A couple of days ago, we published an editorial taking English auto scribe James May to task for flaming American cars. For this, we were flamed. Despite TTAC’s blanket ban on comments that diss the website, and our ban on [off topic] comments questioning our editorial stance or style, many of you cried foul. How could Mr. Swanson accuse a British writer of an anti-American car bias when TTAC [obviously] shared this same prejudice? After damping down the flames of perceived hypocrisy, I promised to provide offended readers a place to fire at will. And here it is.
Longtime visitors will know TTAC’s fought the bias battle before. From the very first GM Death Watch, any and all criticism of GM or GM products used to ignite a conflagration of condemnation. The flames soon spread to our coverage of Ford and Chrysler. For several years, TTAC was consistently and persistently attacked as a fundamentally anti-American website. We were considered the enemy within.
Many commentators felt compelled to vent their ire at our [perceived] anti-American bias at the bottom of any editorial that even touched on the subject of a domestic automaker or domestic car. When they were warned to make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators; more than a few penned expletive-laden emails accusing me of Stalinist censorship. Not to mention conjecture about sexual relations with farm animals, doubts about my patriotism and good old-fashioned death threats.
As The Big 2.8’s troubles have become evident to all but the most blinkered observers, the majority of our readers have begun to appreciate the fact that TTAC’s take on the American automotive industry isn’t entirely divorced from reality. Of course, our policy of permanently banning flamers has also quieted this little corner of cyberspace. In any case, by and large, our domestic-oriented editorials and car reviews are no longer greeted with a not-so-stately line of flame throwers.
I mustard mitt I was a bit surprised when our Mr. Swanson's analysis of Mr. May's editorial reignited charges of hypocrisy and anti-American bias. Surprised, but not concerned. As I said, we’ve been here before. And at the risk of repeating myself, I’ll repeat myself: TTAC does not have an anti-American car or automaker bias.
Yes, a great deal of our coverage focuses on the foibles and failures of The Big 2.8. For this I make no apologies. The Decline and Fall of Detroit is arguably the most important automotive story of our time. While the media coverage of unfolding events has been generally excellent, I’ve attempted to write, commission and publish articles that look at the lay of the land that little bit harder. That dig that little bit deeper for the truth.
At the same time, it should be noted that TTAC hasn’t spared non-domestic automakers the same scrutiny. We’ve taken Toyota to task for greenwashing, lambasted Lexus for ill-advised line extensions, mocked Mercedes for creating Maybach, bashed BMW for bad branding, and so on. In my more egocentric moments, I like to think that TTAC as the conscience of an industry. The ENTIRE industry: American, transplanted and foreign.
It’s also worth mentioning that TTAC is a catholic (small c) website. We invite submissions from anyone who cares to tap plastic on our behalf. We do not dictate the writer’s editorial perspective, nor reject their work on that basis. There is no “house line” on any given issue. There are enough counterpoint editorials to back up the assertion that we genuinely enjoy genuine debate. And, lest we forget, our comments section is a playground for civilized dissent.
That said, yes, we are a group of like-minded people. Just as CBS' newsroom contains more liberals than a Hollywood madam's black book, the people who regularly write for TTAC share certain values, experiences, perspectives and abilities. But one thing they do NOT share is a bias against American automakers or their products per se.
Peruse our archives for reviews of American cars and you’ll find plenty of praise. Read our reviews of non-domestically owned or produced makes and models, and you’ll see plenty of criticism. NOBODY gets a free ride at TTAC. The fact that so many American cars take it on the chin hereabouts says everything about the cars, and little about our editorial preconceptions.
So why did Mr. Swanson stick it to Mr. May if “we” generally agree about the relative quality of American (i.e. GM, Ford and Chrysler) cars? Because May was saying all American cars suck. Mr. Swanson felt that the criticism was based on anti-Americanism, rather than carefully calculated analysis. More importantly, Mr. Swanson believed it was untrue. As long as I’m at the helm of this website, I will continue to publish work that attempts to expose the truth, regardless of the consequences.
Thanks, Robert. Good Editorial I've always felt that TTAC would be ready to jump up and cheer for the American brands if they were able to turn the tides and build products that consumers are eager to buy. The site is just critical, not anti-anything. May was anti-American and needed to be called on it.
Mr Farago,
I know I’m the last person you want to hear from, but here goes.
Your editorial, for me, missed the point. I, personally, was angry because the topic span out of control and turned into a flame-fest about “how the Brits could be so snobby when they don’t have car industry of their own. Plus their teeth and food are bad”. The whole thing denigrated into a “Who’s worse, UK or US?” Which, I’m sure you’ll agree, is juvenile and pointless. Mr Swanson mentioned his uncle dying for Mr May’s right for freedom of speech (because NO British, French, Indians, Australians, Canadians fought! There’s a reason why it was called a WORLD war), But when Mr May used his “free” speech to criticise some cars (and a bit more fatuously American food) Mr Swanson chided him for it. Apparently, there are some limits to freedom of speech (Thank you President Bush, for that one!).
At very few instances, did anyone say “You know what, maybe these cars are terrible, what should be done about it?”. Is that not the reason, we have GM/Ford/Chrysler death/suicide watches? It’s clear that american don’t want american cars, so why should we scold Mr May for pointing that out? Because, the only people who can criticise the American car industry are americans? No, I believe people are more intelligent here, than that. I don’t doubt that TTAC bashes everyone equally. But let’s stick to the cars which suck, not people. The name of this site is “The Truth About Cars” not “The Truth About People”.
I suppose what upset me, was seeing a great site and a great bunch of people reduced to a childish “yo’ momma” style slanging match, when we’re all here for one reason:
The love of cars.
That’s why we’re here. If you want to sort out your personal problem with a particular race of people, go to the U.N. You want to talk intelligently about cars, be they British (Aston Martin) Japanese (Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi), American (Ford, GM, Chrysler) or German (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, VW) then come to TTAC.
And at the end of the day at least 1/2 of the car buying public in the USA will NOT buy a vehicle built or sold by GM, Ford, and Chysler.
i have never found the editorials to be anti-American, per se. they just show the problems in the American auto industry without the rose-colored glasses that other media outlets seem to use. i can only say to keep up the good work.
The “truth” is not always nice. It’s not always pleasant to hear. And while it may fall like nails scratching a chalkboard to some, and (still) deaf to others, it must be said.
Ever since first stumbling on this website many months ago, I have read my fill of review, editorial, rant, and rave. It is worth noting that these are the opinions of the writing staff but it’s also worth noting that there are no punches pulled, no product endorsements, no motive except to deliver unbiased and original writing. And if there is indeed a prejudice here, it is that the staff (like the readers) all love cars (maybe a little too much, but certainly not like the Jalopos). And it’s a tough thing to love when faced with the facts about the situation the American car companies are in.
RF, don’t listen to the “un-American” crap. Maybe the Suicide/Death Watches are harsh criticism but imagine if the heads at the Big 2.8 actually read these articles and took the right action. The website would be their blueprint to success. How “un-American” could that be?
KatiePuckrik : The last person I want to hear from works for the IRS. I agree that the comments section underneath the May post degenerated into a bit of a slanging match. At some point during that day, I tired of editing out all the nationalistic comments and let the usual TTAC standard of civilized conversation slip. I stand by my decision to run the original post. Having lived in the UK for 16 years, I know a xenophobe when I see/hear/read/get hit by one. Mr. May's editorial was unfair, mean-spirited and just plain wrong. He wasn't bashing American cars or carmakers. He was bashing America and Americans. The fact that commentators were guilty of much the same sort of prejudice doesn't excuse the original insult. Nor does it temper my desire to expose it, via Mr. Swanson's excellent piece. As for the one big happy family love of cars thing, I learned a long time ago that a mutual love does not eliminate inter-personal strife and conflict. In fact, it can make it worse.
Perhaps it is because many of the writers are American based that the majority of the automotive news is American, and consequently, the majority of critical news is from Domestic manufacturers, but I cannot on good concience say that this site is as objective as claimed when derisive nicknames are used when referring to corporate leadership (Boot-Em Bob, Rabid Rick, the Glass House Gang, etc.) or even the domestic industry as a whole (2.-whatever decimal you like depending on the wind, astrological report and Dow Jones industrial average). To me, that removes any objectivity there might have been and leads me to conclude that there is a bias in how editorials are written.
Even the most liberal columnist who opposes President Bush’s policies won’t refer to him as “Monkey Man” when they’re ripping into one of his speeches.
I disagreed with Mr. Swanson’s position — I think that he missed that Mr. May was just pissing on in a typical British way that they reserve for, well, everything!
Still, in my mind, Mr. Swanson was coming from the right place in that he was seeking to separate appropriate criticism of the products and the businesses that build them, from an inclination to dislike the products because those products are built by Americans.
I believe that it was Mark Twain who said that we should love the country but hate the government (or perhaps guv’mint, if you prefer.) In that sense, we should be willing to criticize our institutions, including businesses, with the goal that they do better.
What I hate to see are those who would attack GM because they see that as a proxy for attacking America as an ideal. For the most part, I tilt so far left that I’m practically falling on the ground, but at the end of the day, I still bleed red, white and blue, and I want us as a nation to do well (and to do right by the world, too.)
So when I smell that someone is vilifying the American automakers as just another convenient Yank symbol to beat up on for the sake of it, I get offended, too. While I didn’t see that in May’s piece, I believe that I did see it in some of the responses on the discussion thread that followed.
Also, I say that if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out. It’s a bit hypocritical of anyone to defend May’s cheap shots while not being able to take it in return. I realize that the cheap shots aren’t very clever — we really should give the bad teeth rhetoric a rest already, as it’s not really creative and not even accurate anymore — but still, you reap what you sow. If you’re going to go Yank bashing, you can’t be shocked if they shoot you back. (After all, we still don’t have gun control over here!)
