to have relevance. How many Chevy Citation type puff pieces can you pawn off to the general public before you get into the fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me routine?
Stephan and geeber:
At what point does something just become a bad car? The recently redesigned/replaced Freelander was an ok looking car that performed so-so, but every dealer i know that sold one (used) had the customer bringing it back with numerous problems, many of them major. And what about the just previous Kia Rio and the current Dodge Neon. Maybe these 2 vehicles drive out ok when they’re brand new, i don’t know, but at the 1-2 year mark they felt positively unsafe to take on the highway. Traction problems, roaring small motors, an absurdly lightweight, listless feel to them that a strong wind might blow one into a wall while in motion were my impressions (confirmed by terrible crash test ratings). Or how about the disastrously unreliable and pathetic performing Kia Sportage that preceded the current model? What about the Dodge Ram and its obscene tranny problems before Daimler bought Chrysler? Or how about the steering column in most of GM’s product line from 2003-2006. Clunk, clunk, clunk. Or the previous Taurus getting 21mpg on average. I no longer work at a fleet company, but when I did, I learned firsthand just how unreliable and unsafe and pathetic a lot of vehicles were. I doubt such claims can be made about a near-luxury vehicle like the CTS, but at some point I think it’s fair to say that certain qualities amount to making a vehicle a bad car.
People keep fulminating about “journalistic ethics” and the like, and that’s exactly my point in saying it’s entertainment, not journalism. The people who write for car magazines are not journalists (in the classic sense) at all. They haven’t the faintest idea what journalism is. Some of them, indeed, are engineers who can barely write, and they’ll be the first to admit it. (At least they have to me.) Calling them journalists is like calling Paris Hilton an actress or Snoop Dogg a musician.
Which is not to deride them (or Paris, or Snoop). I’m just saying let’s understand what they’re meant to do and what they intend to do. Just because the nightly news calls a 45-second piece “The News In Depth” doesn’t make it so.
Oh, and C/D hasn’t “gone over to the fringe right, politically,” it’s been there for decades. And I think Csere, Bedard, Yates and a few others would be the first to proudly affirm that…
What a sad state C&D has found their magazine in, compared to the glory days of the 1960’s and 70’s.
Even when they drum up a couple of their old race cars from their glorious past for an article, Bedard won’t even drive. *Sigh….*
The reason Pat wouldn’t drive goes a lot deeper than you’ll ever know.
Sorry, didn’t realize I was fulminating. I’ll go back to ruminating in my corner.
Gosh, I resubscribed to C/D _because_ they fired Brock Yates. Got to encourage good behavior.
Stephan Wilkinson I guess that is the problem. Many of us expect mainstream magazines to be honest journalistically.
Precisely, C&D and the rest make a point of reminding us from time to time that the add department and editorial are distinct and independent entities. Common sense would suggest that this isn’t 100% true.
Why was Brock Yates fired from C&D? Any info on that?
pdub: The “buff” books do not report on long-term reliability. They generally test a vehicle when it is either new, or heavily revamped. I don’t look to Car & Driver or Automobile for reports on long-term reliability. That is the job of Consumer Reports.
As for the political affiliation of Car & Driver: it always seemed more libertarian than anything else. Many people associate the “right” with “conservative,” and the magazine certainly isn’t “conservative” in the conventional sense. I still remember those naughty covers in the 1970s that got the magazine banned from more than a few school libraries…
The 8/8/07 Los Angeles Times review of the ’08 Sebring convertible was scathing. A couple of quotes from the article about the Sebring: “(The Sebring) is bad, not just bad but a veritable chalice of wretchedness, a rattling, thumping, lolling tragedy of a car, a summary indictment of Chrysler’s recent management and its self-eradicating product planning, all cast in plastic worthy of a Chinese water pistol.”
And “The Sebring drop top does something I thought impossible: It makes me long for the exquisite craftsmanship of the Pontiac flipping G6”
Stephan,
I see your point that C&D et. al. are really entertainment, not actual news. They are essentially the male equivalent of Glamour or Cosmopolitan. We don’t expect Cosmo to write a scathing review of the new Calvin Klein line, they just show lots of pictures of attractive women in trendy clothes.