Mr Farago,
Mr Swanson’s piece wasn’t good and didn’t really have much to do with bad cars, rather than getting a rather large chip on his shoulder.
I don’t want to turn this into another slanging match, but let’s leave it at that.
I like reading about Detroit’s latest cock-up or Toyota’s latest recall. Not about Mr Swanson’s beef with someone. I’d rather hear about Mr Swanson’s beef with the Lexus trying to expand their brand.
Bloody hell, I actually enjoyed the arguments we had over whether Lexus expanding brand is a good idea or not! That was less volatile! :O)
quasimondo :
If an inflammatory style equals bias, then I couldn’t possibly defend TTAC against that charge.
Can of worms opening time: I don’t believe objectivity is an absolute. A good journalist does his or her level best to find an objective truth given their personal prism. In fact, understanding and acknowledging these underlying assumptions (unlike your average Dan Rather wannabe) makes a person a better journalist.
Would you say the fact that I have antipathy to corporate incompetence and greed, and sloppy steering racks, removes my ability to be objective? Perhaps so.
KatiePuckrik: Mr. Swanson mentioned his uncle dying for Mr May’s right for freedom of speech (because NO British, French, Indians, Australians, Canadians fought!
While you’re implying I don’t care about the other nations involved (I guess), because I did not mention other our allies in WWII, I’ll clarify that for you right now.
I’ve complete respect for those who stood shoulder-to-shoulder and put their lives on the line to defeat a common enemy in WWII. All allies. Bar none. Those who served, no matter what their nationality, deserve to be honored.
I’ve no chip on my shoulder (really) and I agree with you: Let’s talk about cars now. :-)
I, personally, wasn’t offended by Mr. May’s comments about Americans. It did seem mean spirited and uninformed in spots, but his entire point was to entertain. Do you get offended when a Dave Chappelle cracks jokes about your race? They may not be accurate, but they generally are based in at least a little truth. The Big Horn Edition Ram, from a British perspective, may look like the height of stupidity. Does that make it stupid? I don’t think so because I see plenty of people using them to their full capabilites on a daily basis.
If Mr. May’s article had really been a review, it would be easier to call him on it, but it seems to me that it’s intent was to entertain – in the form of poking fun at Americans – a British audience.
Drat, I appear to have missed all the fun from the previous article. Time to go look it up.
Now if Mr. Farago wanted to stir it up he could create the Truth about Politics website. There’s a flame war just waiting to happen…one I wouldn’t want to moderate from the moon!
Orian,
That is a website that I could not be a part of. It is much harder to keep a calm head when the subject of your scrutiny is on your payroll.
RF,
I wouldn’t question this percieved bias if the tongue-in-cheek humor didn’t apply to just GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Maybe I’ll have to dig through the archives again to see if there were any fancy nicknames given to Ferdinand Piech when he was hemmhorraging VW money to resurrect the Bugatti name and green light the Phaeton, but I’ve only seen such a style directed only at domestic automakers.
RF:
I’ve never met you or any of the TTAC staff and I owe you nothing.
Now that that has been established, I couldn’t agree more with your comments above as well as N85523’s.
1. TTAC critique’s are consistent. The ass chewing here does not discriminate. (This coming from a thin-skinned native Detroiter who was offended by Mays)
2. The Detroit News and Free Press are more *in bed* with the Big 2.0 (Chrysler is neither big nor a public company any more) than the buff books/motor mags these days. “Analysis” is one thing they are incapable of producing. Their articles and reviews are written BY the blue collar Detroiter FOR the blue collar Detroiter. I’m all for loyalty, but not from a media establishment.
3. N85523 took the words right outta my mouth. Not only have I always felt that TTAC would scream their praises for the Big 2.0 or CelerySler when they finally hit a home run, but for crissakes, in every TTAC review/editorial, you all but give them the ANSWERS to the TEST.
-Maybe its time for the Mustang to benefit from independent suspension.
-The Malibu needs a competitive 4-pot to compete with the transplants, not a sliding rear bench
-Freshened sheetmetal for the Focus ain’t gonna cut it — that eight year old platform needs to be updated
-They should have spent less time designing the chrome rims for the “insert model here” and put that money towards the interior fit and finish
-Nobody is fooled by badge engineering anymore; there either needs to be a distinction between models, or don’t make two/three/four models (and a higher sticker price doesn’t qualify as a distinction)
etc etc etc
And if I’m not mistaken, you have called out the few models that Detroit produces which are truly Best In Class. Forgive me for only remembering the Corvette and Silverado/F series (if I’m not mistaken; before the new Tundra was released)
Keep up the great work, RF et al.
TTAC’s ban on flaming is a very wise policy. Without such a brake, anonymous discussions on the Web tend to get toxic. I think the comments on James May’s piece got more excited than usual because May was so hyperbolic. His style is to bash everything with a furlong-wide bat. I don’t care for that, just like I don’t like Don Rickles’ insult humor. You can poke fun at someone or something without being nasty (just read some of Will Rogers’ columns on politicians). Even “Spitting Image” had wit and cleverness to relieve the bias.
Another factor is the natural tendency to resent criticism from an outsider. We might think a cousin or brother is a foolish wastrel, but we don’t like to hear that confirmed by non-family members.
At a restaurant in London, as soon as the waitress learned I was American she launched into a lengthy diatribe about the US’ awful policies and politicians. I kept in mind that I was a guest in the UK and refrained from answering in kind. (The woman probably just spends too much time reading the Guardian or listening to the BBC.) However, if we apply the James May method of extrapolating from a small sample, we would have to conclude everybody in the UK is insanely angry at the US!
When they were warned to make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators; many penned expletive-laden emails accusing me of Stalin-style censorship. Not to mention casting aspersions upon my sexuality, raising doubts about my patriotism and good old-fashioned death threats.
It’s for that exact reason that I left other car forums (I won’t give any name).Here, I found a witty, polite, sarcastic, and warm community, where there is no trolling, flaming, and other distasteful excesses. For that, i thank the staff of TTAC.
Regarding the “Anti-American” bias, I would argue that:
– it has nothing to do with being anti-american, as the auto industry is now extremely globalized. Although it’s been discussed to death, the only thing that remains truly American with the Detroit 2.8 is their perception, not even where they repatriate their profits (or lack thereof), since sharholders can be scattered across the world
– car tests do not seem to me to suffer from national bias (bias towards hoonism and performance, yes, but that’s the ponit of this webiste). Some American cars have been rated highly. Furthermore, it does not rate long-term reliability, an area where the Germans, a perennial favorite here due to their generally high performance, tend to fail miserably.
– regardless of the arguments made above, there is nothing wrong or anti-national in admitting that products “from” your country suffer from shortcomings, if it is indeed the case.
I’m french, and freely admit that the French administration is bloated, Renaults look too quirky and have aged badly, French-made computers have thankfully gone the way of Oldsmobile, and Peugeots are porky front-drivers. As long as I don’t spend my time denigrating everything about a country, criticim can be extremely constructive (listen, Detroit!)
Regarding the op-ed in question, I did not find it very good. While I did not read the original article, what can be expected from the Brits anyway ;-)?
However, instead of replying point-by-point to that original article, and maybe use the same snotty sarcasm, Mr. Swnason seemed genuily offended by Mr. May…which may have been what Mr. May intended in the first place.
A more constructive op-ed would have focussed on strong points in American automobiles (and food, if need be).
As far as I’m concerned? No big deal! I just skimmed over that op-ed and anxiously waited for the next piece of objective, hard-boiled journalism appearing on TTAC so often.
My problem with Mr. Swanson’s article is that it wasn’t about cars. It was about an article that another journalist wrote about cars. You can agree or disagree with what James May wrote. You can feel he was totally off base, bigoted, anti-American, what-have-you, and that’s fine. I subscribe to Top Gear and watch it when I can, and I love their style of writing and get a huge laugh out of how much they hate American cars and the fun they poke at Americans (and before anyone goes off and accuses me of being anti-American I’m an 8 year veteran of the US Marines and served in the first Gulf War and come from a long line of servicemen back to the American Revolution). Also, anyone who is a regular fan of Top Gear knows their opinion’s change at whim. One moment they hate a particular car, and the next, it happens to be the best whatever. They are entertainers first and foremost and are playing to a predominantly British audience.
TTAC should be about cars, not about what somebody else said somewhere else to an entirely different audience about cars. Swanson’s article may have been well-written but, it seems to me he should have posted it in the comments section of the website that carried May’s article and not submitted here.
As to the flame war that started in on the Brits, I felt that was completely uncalled for and off base. One man’s opinion does not a country’s opinion make. Even Bush only speaks for, what, 28% of the American people these days?
I think that TTAC is anti-crap. Since the American manufacturers put out so much crap, TTAC is perceived as anti-American (manufacturers). TTAC is quick to point out foreign crap as well, so I have no issues.
Thanks for a great site!!
Robert Farago: TTAC does not have an anti-American car or automaker bias. [- & -] Peruse our archives for reviews of American cars and you’ll find plenty of praise.
As to perception that TTAC has anti-American-car bias, here are some snippets from the TTAC archives. There are others that offer such praise. Really.
Ford Mustang GT Convertible: “All that fun, beauty, attention and acceleration for $32,000? Sold.”
Ford Fusion SE: “Combine the above with mpg’s in the high-20s, JD-pleasing reliability, the ability to transport five-adults in comfort and ladies and gentlemen, I think we have found the performance deal of the year.”
Chrysler Pacifica: “Buying a Pacifica is one of those rare instances where you really can have it all (assuming you have a spare $30k): the comfort of a luxury sedan, the practicality of a minivan and the psychological security of an SUV.”