So why would we expect more from C&D? The reason lies within C&D’s claims, right on the cover. They say — “Subcompact Comparo”, or “G35, CTS and IS350 take on the 330.” Inherent in that headline is the assumption that the winner of a C&D comparison test is the best enthusiast car in its segment.
Not the car from the manufacturer with the most ad dollars to spend on buff mags.
This “Between the Lines” article would be a lot more credible if Mr. Farago had actually driven the car.
210delray, the Sebring actually placed third out of three in that comparison. And do you seriously call this gushing: “Grosse Pointe Gothic styling, weak in the engine room, mushy tires, drives like an appliance.”
C&D almost always goes easy on cars on the first drive. I wouldn’t consider this CTS review to be a glowing one, and it’s basically just an information session to tide you over until they get it in a comparison test.
Very sorry to here C&D has gone so far downhill, it had a great reputation on both sides of the pond as a true enthusiasts read.
Are the 3-Series and C-Class “better” than the new CTS? For many people I’m sure that that’s the case. What is clear is that Cadillac is making a car I truly want to own. I don’t feel the same way about either the BMW or the Benz. The reasons are complex and some of them aren’t even completely rational, but there it is. I suspect that many people will agree with me and that the new CTS will sell on its merits in very large numbers.
With respect to the original question, I read the Motor Trend, Automobile and C&D reviews of the CTS and was surprised that C&D glossed over the shortcomings noted in the other reviews (considering their slavish devotion to BMWs). But then It’s been a long time since I took C&D seriously. What really matters to me is that the new CTS is considerably improved over the 2003 CTS that I’ve been driving these past years, a car that I have found to be very satisfying despite its well-known shortcomings. In the end, if you still love the car you drive after a few years, the manufacturer is doing something right.
I’ve read all the American car mags and frankly, they are all shit. Motor Trend, C&D, Road and Track, all terrible (Automobile slightly less so). A road and track or C&D review is two parts. 1. Endless review of technical specs we already know. 2. Meaningless platitudes like “the steering is accurate” or “the interior is pleasing to look at.” You can mix and match pretty much any review to any car. If you are being “entertained” by reading C&D, then I suggest you get to Borders and pick up a copy of EVO. A magazine that’s really “by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts.” They ran a cover story about how bad the new Aston Martin is, while the rest of the English press ran hundreds of pages of praise and “Aston reborn” stories. Then they printed a story detailing Aston Martin’s criticism of their writers. Now that’s real journalism. The people who get their car news and opinions from Car and Driver are the same people who get all excited about the new Escalade or Monte Carlo SS and say they would never buy a “jap” car.
Pch101: I wonder whether some aspects of this are more a matter of nationalistic boosterism than a genuine desire for taint.
There’s more than a grain of truth to Pch101’s comments about nationalism being present in the car magazines.
Have you ever read any of the British magazines and seen how they rave over mediocrities that, thankfully, will never be seen on these shores? Or noticed how they always manage to choose the British car as the winner of their multi-car comparos?
The British magazines manage to provide test results just as dubious as those in the American magazines, only from a different angle. I imagine that such a nationalistic bias is present in the publications from other countries, too.
rpn453,
I think you missed the point of the RF’s editorial. He didn’t review the CTS because Cadillac only invited “journalists” who it knew would rave about the car.
At this point, we have no idea how good the CTS really is, because Cadillac hasn’t allowed anyone of integrity to review a production vehicle.
Since Winding Road magazine had a lot of good things to say about the CTS, then they must be shilling for GM also. I don’t think David E. would agree with you.
Oh, come on. there was a time, 40 years ago, when David E. Davis was a young firebrand who did fabulous things for the buff-magazine world–reinvented it, and he is owed complete credit for that. But he has since worked as a major ad-agency figure (for client GM), a Detroit eminence, an entrepreneur who has founded a couple of magazines print and electronic, a sycophant in a sense of the automotive rich-and-famous and the “dean of automotive journalists” (the kiss of death, that).