Chrysler PT Cruiser Convertable GT: “If you’re looking for a spacious, well-built, sensibly-priced drop top…the PT Cruiser Convertible is the ideal fresh air whip, bar none.”
Chrysler 300C SRT-8: “With the addition of a glorious, pumped-up Hemi and vastly improved driving dynamics, the 300C SRT-8 transforms a great car into an instant (though proletariat) classic.”
Cadillac CTS-V (2004): “After caning the V, I predict Caddy’s new, feistier beast will meet or beat the best. No bull.”
Here are a few (and again there are others) that deem “foreign cars” as less than stellar:
Jaguar Sportwagon: “Unless Jaguar returns to their founding formula, laughable distractions like the Sportwagon will be their undoing.”
Jaguar XK8: “Granted, if you liked your last XK8, you will love this one. But if your driving tastes lean more towards the Porsche end of the spectrum, or if you think a Jaguar “sports car” should have a bit of E-Type aggression in its DNA, don’t bother.”
Mercedes-Benz B 200: “It brings no dishonor to the Mercedes brand. But in a field crowded with credible competitors, it’s simply too expensive for a relatively clunky-looking machine with a pedestrian interior.”
Mercedes-Benz C280 4MATIC: “If the new C is to defend and re-extend the brand’s rep for bulletproof engineering, it must improve its lower-priced models’ interiors, reliability and suspension. A Mercedes can be inexpensive, but it should never be cheap.”
TTAC truly is an equal-opportunity basher; yet when a vehicle is worthy, TTAC just as readily offers praise.
TTAC reviewers call ’em like they see ’em.
I don’t see TTAC being anti-American – may sometimes inconsistent with their reviews due to the amount of different contributors but I’d rather read 100 TTAC reviews before I have to put up with the generic pandering from Autoweak or Car and Drivel.
If TTAC is guilty of anything I think it is frustration with the domestic car makers that they can’t deliver the uniquely American style cars that people want and that we know that they could deliver – you know the type that Chrysler nearly got right with th 300C and Ford nearly got right with the Mustang?
The problem with the article commenting on Mr May’s possible anti-American bias is that it was an inherently emotional topic. Both the British and Americans have considerable national pride and both countries have commentators that have been guilty of occasionally making demeaning statements about other countries and cultures in order to bolster their national ego and demonstrate their patriotism. Having lived in Europe, Australia and the US I don’t much approve of such commentary as it is cheap, jingoistic and panders to one of the lowest of human emotions – the delusion of superiority based on where you were born. I applaud TTAC for not permitting such post at their sites but also wish they wouldn’t rise to the bait when Mr. May does it.
The US domestic automakers are among the worst-run large companies in the world, probably managed only slightly better than US domestic airlines. If the editorial slant of this site were “balanced” in its view of the domestics that would be a sign of pro-American bias, IMHO. They deserve to be flogged and flogged they shall be, until they give us all reason not to do so.
Having said that, I believe the piece in question was reflective of a more important trend on this site. I personally feel that editorial quality has slipped since the addition of the blog-like short news pieces. The James May article, to me, just wasn’t very good regardless of content. It was only tangentially about cars and/or the auto industry, didn’t really say anything particularly insightful (IMHO), and was pretty clearly written in anger. I know it’s easy for me to criticize, since I’m not the one trying to put out enough interesting content to bring people to the site and keep the ad checks coming in, but it seems to me that the pressure to do exactly that has taken a bit of a toll. Perhaps now with all of the news items there are simply too many things about which something “interesting” needs to be said.
I hope you take this as intended – as constructive criticism, not a flame. I still love the site.
Well, maybe I just have a thick skin, but I wasn’t offended by May’s article or Mr. Swanson’s rebuttal. Was the original article anti-American? Yes. However, that is what they do on Top Gear. More specifically,they knock anything anti-british. This has include the porsche 911, BMW 3 series and a host of other cars.Hell, they will give a car a phenominal review and then say they hate it. Clarkson is possibly the most anti-american on the show and yet purchased a Ford GT (and then sent it back and then re-purchased it). If anyone feels that those three are truly bigots, take a look at the last few minutes of their road trip in America episode. I felt that they did a good job of highlighting the tragedies in New Orleans and the issues many there face. In the end, I see them as comedians who talk about cars.
As for TTAC, I feel that the commentary here is pretty objective. Are there opinions in the articles posted here…Yes. However, this is the EDITORIALS link, so it is within reason. Additionally, I have never seen TTAC not be anything but forthright with facts regardless of the opinions of any one person. That is the most anyone can ask for. So TTAC, keep on keeping on. Otherwise, where am I supposed to go to talk about new cars and the car industry?
RF,
The overall mindset of the folks commenting on TTAC, and I should note that its the comments that make TTAC interesting, informative, entertaining.
Back to the mindset, in general its one of not being too kind towards Detroit, as if Detroit is a Tier 2 manufacturer compared to the Tier 1 manufacturer.
Which is understandable, TTAC merely reinforces what is well known ie: that Detroit lost out on an entire generation(30 years)of customers.
The article on the May article brought out the best and the worst, was it really a surprise?
I had no problem with May’s comments, even as an American. It is not like America is a land of perfection, and if an outsider criticizes, so what? It is not like the British are any kinder to themselves usually.
American cars generally suck. Even when they are good, they are typically abandoned after that year, never improved sufficiently, and lose value no matter what. And one good car in an entire lineup of crap is a hard sell (Corvette for Chevy, new CTS for the first year before they abandon it maybe for Cadillac, and, not to omit the Japanese, Lancer Evo X for Mitsubishi, a car company that is just as terrible if not worse than American ones.)
American car companies want to be better? Tell me how? By trying to appeal so broadly that they don’t appeal to anyone, just look at what Ford did to the C-XF concept. The one success was Chrysler for a while, because their cars were stylish in a very American way, then they too sunk.
Here’s an e-mail exchange from January (prompted by an unkind review of a domestic)that was deleted as violative of the “anti-flaming” policy. It seems apt to the discussion:
Name:Unbalanced E-mail:
I think my point is slightly different from what is usually thought of as “pro or anti-domestic bias”, and has more to do with sense and sensibility, but no problem. But if Mr. Mehta truly loves American cars, that is, contemporary American cars as opposed to the cool old ones that everybody loves, it’s hard to see how he could have filed a review like this of the Mustang GT, one of today’s strongest. As I say, I don’t own a modern American, probably for the usual reasons, but I’d appreciate occasionally getting the perspective through a TTAC quality review of someone who LOVES a Silverado or Focus or Charger, the kind of cars where you can sort of imagine why someone else would be mad for them even if you can’t be.
——————————————————————————–
From: Robert Farago [mailto:robertfarago@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Comment deleted
TTAC has a strict policy against accusing the site or its authors of pro or anti-domestic bias. While I appreciate the civility of your tone and the rationality of your argument, this kind of discussion opens the door to some VERY nasty stuff.
Thank you for your understanding.
RF
PS I’ve sent a copy of your remarks to Mr. Mehta, who, BTW, LOVES American cars.
Name: Unbalanced | E-mail:
I don’t like Thai food. So although I occasionally find myself joining others at Thai restaurants, it would never occur to me to offer recommendation or criticism. I just don’t get what’s good about Thai food.
Mehta doesn’t like American cars. That’s cool, lots of people don’t. Maybe most people. But this review sounds a lot like me giving opinions about Thai food. Mehta just does’t get what’s good about American cars.
American cars are big. They’re powerful. They’re smooth on the freeway. At their best, they look mean. They’re also less expensive than the competition, at least when it comes to power and roominess, and you can pick out where the costs were saved if you’re so inclined.
Mehta is so inclined. The size and power and price advantages don’t impress him, and the cost savings are a major irritant. The styling just doesn’t appeal. As I say, he’s probably in the majority in feeling this way, but that doesn’t mean the very sizable minority of consumers in this country who still prefer American cars are crazy. It just means they have different priorities and different sensibilities.
Hundreds of thousands of people have chosen Mustangs and 300’s and CTS’s over Accord coupes and STI’s and Avalons and G35’s that they could have purchased for the same money and not had to deal with smart-aleck friends and Consumer Reports telling them they should have bought a Toyota. They picked the American alternatives for lots of reasons, but bottom line, mostly because they like what American cars offer that others don’t. I don’t think that’s crazy.
Personally, I haven’t owned an American car in years. I like them when I rent them, but they don’t feel like what I’d want to be driving full time. But I can see why someone else would.
Next time it might be nice to seeing a domestic car, especially an appealing one like a Mustang or a 300 or a CTS, be reviewed by someone who appreciates their strengths.
here’s a tough question to answer: Why is there not a Mitsubishi death watch?
Mitsu has been circling the drain at a feverish pitch yet i see no chicken little style editorial chastising their mishaps.
While reading the comments to Mr. Swanson’s editorial, I was relieved that those who slurred the British did so without bringing up the most sensitive and hurtful stereotype: that English men are poor, dreadfully dull, clumsy, boring, unskilled, wooden, impassionate lovers.
I bring this up at the risk of own reputation because my numerous English ancestors crossed the pond to the new world a mere five generations ago.
I think we can all agree that this despicable notion is wholly without merit and should never again be repeated lest we reveal ourselves as insecure small minded bigots. Thank you all.
Let us now return to discussing cars…
Man I’m glad I skipped that shooting match. The thing I hated about the editorial was that it wasn’t a GM Deathwatch(or Ford or Chrysler), you left me with nothing to occupy my time on that truly boring ass day at work. Pains me to see a flaming match like that when I respect everyone one this site(writters & posters)so highly, come on we are all adults with the same love for cars.
RF – Can of worms opening time: I don’t believe objectivity is an absolute. A good journalist does his or her level best to find an objective truth given their personal prism. In fact, understanding and acknowledging these underlying assumptions (unlike your average Dan Rather wannabe) makes a person a better journalist.
I couldn’t agree more with that statement and that is part of the reason why I am here every day. This is the Truth about Cars!, not the Truth about cars so we dont hurt your feelings. Truth hurts a lot of times but it has to be told.
I am pro-domestic guy and pro-TTAC. I do not agree with all that is written—-but who cares if it’s interesting.
My only beef resides with both the explicit and implicit generalizations (from editorial and commentators) against those that buy domestic.
We are not this stupid, redneck, monolithic block as some would imply. We buy domestic for a variety of justifiable reasons—just like those that buy from foreign automakers. My reasons for buying a Mustang may be different but are NO better than the guy that buys the Nissan Z
Net—if ones intellectual ability is proven by what one has in their driveway—you got some serious in-security issues.
umterp85 What if it’s on blocks in the middle of there front lawn or dirt patch?
I need an accurate IQ meter where I live, regardless of what they buy the people are not that bright.
Mr. Farrago,
The TTAC website is a breath of fresh air amongst car enthusiast websites. It is not in any sense Anti-American. In fact if you just take the GMDW series as a case in point; as RF is the one who writes the GMDW articles there is a consistency that flows through every article and that is the sense that even when a particular GM vehicle seems to be getting it’s ass kicked that he (RF) wishes it wasn’t so. In other words, while criticizing GM there is the the sense that he would rather be praising GM if only there was a reason to do so. I guess it is a desire to see the home team do well however he (RF) is not about to lie about it. If the cars are crap, they’re crap! Maybe I am reading things into this but that’s the impression I get. I call it honesty and I very much appreciate it. So Mr. Farrago, you don’t need me to tell you but i will anyway, keep up the awesome work. Damn the torpedoes full speed ahead!
RF,
Please keep doing what you’re doing.
To everyone: At the end of the day, spats will happen, people’s feelings will be hurt, etc. But you know what? They’ll get over it. No one died. No one lost a limb.
We’re all here to kibbitz about our common love. May I suggest that if something here upsets anyone or is taken personally, before sending a response, sleep on it and respond a day later.
TTAC rocks….
RedBarchetta: My Point Is Proven.
The May (Flower?) debate produced what has been lacking lately at TTAC – lots of commentary.
If you multiply the views by the comments, you produce a popularity index and the TTAC has not had an index of these proportions for quite some time.
Controversy is healthy and invigorating.
Which is exactly what motivates Clarkson et al.
Would we had something similar to watch on the telly, but the odds on that are very long.
Maybe a little more tongue in cheek prose (about cars!) might liven up what has become herewith a somewhat somnolent and very serious website.
The ultimate(?) car guy, one Jay Leno by name, spends almost every night reminding America about its big asses and bad food, yet I see no sign of him being criticised on this, or any other website.
For me the essential truth remains that, for the most part, american cars are rubbish, a view that is supported by the tone and nature of many articles on this site. I don’t understand how the same apparent statement of reality can be anti-american when James May states it but not so when TTAC does it.
The answer is of course simply that, it is a statement of fact not anti-american sentiment. Taken this way then, the food and car industry in England or Ethiopia for that matter are irrelevant.
The reason why the Big 2.8 is in this mess is b/c they couldn’t look at themselves and recognize their failures. They couldn’t measure why their current path was not sustainable (though very foreseeable – cheap cars breeds distrust and distaste…and gas prices will inevitably rise). I really enjoyed reading editorials that hit back with a microscope past the Press Releases jabbing at how great things were and the miracle was right around the corner.
I wouldn’t be long in my job if I couldn’t analzye the department I run to find the weaknesses and build it stronger over time. Redirecting resources and finding sustainable cost cutting that didn’t destroy the long term growth takes time and frankly, intelligence – which is what I see is lacking from the Big 2.8 management. It’s full steam ahead and we’ll do it they way outgoing CEOs did 20-30 years ago. Never mind those Icebergs b/c the US auto industry is unsinkable.
You cannot improve it you don’t objectively look at yourself. Unless you do not want to know what really is going on.
I’m going to assume that a little more discretion than usual will be exercised about removing content critical of TTAC in this discussion, like previous site-discussion threads, but please delete this comment if necessary.
I believe the piece in question was reflective of a more important trend on this site. I personally feel that editorial quality has slipped since the addition of the blog-like short news pieces.
I want to agree with brownie completely about this. Supposed bias for or against particular car companies is not a problem TTAC needs to address any more than it already has done, and the reviews continue to be excellent and nonpartisan. But the news blog and some of the editorials are, frankly, subpar, and (though I usually just avoid them) it disappoints me to see them coming from the same place as such engaging and uncensored road tests. The news-blog pieces in particular often seem politically slanted and polemical, which in itself is not a problem except that the site’s editorial policy lays such stress on its supposed objectivity — and more worryingly, they seem intended as click-bait rather than serious discussion. You either need to be explicit that the news blog is a place for the site’s writers’ personal opinions and politics, or else focus things much more tightly on cars (and away from energy policy, international politics, etc.) and rein it in.
Speaking as a Canadian in all seriousness, I love the United States of America.
Great people, beautiful country, and an economy that even at the worst of times, is the envy of all Europe.
I’m confident this car thing will get sorted out, because history proves to never bet against the American people.
This is tough love time for the domestics, and nobody but TTAC is serving up the intervention. Oh, and let’s never ever forget that BMW at a corporate level, banned TTAC access to their vehicles.
TTAC is keeping it real – and that’s all we ask…
Keep up the good work – and continue this excellent commentary unencumbered by the PC police, politicians and their corporate cronies, the mainstream media, and any industry, establishment, or entity that represents the status quo…
I can say that I read only one article in two years that I felt was liberal anti-domestic. I made my point in the comments section in an inflammatory tone to purposely get attention. The post was deleted and an email from RF appeared that stated the policy.
I sent a reply explaining that I loved the site but found this article to be much more slanted and discriminatory than most on TTAC. RF replied with a simple “Point taken.” and we were both happy.
The kind of discourse that occurs at TTAC is very refreshing, and *most* of the writers do not have an agenda…that’s about 99% better than most websites claim in the ‘fair & balanced’ Dept.
I really do wish that RF would extend his enterprise to a “Truthaboutpolitics” website if only because I agree with Jon Stewart’s comments on Crossfire that “we need healthy political discourse…instead of party hackery”.
[Stepping down from the soap box]
….And another thing! look at the quality, courtesy and thoughtfulness of 99% of the commentators on this site (this thread is a good example). Compare it to some of the comments that are common on other car sites. I have read (as we all have) comments that were impossible to understand due to extreme use of expletives. You just don’t see that on TTAC.
Sometimes TTAC bashes to smithereens a car that I rather like. That makes me sad, naturally, and I go home and cry for a while. After that, I’m usually OK with the world because like it or lump it, the site posts what I perceive to be unbiased reviews of vehicles I’m interested in. I especially like that they do reviews of real production cars, not just top-end models or 1-off supersports cars. Case in point: the Grand Prix review that was posted Wed. I LOVE having access to solid reviews of cars I can afford and would consider purchasing.
RF works hard to keep this site content rich and BS free, and I applaud his efforts. Once I wrote a comment all wrong and got flamed for it, which at first raised my ire and was immensely embarrassing, but having RF respond to me directly raised this site immensely in my esteem. While the whole Mays Britain v. USA was irksome to me as it descended into nationalistic nonsense very quickly, I’m very glad that for the most part things here are kept civil and unbiased so we can get the best information possible, not just Car and Drivel style advertorials.
I’d forgotten that business about BMW refusing to let ttac test its cars… I write about cars for a living, but I won’t touch a BMW unless absolutely ordered to by somebody who will pay me major money to do so. I haven’t driven a BMW in probably five years and don’t miss them one bit, since they have the most abysmally inept PR department this side of Thai Airlines, which recently posted on its website, in the wake of their 89-fatality Phuket crash last weekend, that they’d be happy to help with “corpse removal” if grieving relatives called the hotline.
sur4die,
I’m sure a Mitsubishi death watch is in the making, once a TTACer manages to learn Japanese and read the Asahi Shimbun (a Japanese newspaper). :-)
Swanson’s original article was a bad argument made badly. When he went on about how May should have tried out a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry to sample a good American car the train was completely off the rails. A good editor would have thrown on the brakes there if not sooner.
My complaint is that publishing a hatchet job on another journalist’s piece when not once bringing any substantial counter arguments to play is at best dumb. The three vehicles May reported on generally deserved the poor reviews he gave them. His style was no more acerbic than TTACs.
I’m not sure what the point of running the Swanson piece was in the first place unless it was a bit of high level trolling. Trolling is when you post something primarily for the purpose of stirring up a controversy, sort of like kicking a hornet’s nest.
This isn’t about anti-American bias (or not) to me. May’s piece had strong grains of truth coated in hyperbolic language. TTAC’s response was little more than a hissy fit.
TTAC is just that – The Truth About Cars. Sometimes the truth hurts.
I am just happy to see that KatiePuckrik has returned.
The editorial a couple days ago unintentionally fanned some flames that shouldn’t even exist. Are Americans all fat? Do all Brits have bad teeth? These are stereotypes – and good fodder for comedians like Jay Leno – but they deserve no serious merit in a “debate” like the ones that take place here on TTAC.
As a Detroiter and an employee of a Ford supplier, opinions of ‘outsiders’ such as KatiePuckrik are like a breath of fresh air.
TTAC isn’t to blame for the anger and the hostility that resulted from that post. That’s the natural response of people who simply love their country.