He would never shill for GM, certainly, but let’s not confuse the DED of today with the kid who, with the help of Brock Yates and several others, rode roughshod over the car-writing standards of the days of MGs, Singers and Renault 4CVs.
Why do you keep calling the vehicle “newish”? Are you talking about it being on a updated of the sigma platform? I’ve read a couple of articles saying that except for a couple of stampings everything from in the car from the interior to the suspension has been totally re-engineered. If your going to make a distinction between refreshes, re-engineered and totally clean slate designs then you should make that distinction with all the cars you review and not just ones you want to make a statement about. For example, by your statement most new BMW’s are newish.
Why was Brock Yates fired from C&D? Any info on that?
I don’t have inside info, but I’m inclined to believe Csere needed some money to pay for some fresh blood and/or needed to lower the median age of the readership, and Yates was both too expensive and too old.
Just a guess, but when your columns devote huge amounts of space to hunting trips with Supreme Court justices (of whatever political ideology), and reviews of restaurants at which he’s met David E., you’re probably not that interesting to the younger readers anymore. (Looked at another way, you’re actually part of the problem; like David E., Yates used to be an outsider, and now he’s the establishment.)
As far as “libertarian” goes, that is a word I associate with open-mindedness to a greater degree than I would grant the C/D columnists. Their views on global-warming are right-wing in the extreme, though their views on civil liberties are traditionally closer to libertarian than to right-wing. Interesting that there hasn’t been a radar detector review since 2002, though.
The revamped Cadillac division has not been all that successful with its cars. In North America, Cadillac sold 140,300 cars in 2001 and 142,800 in 2006. Car sales during that period peaked at 160,900 in 2005. Truck (SUV) sales went from 31,800 in 2001 to 84,200 in 2006 (and peaked at 92,300 in 2004). If $3/gallon gas puts a permanent dent in truck sales then Cadillac will have to live off its cars.
GM is fighting for survival. So are the car mags. Puff ball reviews are important to both of them. Magazines that care more about selling readers to advertisers than selling magazines to readers are in their own death spiral.
Brock was never “fired,” as far as the usual definition of that word goes. He was expensive, by the magazine’s standards, he was adroit at putting together a column in an hour and a half out of recycled material or whatever–after all, he’d been doing it long enough that you don’t think the guy lay awake nights worrying what to write about–and Csaba basically felt they’d heard pretty much everything Brock had to say.
Csaba drove from Detroit to Brock’s house in Wyoming, New York and told him personally that unless they could work out a considerably less expensive deal, they’d no longer need Brock’s contributions. I think that’s pretty classy of Csere, and I don’t think that constitutes “firing” somebody.
Brock was pissed–my wife and I went to his “retirement party” along with every other long-in-the-tooth luminary from that era–but I’m sure Brock is way over it.
By the way, it occurs to me: Which of these magazines would you buy?
Cover blurbs read (and articles are in line with them):
Cadillac CTS! America’s a Winner!
BMW M3: Killer Car of All Time!
Subaru WRX STi: Biggest Bang for the Buck Ever!
or…
Cadillac CTS: What a Disappointment
BMW M3: Save Your Money
Subaru WRX STi: Jerk-Off Fantasy Car
Entertainment, guys, repeat after me entertainment.
As I believe has been mentioned, there’s still some degree of legitimacy to the car mags. Perhaps they won’t tear a car to shreds the way they might have in the past, but once you get to comparison tests, they get more honest.
And I’ll still read Road and Track just for Peter Egan.
Stephan,
If it’s only entertainment, then why bother with Subarus and Caddies at all?
Stick to Ferraris, Lambos and other unaffordable fantasies and don’t bother with pretending to assess vehicles for the readership.
Trust me, if C&D ever did print a cover that said “BMW M3: Save Your Money”, I’d rush to buy what could only be considered a collector’s item.
Evo is a great mag. The ‘funnies’ at the end are side splitting.
Anyone who “aspires” to own (or go in debt towards) a CTS …I hate to say it, but that person is what we call “white trash”.