The beauty of the TTAC community is demonstrated by the fact that someone like KatiePuckrik was so completely offended that she would boycott the site, only to return a couple days later to once again offer some great insight. We are better than the illiterates that post comments to the Detroit Free Press. I hope we can keep it that way.
Cheers to TTAC.
Is TTAC Unfair, Anti-American, Both or Neither?
To answer that question fairly, we have to separate some of the components of TTAC from one another. There is the editorial team. Is it unfair or anti-American? Not willfully. But the editorial team isn’t absent of biases, some of which can lead to behaviors and expressions which in the aggregate may be construed as evidence of either. Some incidence of bias and miscontrual is normal in human discourse.
Next, there is the community of prevailing freelance contributors who are recurring reviewers and ranters. Only those individuals know whether they are anti-American, and sometimes some of them are unfair. It is certainly easy to surmise anti-Americanism in their patterns of topic and expression in autodom, but they are independent writers, and they get benefit of doubt for writing under claim of product and business practices evaluations. Maybe it is genuine to dislike everything Ford and GM do or make. Seriously.
Next, there is the larger community of commentators who contribute to the response threads to published topics. In this gaggle can be found the full range of bias, crankery, anti-what-have-you-got-? surliness. Anyone who has ever been in the stands at a Philadelphia professional sports event will recognize this quality in our active audience, and would also know not to blanket condemn it as loathing the home team. So it is what it is and ever shall be. This is the core of what makes TTAC engaging.
However, the part of TTAC controlled by the editorial/regulatory team is not without fault. For instance: in our own discourse, people are not to be flamed, disparaged, or humiliated but the same courtesy isn’t extended to the people often written about. “Rabid Rick,” and all that. We’d have more credibility if we just stuck to names, not name-calling. You might also have more cred among management in Detroit.
Why do you publish reviews of rental cars? What’s the point? Rental cars are more often than not strippers, with the cheesiest tires available on the model, smallest wheels, softest suspension, fewest amenities. Worse, they are flogged by a different driver almost every day, whose driving style is just another variance on how to pilot a car like you stole it. They pretty much all suck.
More to the point, given the median and average prices of new vehicle purchases in the US, rentals aren’t representative of how most people buy a given model. You recently ran a review of a know-to-be-old and soon-to-be-dropped Pontiac Grand Prix that was a rental. Perhaps you can see how the mere existence of that review of a goner looks like piling on. And beyond that, I’ve driven enough of those fleet GPs when traveling, and have been in a few that people actually own, to know that it is a vastly better car with just a few common upgrades. Badly short of perfect but still considerably better than the rental version.
Having once been hired into a large company from a small one, I’ll also say that TTAC commonly underestimates the internal political challenge faced by the CEOs and the executive teams of the car manufacturers, particularly the ones in crisis needing change. Yup, there are plenty of bonehead moves to spotlight. But there are also many obscure reasons why pea-brained decisions stick to smart people. A little digging with a little less cynicism might get you closer to the truth. Also, you jump on quotes by guys like Bob Lutz, as though you’re dead sure what’s reported is exactly what’s said. I have extensive experience with business and consumer press, and learned long ago to suspect the accuracy of interviewers and reporters, in terms of both literal accuracy and their reporting of context. I know what I’ve said vs. what was reported.
Car & Driver set the tone for automotive critical writing decades ago, so now even amateurs strive for inventive sarcasm, derision and color in their texts. OK, fair enough. The competent authors are more interesting to read, and the less expressively endowed are made amusing for trying. I have no metrics to say definitively, but my perception is that this community wields a sharper sarcasm and a more withering dismissal for the people managing the Detroit 3 and for their product shortcomings.
Which brings me to the cars and how TTAC covers them. GM, Ford and Chrysler have, more than anything else over the past 35 years, suffered from a sudden loss of confidence that reverberates today. Their world got turned upside down between 1969 – 1975, and just as many of their most successful executives were retiring. Washington wanted cleaner air and lower fuel consumption. For the upstart Japanese, their tiny slice of the pie was supported by small platform cars for frugalists. It was relatively easier to meet the new objectives and build from there. Detroit had to re-engineer everything, after decades of making nothing truly small or light, and being under-invested in small engines. The Europeans, except for VW, focused on luxury and “alpine” cars, in smaller numbers, more profitably. The French and Italians couldn’t hack it, packed their bags and shoved off for home. Were the Japanese more agile than Detroit in exploiting a market change? Sure. But they had very little to change in themselves. Detroit instantly got ridicule for not achieving wholesale change overnight, and its critics haven’t let up. Having to do that in the face of a generational turnover in senior management and a 360 degree challenge from your environment was a tougher slog than journalists generally recognized.
We got Roger Smith on the one hand, who at the time he went on his non-automotive acquisition binge had enough cash to buy Toyota and Nissan combined. But on the other hand we had guys like Phil Caldwell, Red Poling and Jack Telnack at Ford who clawed their company back from the brink until it was the most profitable large scale car manufacturer by the early 1990s. And they did it on product clamped to effective marketing. Tell us about their equivalents today.
There is not enough understanding of the scope and depth of the problems these guys have to cope with. Some of them I’d like to see fired, and quickly! But let’s stop calling them names and pissing on their shoes on basis of incomplete information.
What would a perfect car be to TTAC? As beautiful as a Maserati, as accommodating as a Maybach, handles like a BMW M3, rides like a Town Car, acceleration like a Z06, NVH of a Rolls, top speed of a Veyron, fuel consumption of a Jetta Diesel? This car cannot be built anytime soon. JD Power data indicates that there is no point to choosing a car from their top 50 on basis of statistical reliability. No one has mounted a convincing argument that a Toyota Camry is an interesting, engaging car. German cars aren’t more reliable than Cadillacs. Porsche now makes 911s that are heavier than Corvettes. Nevertheless, TTAC and much of the auto press spotlights ever slighter differences between cars as glaringly obvious reasons to buy one over another, and that one over another disproportionately seems to favor imports. Is this strictly a quality-driven, objective result? You get benefit of doubt.
Are interior plastics really worth undermining your own country’s economy when something as good as a Cadillac STS-V can be had as an alternative to, say, a Mercedes E or a 7 Series BMW or an Audi A8? Is there anything meaningfully better about a Camry than a Fusion or Taurus? What genuine reason does a typical pickup buyer have to undermine his domestic economy by allocating $30K – $40K on a Toyota Tundra instead of a GM, Dodge or Ford full-size alternative? Thinking holistically, as an American are you really better off with that Accord rather than a competitive Pontiac or Chevy? Recently, a (not TTAC) reviewer’s comment about a trace of NVH in GM’s new hi-po V6 got amplified around the web. I’ve been in cars with this engine. I have to say that in the real world of public roads, this is a completely irrelevant observation, bordering on illegitimacy and certainly picayune. It’s completely unnoticeable by most people and absolutely no reason to reject a car with this engine inside. But more and more, this is what we get from enthusiasts acting as critics in the car industry.
The Detroit 3 will get healthier when they stop trying to build Japanese cars and alpine-influenced sedans. American car DNA doesn’t do bland well, and we have very few regions that demand a car that is compromised in the way BMWs are skewed to their objectives. Detroit should build reliable cars, and many are. But they should be dramatic, accommodating, comfortable, torquey, competent and did I mention torquey and comfortable. In that context, they can be technically advanced or retro but always straightforward and accessible, with the best software interfaces on the planet when software is needed. Detroit cars must make design flair, competence and comfort affordable, with a luxury layer just beyond the reach of most. Detroit needs a good dollop of rear drive cars, but front-drivers should be built to an American formula. Chrysler got close in the context of their time, in the 1990s.
Any anti-Americanism of TTAC and many of its brethern is in shepherding the public to a too-skinny definition of what constitutes a desireable vehicle. Your biases promote a binary world of arrogant, class-conscious German cars, and Novocaine blandmobiles on the prevailing Japanese model. Our manufacturing culture is not craft, but flair, scale, comfort and drama. Our engineering in rolling vehicles is biased to the tough and straighforward. There are going to be a few rough edges. Allow it. There will be a little less feedback through the wheel. Embrace it. We might not quite match an Audi interior, but then again we won’t build a 4400 pound aluminum sedan and call it light. Be a voice that encourages the Americans in Detroit to be American again.
TTAC unfair? Not consciously. Biased, certainly and in myriad ways when you descend into the contributor community. Anti-American? No, but not guilty of benefit of doubt for the home team, either.
TTAC is an asset. Keep it up.
Phil
But if Mr. Mehta truly loves American cars, that is, contemporary American cars as opposed to the cool old ones that everybody loves, it’s hard to see how he could have filed a review like this of the Mustang GT, one of today’s strongest.
Unbalanced: If its hard to see, let me break it down for you.
1. Maybe its because I own three Mustangs (one is a 2007 GT) and I really don’t care for these oversprung Torinos with rock hard interiors masquerading as an American Icon.
Sidebar…I never missed pleather until I sat in a new Mustang. Now I think every low-rent ride deserves old school vinyl coverings if they won’t do the right thing and benchmark a Honda Accord.
2. Maybe I do love the “cool old ones” like one of my 5.0s, or a friend’s ’67 notchback a bit too much. But that brings purpose to my opinions on how the big-ass Mustang deviated from the brand’s value, and I thank Robert for having the editorial cojones to let me speak my mind.
Maybe I should review a car and discount its heritage. Too bad I will never do that. Ever.
Mehta doesn’t like American cars. That’s cool, lots of people don’t. Maybe most people. But this review sounds a lot like me giving opinions about Thai food. Mehta just does’t get what’s good about American cars.
You have got to be kidding me.
Even though the Mustang is the best of today’s breed, American car fans have every right to be upset with it, and the poorly-managed companies behind the bad moves. This is Detroit: a town that’s seized defeat from the hands of victory so many times, systematically flushed down its own heritage in the name of profits, globalization, and golden parachutes.
Maybe its no surprise the media would rather say the Mustang is fine as-is, since American car fans have no choice but to love it. After all, where else will you get 300hp, V8 rumble, and American style for any price? Don’t like the bulk and beancounting? Tough, that’s all we got: buy an Accord if you’re gonna complain.
And finally, how the heck do you know what cars I like? Have you even met me or seen what’s in my garage?
For those who haven’t read my rant, read this: American car fans have every right to demand the best car for the dollar from Detroit. That’s why I do what I do.
I don’t like some of the negative nicknames applied on TTAC to certain Detroit auto execs. I always feel a sense of disappointment in the site when they keep showing up. No publication has better documented the deficiencies of many Detroit products than Consumer Reports, but CR does it without getting personal. In fact, can anyone at TTAC explain to me why the nicknames are needed?
Mr. Mehta can clearly speak for himself, but I just skimmed his review of the Grand Marquis, which read something like a flashback of an lamented lost paramour. Honestly, I’ve never read in the automotive press such a touching, sincere tribute (with bits of TTAC sarcasm mixed in for good measure of course, of course) to what is essentially a taxicab without the meter. It made me so gushy and Dearbornesque that I wanted to eat a double cheeseburger and slice of apple pie, even though I’m still full from my dinner (not to mention that I’m a vegetarian.)
You can’t expect more genuine, albeit tongue-in-cheek, love for American metal than that. (I guess you could hire a Detroit-based PR hack to just make the stuff up on the fly, but there’s not much point to that.) Seriously, the guy obviously likes American cars, so is it really fair to expect that only tunnelvisioned fanboys be allowed to write for the US automotive press?
Pch101: thanks for the kind words. The Marquis was a fun car to review, because (unlike the Mustang) its true beauty shines through all the bean counting and neglect. Its not a cost-cutted design with retro-for-retro’s sake style, its honest land-yacht heritage simply lacks forward progress.
Seriously, the guy obviously likes American cars, so is it really fair to expect that only tunnelvisioned fanboys be allowed to write for the US automotive press?
No, but its fair to expect me to never get press cars. But that review was a “thank you” to a design that needed just a little recognition for sticking to its guns for so long. And for being so American it Hertz.
You’re not gonna find that kind of recognition anywhere else but TTAC. I challenge anyone to find a pro-American review of that caliber anywhere else.
I thank you all for reading me, even if you think I’m un-American for whatever I say. My life would be pretty boring if I wasn’t here.
Someone mentioned on here “Why don’t we have a Mitsubishi Deathwatch?”.
The reason, one assumes, is that every sales figures posted every month, Mitsubishi posted record gains (and I’m talking in the region of 20% odd percent). Yes, Mitsubishi were one step short of a fate worse than chapter 11, but they turned it around and are now coming back stronger.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but that seems to be the case.
In fact, FIAT were in the toilet about 3 years ago, but are now coming back stronger, too.
Automobiles are art. And engineering. Engineering that isn’t criticized risks myopic or catastrophic failure. And art that isn’t criticized is mere immaterial ornamentation.
So healthy criticism at the intersection of art and science (engineering) is really anything but unexpected, isn’t it? Thanks to its contributors, its readers, and its commenters, that is precisely what TTAC does so very well most of the time, unlike the sycophantic buff books or the ranting internet trolls. An occasional spat with the likes of James May is fine, but this site is at its civilized best when we stick to the shared passion that brought us here in the first place. I’d rather learn and blog about four wheels than fish ‘n chips, wouldn’t you?
It seems apparent to me that TTAC tries to get through the hype surrounding any car maker’s products and look closely at the product itself. As an American, I would like to do my bit to keep my countrymen employed, yet each time I have gone out to the market for a new car, I have driven offerings from Ford, Chrysler and GM and found them wanting when compared to direct competitors from Asia or Europe. When the Lincoln LS came out, I thought it looked great (a little bland) and hoped that Ford had hit one out of the park. After driving it, I felt it was a solid double, but still wanting against its competitors. I kept watching to see if Ford would get a competitive interior or enhance the range of engines and transmissions as a means of making it a true competitor to the 5-series and similar sized cars. Unfortunately they threw it out and then seemingly sent all of the engineers over to work on trucks. I happen to believe that the Panther platform deserves an update as it has so much going for it; again, Ford simply let it lay there. Cadillac’s CTS should have been spot on, after the Catera debacle, yet the 1st gen car was saddled with godawful styling, truly crap switchgear and seats that belonged in a DTS.
These observations do not make me anti-American. I am angered every time I see advertising for U.S. made vehicles which says “We know our product is not equivalent to our competitors, but let us see if we can lure you in with ridiculous rebates and financing opportunities.” TTAC has railed against all of these same issues, and is right to do so.
At the same time, I thought you were a little prickly when a British writer made many of the same observations about American products. It is a sad truth that American companies, in general, are run by folks who are more interested in maintaining the illusion of value than in providing substance in their products. Our energies are dissipated in working to manipulate the stock price rather than strategically positioning products where they will promote the long term health of the company. And so long as overpaid American executives are compensated based upon how well they pump up the stock value, this tradition will continue. If their retirement were based solely on long term corporate growth, the picture might be very different.
How can you be a car enthusiast, and objective, and NOT sound anti American Car?
The kinds of cars that enthusiasts like are not the ones the American companies have excelled at since the early seventies.
Yes, muscle cars were fast, even if they didn’t have the handling and feel of the imports.
Nowadays, what do we have left? The mustang is fast, but really not that much unless you get a specialized version. Vette, Viper, Saleen, etc. I bet TTAC has praise for them. The big SUV’s from Ford and GM are competive, and a decent value.
If you look at what enthusiasts look for, the rest of the American offering will get beat. Showing critical reviews does not show bias. They don’t make enthusiast cars here anymore. The kids who want to hot rod mostly use japanese cars, are they biased too?
Where is the American competitor to:
Civic – ?
Miata – Solstice is not there yet.
BMW 3 series – I got nothing.
Audi A5 – Nothing again.
Okay, maybe we can still make a powerful sedan, even if it doesn’t corner well, but how long will it last?
Nope, we win at big SUV’s. That’s not what most car nuts are into. Sorry.
I rest my case, the prosecution has circumstantial evidence only.
I think the May article was one of the low points on TTAC since I started visiting the site. It was utterly hypocritical coming from a site that never lets the truth get in the way of a funny metaphor or exaggeration. It came across as written by a jingoistic American with very thin skin.
Thin skin seems to be a feature of TTAC. The definition of “flames” is very different from the definition that is used on the rest of the Internet. When someone flies off the handle about their journalistic integrity being impugned it makes one think that if they had any journalistic integrity they would not get so upset; their work would stand by stself. You can hardly be the truth about cars if a big part of the job is suppressing the truth about TTAC.
This is not to say that the floodgates should be opened to a flamefest, but a little criticism in civil tone is healthy. Over-moderation can be almost as bad as under-moderation.
On another note, you are often trying so hard to be clever with the news headlines that it is impossible to tell what the article is about. This is not a great way to convince people to click on the item–unless they have a lot of time to waste. I think you would be better off with a keep it simple, keep it stupid approach to the headlines and everything else that you want to entice people to click on.
213Cobra,
Thank You for taking the time…..!
Katie, I think you’re right about Mitsu doing far better – also, 15 years ago Hyundai also was failing in the US, yet has not only improved their cars, their quality, their engineering and – not coincidentally – their sales, and are now apparently gaining in Toyota’s rear view mirror for sales and quality (though I’m still a little suspect of long-term durability compared to Toyota’s).
The other point I would have made about not bothering to have a Mitsubishi Death Watch, is that apart from the employees, and a few Mitsu Evo fans, not many people would care enough to read it… sadly. That may sound really bad, but I think it’s true. Mitsubishi has never been able to become a 1st tier automaker, possibly because of it’s tie-up with Chrysler in 1970, to supply “Dodge Colt” subcompacts – instead of going through the trouble and expense of simply coming to the US and establishing a distribution channel of it’s own (which it finally did about 15 years later). Anyone at Chery reading this? (If so, you shot yourselves in the foot by abandoning Malcolm Bricklin – you’ll see…..)
Mazda is kind of equivalent to Mitsubishi, but has done somewhat better (at least, has had fairly steady growth – barring the debacle of the low MPG of their Wankel which nearly killed the company in the 1973 fuel crisis). But Mazda started out selling their own brand sooner than Mitsubishi did (although they made the same mistake that Mitsu did, by starting out selling vehicles – trucks – badged as Ford Couriers in the early 1970’s, they also had their own distribution channel).
Interestingly, now I think about it, Isuzu also tied their “fortunes” to General Motors in the early 1970’s – and look where they are now…. nearly moribund. Only saved by selling what GM had owned of them to Toyota, and assisting Toyota with diesels for Europe (diesels being one of their specialities – although Toyota also has some of their own advanced diesels – I suspect Toyota was just being “brotherly” in saving Isuzu).
Which brings us back to Mitsubishi Motors, which was “saved” by it’s “parents” Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Bank, when the Germans yanked the rug from under them about 2 years ago, and refused to carry the Japanese side of the auto biz through their tough times (despite the Americans carrying the Germans through a tough time – the Germans also refused to carry the American company through a tough time, and sold it). Is there a little “trend” going on here with Mercedes? Hmmmmm. They’d better watch out for “kizmet” (karma?) – alternately known as “what goes around, comes around.”