No, no sir-eee…I’m not trying to get a rise out of anyone, least of all RF, but in all God’s honesty…it’s only the PWT who aspire to a Cadillac.
Don’t you see? A Coupe De Ville is it…it’s the epitome of PWT. And the CTS? It’s for the “uppity” PWT…those who wear actually wear Levi’s.
God help you GM, you need all the help you can “git”.
Maybe you can toss in a bushel of crawfish w/ the signature on a 6 year loan!!
I’m inclined to believe that guy from the Bridges of Madison County drove a Cadillac. Wasn’t it a Cadillac that broke down in/under one of those bridges in Iowa?
And wasn’t it that PWT bruised and battered wife who was so smitten by the Cadillac that she jumped that dudes bones?
On the love. OH, THE LOVE~~~!!!! (All for a Cadillac!!! HAHAHA)
For decades I was an avid reader of just about all the car magazines, but in recent times I’ve let the subscriptions lapse. The Motor Trend subscription was the first to go. Car and Driver went next. I held on to Road and Track and Automobile for several years longer, but they became a bore as well.
I presently have a C&D subscription because I was offered it free for six months, and when the time is up I will be so done with it. The latest graphic design of C&D is horrible, the writing is dull and the editorial ethics nonexistent. It wasn’t very long ago that Target’s house brands of motor oil and antifreeze was branded “Car & Driver”. There isn’t much lower to take an automotive enthusiast brand than by making it the label on the generic house brand junk at a discount chain store. What were they thinking?
These days the one-to-many communications style of old media specialist magazines is coming to an end. Enthusiasts of today want to not only consume “expert” reviews, but insist on having their input as well. There are some magazines with compelling content, but they are mostly focused on older vehicles. Hemmings is publishing two excellent classic car magazines now, one for American stuff and one for imports. Excellent stuff and unobtainable on the ‘net. For new cars none of the buff books are value added.
Many will disagree, but I think that the only print magazine which actually provides value added automotive information today is Consumer Reports. I often disagree with them, but they provide a kind of information and data which is both not advertiser influenced and is materially different from what a one-person opinion maker can provide.
Finally, I could care less about ultra expensive exotic cars. I’m not going to buy one, and reading about someone else’s all expenses paid test drive is the sort of car-porn I can live without.
Personally I see the point people are trying to make about the auto mags. However, I think Mr. Wilkinson is correct about their function and editorial philosophy. Even during their "firebrand" days they were pushing that image for a reason, whether they admitted it or not. C/D presents a goodly amount of raw, untinted data in their test results but all the rest isn’t. It comes from a writer whose own prejudices can be ebb and wane depending on whether he is hung over or jet lagged via multiple edits to fit for space and make it an interesting read. And over this is the specter of financial well-being put forth directly or indirectly by the sales folks. In the end you’re always get something imperfect but hopefully at least pointed in right direction. I think the same of TTAC. I weigh what I read against the somewhat tiresome “tude” it seems to need to put out etc. I do agree that C/D has palpably changed for the worse since Yates left. I don’t think it was that departure that did it since I didn’t think his contribution was all that valuable toward the end. But that was the point where the feel of the editorial content went south along with the new overwrought design. It’s less like your chatty friend who you know is wrong 50% of the time but you respect since he can see the big picture and more the kid in your office with the Lambo poster on his wall that doesn’t understand where enthusiasm and practicality cross.
After reading posts such as the one from Rastus, I begin to think that my stated irrational reasons for not loving BMWs and MBs aren’t so irrational after all. It reminds me of the old joke: “What’s the difference between a porcupine and and a BMW? A porcupine has its pricks on the outside”.
I suspect that as with the BMWs headlights, Rastus is of the projecting variety.
Stephen W. – While I agree that these magazines have slipped into entertainment, they do not position themselves as such in their detailed listing of specifications. Top Gear is also quite deliberately entertainment, yet they seem to have no difficulty providing solidly subjective opinions (occasionally conflicting among the staff) about the cars they flog about.