I think the Japanese culture is admirable in the sense that despite healthy competition, they don’t seem as cut-throat – looking at it another way, the Japanese have multiple corporations making vehicles, Toyota, Nissan (part owned by the Renault group), Subaru (now minority owned by Toyota), Isuzu (ditto), Hino Truck (ditto), Daihatsu (ditto), Mitsubishi, Mazda (part owned by Ford), Suzuki (now only with a tiny bit of GM ownwership – having survived the GM contagon better than Isuzu did)and of course, Honda.
I count ten distinct companies, whereas the US has 3, France has 2 (Citroen being fully owned by Peugeot), Germany has 3 (since Audi is part of VW, wholly owned). I think the Japanese are smart enough to know that the survival of a good competitor is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.
No wonder they’re kicking everyone else’s butts, they sharpen and hone their competitive skills at home against 9 competitors, then go out into the rest of the world with hightended skills.
As for TTAC, I like TTAC – it has a few flaws as mentioned above, but nothing is perfect. Not even a Toyota! Heh heh.
213Cobra
“We might not quite match an Audi interior, but then again we won’t build a 4400 pound aluminum sedan and call it light.”
Dudes, if you have any intelligence you should hire this guy as a reviewer/writer. Well done Phil.
The only Japanese companies which I wouldn’t consider are Nissan and Mazda.
Nissan, because it is affiliated with Renault and part of their alliance was to merge their strengths together. unfortunately, they used Renault “legendary” reliability and Nissan’s “revolutionary” styling! The end result is a dull, unreliable vehicle (at least in the UK).
Mazda, because I simply don’t respect them. They are just Ford’s engineering department, nothing more. Could somebody please buy a bigger stake than Ford and give Mazda some freedom, please?!
Mitsubishi is a really Cinderella story. Left for dead by those Germans, Mitsubishi was taken under their parents wing and now DaimlerChrysler is just a distant memory. So, logically if TTAC were to report on Mitsubishi it would be a “Lifewatch”. Not terribly exciting, is it?
I totally agree with Qwerty. TTAC came across like a thin skinned american who couldn’t handle a foreigner criticising their “precious” auto industry. It showed a really ugly side of TTAC. Let’s get this cleared up once and for all.
No-one cares what anyone (Journalist or otherwise) thinks about someone else’s article or what what your predjudices are. Please report on Detroits “wonderful” management and Toyota’s “imaginative” styling.
KatiePuckrik;
“Please report on Detroits “wonderful” management and Toyota’s “imaginative” styling.”
No truer “tongue in cheek” word said. Although, certain of Detroit’s vehicles emulate Toyota’s “imaginative” styling.
Katie—I support RF’s decision and opinion on the Swanson editorial. May’s intent is clear—-he was merely using cars and food as tools to spew his anti-american / brit superiority pablum. I think we will have to agree to dis-agree on this one.
As far as your comments about Mazda. No respect? Your reasoning is that they are affiliated with Ford—come on—this just reinforces your anti-Detroit bias. Mazda is “pure Japanese” and arguably has one of the most interesting lines of mainstream cars on the market. The Mazda 3 and MX5 are great cars—their new line-up of CUV’s including the CX-7 and CX-9 are exceptional. Mitsubishi—puhlese.
Robert,
Keep up the great work! The filtering helps out immensely. This explains why so many of the posts are insightful here.
Bias: “an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment” – Merriam-Webster
I do not believe that your judgment is without reason. I feel that you will be one of the first cheerleaders for the big 2.8 if they could turn things around. But we’ve been promised things before, so that’s why we are skeptics.
umterp85,
And I don’t support Mr Farago’s decision. So what’s your point?
As for Detroit bias, I didn’t like Nissan, I must have French bias, too? Wrong, I like the styling of their cars. My point was how they had a good alliance and cocked up their strengths.
Mazda is just a niche player who provides platforms for Ford. Ford do use a lot of Mazda’s engineering (Hence, why they won’t get rid of them) I can’t take a car company like that seriously. Thought, I do like the RX-8.
Robert,
Keep up the good work! I don’t even bother with “Rotor Bend” or “Automo-meek” any more, because of their shiny, happy reviews. The only other US publication or website out there that isn’t afraid to criticize is Consumer Reports, but it’s not anywhere near as entertaining as TTAC.
Katie: For the record, Mazda supplies only one full platform to Ford—the Mazda 6. This platform only supports the Fusion trio and to a lesser degree the Edge. Ford are merely leveraging their investment much as they do with Volvo.
If your shots were directed at Ford’s engineering depth (or lack there-of) in their use of Mazda engineering expertise—you would have a point.
As is–Ford only owns 30% of Mazda—-this stake has not prevented Mazda from the freedom to engineer and sell some pretty slick vehicles that have positive reviews from a broad range of the auto community including TTAC. Net, I do not think we will be seeing a Mazda Deathwatch any time soon.
To those implying that I (or TTAC) are “thin skinned,” I accept that as your opinion; you are welcome to express your views (within the constructs of TTAC’s anti-flaming” rules). Each of us is entitled to an opinion.
My bottom line regarding the James May editorial here at TTAC:
An editorial is a viewpoint, and editorials often use arguments to promote a given point of view.
To me, this from “insidevandy” (Vanderbilt University’s online student community) titled “EDITORIAL: Freedom of speech does not imply freedom from criticism” sums it up nicely.
In particular, the following passages from the above express my thoughts on the subject rather well:
Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of any successful democracy. Any modern society that does not allow its citizens to express concerns or grievances in at least some manner is one that is doomed to long-term failure.
That being said, the concept of freedom of speech is one that is frequently misunderstood, even by those who depend upon such a right for their livelihood. “My freedom of speech” has become conflated with “freedom from criticism of my speech,” and every time this fallacious equivalence rears its head it minimizes the struggles of those who face true challenges to their freedoms.
Every media figure faces the prospect of criticism. Every media figure with an audience surpassing his immediate family experiences criticism, and the more successfully he does his job the more criticism he receives.
(To me, the above applies equally to the words of Mr. May and to those I’ve written in response.)
This is not to say that all criticism of speech is necessarily well thought out or valid — far from it. However, when one assumes a public stance on a controversial issue, one should not only expect but welcome public disagreement, as the process of argument ultimately benefits everyone.
My “thin skin” can take the criticism.
(I don’t expect everyone to agree with me.)
Let us agree to disagree, and move on.
James May can’t even say the name “Renault” without following it with “so you know it’ll fall apart.” He drones on about German cars being sterile appliances for robots to drive and Italian cars never living up to expectations. The guy was in America, was he going to talk about Icelandic trucks? Americans are ok with bias as long as it’s against someone else. “Freedom fries”, anyone?
tankd0g,
James May can’t even say the name “Renault” without following it with “so you know it’ll fall apart.”
Just like people on here moan about Detroit’s reliability against the transplants. Mr May is right in scalding Renault for this, because Renault has a perception gap just like Detroit has in the United States. It’s a reputation well earned by Renault and until they take some tips from their friends at Nissan (which I mentioned earlier) Renault should get used to comments like Mr May’s.
What it all boils down to is a question of values. And to impose your judgement on a different countries value system is, well, arrogant. The British value different things than Americans do, it is neither right or wrong, just different. Many American car manufacturers realize this and build cars appropriately. European Fords are light years from those offered in the U.S., and well regarded by some (I do not want to start a lively debate on the merits of Euro Fords). I think what is arrogantly self-centered is passing judgement on a countries value system as Mr. May did. That is truly sophmoric.
In every editorial I’ve read on this site that has slagged Detroit management, I have perceived a strong undercurrent of fan-dom very akin to the type of complaining one would direct at the head coach or GM (pun intended) of his favorite sports team. We all want OUR team to perform at a high level and we are all embittered when the trustees of OUR team do incredibly boneheaded things.
Japanese management benefit very much from two basic facts: their automotive CEOs come largely from the engineering ranks and operate from that perspective in pursuing market share, and their companies are not driven by the big shareholder culture of short-term gain and resultant executive stock options that poisons Detroit. Greed trumps patience, more often than not, and the results are bean-counted products and lack of technological innovation.
I don’t see these problems with Detroit going away any time soon. They are systemic. Maybe Chrysler would’ve had a decent shot at a turnaround by going private if they hadn’t been purchased by a notorious re-seller. As it is, I don’t much care what nameplate I buy and from whence it came so long as I have an engaging car that meets my needs and provides solid value for the hard earned dollars I spend on it. Free market capitalism is a rough sport and so be it. I don’t have much time for apologies and un-met promises.
And Katie, Mazdas are nice cars for the money! I owned a Mazda 3S sedan for a couple of years and it exceeded my expectations, which is a rare thing these days. I’m not sure where Ford necessarily enters into it. I think they have benefitted from their relationship with Mazda more than Mazda has been brought down by Ford.
213 Cobra, I think a lot of your commentary is seriously flawed.
“JD Power data indicates that there is no point to choosing a car from their top 50 on basis of statistical reliability.”
Agreed, but this data point is then used as the foundation for a bunch of flawed conclusions. The correct conclusion: JD Power issues flawed data. Or at least, data whose real-world usefulness is far more narrow than advertised. JD Power makes no pretense of measuring long-term reliability. None. It’s not what they do.
“No one has mounted a convincing argument that a Toyota Camry is an interesting, engaging car.” I not only agree, but I’ve written the same thing in TTAC (see my review of the Kia Optima). The Camry’s popularity is easy to understand: it was outstanding reliable and usable beyond its rivals IN THE RECENT PAST. It takes years for reputations to catch up with changing reality.
“Are interior plastics really worth undermining your own country’s economy when something as good as a Cadillac STS-V can be had as an alternative to, say, a Mercedes E or a 7 Series BMW or an Audi A8?”
Who said either one of them is a good deal? Give me an Infiniti M any day. Its long-term reliability will kick ALL of these up and down the street, and that’s not what I call a “minor” difference — not when it’s my money.