C&D of the 1960’s was also entertainment, but was quite unabashed about saying so; I think this is what made many of us long-time subscribers. C&D of today is no different than television “news” – it poses as information of substance when the sole objective is to create revenue.
Any writer walks a careful line between entertainment alone and his or her need for journalistic integrity. Tom Wolfe’s books are simultaneously entertaining and biting social satire, while Clive Cussler has a formula aimed solely for entertainment. The C&D of the 60’s was much closer to Tom Wolfe than to Clive Cussler.
This shows only one thing about Car and Driver…GM is now spending more on advertising at the magazine than Honda is. Seriously some of the cars on the 10 Best are like Notre Dame in the AP poll.
And as for those of you holding on to the “There is no way this thing is better then a 3 series” view. Well lok, GM quality has been improving while BMW has been going backwards. And I am not just talking about I drive and stuff like that. Anyone who thinks BMW’s are the standard bearer for quality needs to spend some serious time on one of there 2 wheeled offerings. The motorcycle division has followed a similar path as the auto division…That being more technology on top of more technology and not always good technology. As a result there reputation as bulletproof go anywhere bikes has taken a beating as fuel injection bugs and driveline failures mount.
Yates had devolved into a complete horse’s ass in recent years. I actually wrote a long, impassioned letter to C/D urging them to fire him. He was stale, smug, lazy, biased and right-wing to boot. Bedard can only match about the last half of those.
I must admit I’m not quite as harsh in my take on C/D as most of you. Yes, they pull the criticism punch more than I’d like. But I still think they’re by far the least egregious offender among the major US auto mags. They’ll never descend to the depths of the infamous Motor Trend, and Automobile is to me a much bigger suckup than they were in their first couple years. The latter, to my mind, has less and less reason to exist.
I do think C/D has drifted in the direction of Consumer Reports. But interestingly, with the departure of the carbon-dated Bob Knoll, Consumer Reports has drifted about as far in the direction of C/D. While they’re certainly still anything but a buff book, those of you who haven’t checked them out in the last year or two should probably give them another look.
And Kirk, it might interest you to know that the AP doesn’t even have Notre Dame in the top 25 at this writing.
Rastus,
I hear what you are trying to say, but I think I’d tone it done a bit. Or a lot.
It’s not a PWT thing as much as it is a Big 3-Loyalty issue. Honestly, I don’t know if its just part of being a Big 3 family, where Dad and Grandas worked for GM (as mine did), or if its geographical in nature (80%+ of the midwest’s car’s are Big 3, no joke).
I can tell you this: When I left Ann Arbor ten years ago to move to Boston, I thought Caddy’s were the absolute best automobile you could own, with Lincoln a close second. It took a solid three or four years of 1) being removed from that environment, and 2) experiencing friends BMW’s, MB’s, Lexus’, Acura’s…that I began to open my eyes to THE TRUTH.
For those who RELIGIOUSLY drive GM’s and Ford’s and aspire to own a Caddy or Lincoln one day, these people don’t want to hear about any other manufacturers being better. And that’s fine. To each his own. Just remember, debating the merits of your luxo-import/transplant to their Caddy-Lincoln is a good problem to have. Everyone should be so fortunate.
I still have my C&D and MT subscriptions (for pennies a year), and read them more for specs and new model announcements than anything else. For my taste, they put too much stock in “driving through the cones” and too little on comfort, head room and legroom (the 3 series worst attributes if you are six feet tall). There aren’t too many cones on my way to the office….and the few that exist usually have Cops directing traffic around them.
Rastus — where you from?
MGoBlue, you are absolutely right. I live in Ann Arbor and work in an oil shop. There are a lot of guys who come in with Lincoln LS, Cadillac CTS, Dodge Charger, etc, who think their cars are really special. It’s so sad when my co-workers fawn over a Lincoln LS as if it’s a great luxury sports car. They are even impressed by a Taurus SHO. Those customers who do buy imports like Saab or Mazda have specifically told me that they bought them because those companies were part of GM or Ford.
Brilliant! I think this new “Between the Lines” segment is a _wonderful_ idea.
“I’m wearing a hat… and it made of MONEY!”