“Is there anything meaningfully better about a Camry than a Fusion or Taurus?” Well, yes: again, long-term reliability. But never mind the Camry, which again makes a convenient whipping boy because it’s a rare example of a hugely beloved, recently diminished product that’s selling on recent legacy (ass opposed to Detroit’s legacy of the 1950s). Take out “Camry,” put in “Accord” and you’ll have a ton of trouble sustaining this argument.
“Thinking holistically, as an American are you really better off with that Accord rather than a competitive Pontiac or Chevy?” I wrote a whole column of navel-gazing about this very topic, so I’m certainly not insensitive to it. But guess what? At the micro level, one has only the choices of being un-American or of feeling like a chump who gave away his money on the second biggest expenditure of his life. Bottom line: My first three new cars were built in America. My last two were built in Japan.
Robert, this part may get me zapped as being “not about cars,” but I believe it is very much a part of this debate: it’s impossible to ignore that the elephant in the room here is America’s conduct of the war in Iraq. I say this simply because every survey of how America is viewed across the pond has cratered by historic dimensions since it began. They hate our guts out there, folks. I don’t mean the original commentary by May, but the undertone on both sides that creeps into the replies. Yes, our Freedom Fries xenophobia does come back to bite us, in ways indirect as well as direct. It’s called karma. Get used to it; it’s going to be around for a while.
And a final political digression in response to ex-dtw. You say “I fail to see how Bush is limiting free speech.” Uh, by your definition, would monitoring all our emails, herding all Bush critics at his personal appearances into pens safely out of even his limo’s sight range, and arrestiing anyone who wears an anti-Bush T-shirt constitute “limits”? When you open your eyes to what your country’s government is doing here and abroad in your name, you suddenly gain a much greater understanding of why everyone’s pissed at us.
tonycd you are right on the money. I have lived and worked for extended periods in the states and vacationed there very often. So, I can separate Americans from their administration (which is barely at this point supported by 1 in 4) people. However, the vast majority of the rest of the world will not, and that will be reflected in just about everything you hear or read about the US. I know that sounds very sombre, but that’s the reality.
Back to cars. To me, being unAmerican is being an American company that shafts Americans simply because you can. The Big 3 did it for years. If they’d been better American (corporate) citizens, they wouldn’t be in the mess they are now.
At the risk of saying something that could be perceived as inflammatory I’ll take the risk…
There is a strong anti-American sentiment in many countries in Europe. It doesn’t just relate to automobiles. Britain didn’t used to partake but now it does and it is quite trendy for people to share anti-American sentiments.
This is not something I’ve read about in the press or gotten second hand…
I’m a Brit – I live in the USA. I have directly experienced anti-American sentiment from my own relatives and friends in the UK.
Now that I’m preparing to naturalize the anti stuff has grown stronger!
Sorry this comment wasn’t about cars – I just thought I’d add my perspective.
Oh – and yes I watch Top Gear. Its infotainment, nothing more!
JD Power makes no pretense of measuring long-term reliability.
That’s correct, but nevertheless many people in the mainstream use this JDP data to make up their shortlist.
The Camry’s popularity is easy to understand: it was outstanding reliable and usable beyond its rivals IN THE RECENT PAST. It takes years for reputations to catch up with changing reality.
I don’t agree but that’s beside the point. My point is that Camry’s alleged advantage has always been marginal and that the car has never deserved its market share.
Who said either one of them is a good deal? Give me an Infiniti M any day. Its long-term reliability will kick ALL of these up and down the street, and that’s not what I call a “minor” difference
That’s conjecture. You might turn out to be right, but the M hasn’t been around long enough to know. I haven’t seen evidence of any meaningful Nissan advantage for long-term reliability.
Take out “Camry,” put in “Accord” and you’ll have a ton of trouble sustaining this argument.
OK, let’s move all of Camry’s sales over to the Detroit 3 and the Accord can keep its place. Seriously, the position earned by Accord in the market is more tenable than Camry’s, but the question remains. With current drivetrain, Fusion and Taurus are good and different alternatives to Accord. Really, the Accord is just a better-execution of bland than Toyota’s.
At the micro level, one has only the choices of being un-American or of feeling like a chump who gave away his money on the second biggest expenditure of his life. Bottom line: My first three new cars were built in America. My last two were built in Japan.
Can’t prove it by me. I’ve owned a sequence of excellent American cars driven into 6 figures that never gave me a lick of trouble. The key is buying the good ones!
…it’s impossible to ignore that the elephant in the room here is America’s conduct of the war in Iraq…
Eventually people will come to understand the legitimacy of the Iraq war, even though the administration sold it for the wrong reasons. In the meantime, we can weather the criticism. If that’s May’s motive, even more reason to ignore his sentiments on our cars and food.
When you open your eyes to what your country’s government is doing here and abroad in your name, you suddenly gain a much greater understanding of why everyone’s pissed at us.
While Bush is over-handled and his control gene is easily provoked, his actual impact on the free speech of individuals has been scant. I’m a Democrat, but nevertheless see that people have a tough time being objective about the President. Everything he does is seen by his detractors as more severe than it actually is. The more persistent intrusions into personal freedom have been enacted with the complicity of Congress, so take it up with your local representation. We have elections and courts. All of this can be rolled back as it has been before, after prior periods of crisis and dread.
“Pissed at us” might be context for disliking our cars, but it’s not a reason. May has his reasons. We shouldn’t take him seriously, be offended, nor try to shout him down. No one’s really paying attention and he’s not changing anyone’s mind.
Phil
@Phil,
Well said.
@All
Also, I didn’t mean (or intend) to digress the entire conversation into a pro/anti Bush tirade and though overly strong, the original intent of the deleted passage. As such, “let’s just stick to cars, cause it could get ugly” was all I meant.
Thanks for your understanding, and I’ll be more civil in the future.
I guess I’m weighing in a day late. I find TTAC’s judgments about cars–the actual reviews–to generally be spot-on. I appreciate their candor when it comes to the actual iron, and I think that the editors and the reviewers employ their insouciant style to great effect. I’m a little less convinced by the editorials, especially the “death watch” series. My quibble with them is not “bias;” like you, Mr. Farago, I think that “objectivity” is generally a fiction that journalists use to justify their own existence. Bias is inevitable any way you slice it, so it’s better to own up to it and harness its power. Rather, I think that the site’s “inflammatory” style hurts more than it helps in the editorial department. Your editorials often read as more mean-spirited than “honest.” I think that’s why readers perceive “bias” that the authors don’t intend. For example, in the death watch series, your analyses of the 50 years of poor decision making behind Detroit’s current troubles is spot-on. They really achieve your goal, which is to put the present day in analytic perspective. But when you spend so much time mocking individual leaders for not doing things that they can’t possibly do, I think it just comes across as nasty. As KatiePukrick said, it’s the Truth About Cars, not the Truth About People.
So, in sum, I would say keep up the good work the reviews, keep up the good work with the contextualization of Detroit’s current woes, but lay off the personal attacks. Not because they get under anyone’s thin skin, but because they honestly take away from the analytical acuity for which this site is known.
I think there is a perception gap that needs to be cleared up: There are TWO great Japanese car companies, Toyota and Honda. The other Japanese companies get to ride on their coat tails by virtue of also being Japanese, without being nearly as good. I think the relationship isn’t all that different from the way things worked in Detroit in days past – GM and Ford being the 2 big players, with Chrysler a distant third, making mediocre mainstream cars but always with 1 or 2 distinctive products that stand out, usually because they deliver more horsepower for less money at the expense of engineering elegance or long term reliability. It’s the same thing in Japan – Toyota and Honda dominate the mainstream, while the other makers survive by virtue of one or two things that they do well. Although Ghosn certainly has brought Nissan a long way in recent times.
Let’s see:
Mazda – Spent the mid 90s either pursuing dead end engine technologies (Wankel, Miller cycle), cranking out subpar mainstream products while bleeding themselves dry trying to establish 2 or 3 other brands in other markets. Now they do well in North America making cars that deliver more HP and features, at a lower price, at the expense of quality and reliability. Basically a Japanese Chrysler.
Mitsubishi – Everything they sell in North America except the watered down Evo sucks. Everything they sell in the rest of the world except those diesel SUVs in third world countries sucks. The entire history of the company has basically 3 or 4 bright spots – the Galant VR4 and Evo rally legends, The Pajero and Shogun SUVs in markets outside of N America, and the continued cult status of the DSM triplets amongst enthusiasts. Everything else every where has been a mess, and it’s no wonder they were in such dire straits. Now they sell 2 things: badly built, subpar economy cars in North America to people with bad credit for firesale prices, and last-gen engine technology to the Chinese. Who knows, I suppose it’s possible that they do better in the domestic Japanese market than elsewhere, but since the Japanese market is a)in a more or less permanent state of decline and b) so radically different than any other market in the world, the future doesn’t look all that bright. I hear the current Eclipse has the all-important “Bloated FWD V6 Mustang” market cornered, but Hyundai will have it soon enough.
Nissan: Spend the 90s bleeding themselves dry trying to make six different engines that do the same thing, with a confused product and brand lineup that could not match Toyota or Honda. The Infiniti brand in the US was a flop and the company was going down the tubes until Renault and Ghosn rescued them. First thing they did was, of course, to stop making everything they use to and base their entire product lineup on one platform and one engine. Now Nissan makes subpar mainstream cars that offer marginally more features and horsepower than Toyota and Honda at the cost of reduced quality and reliability, and Infiniti makes subpar luxury cars that offer marginally more features and horsepower than BMW and Lexus and the cost of reduced quality and reliability(Albeit, with eye catching and distinctive styling). Basically (another) Japanese Chrysler. Oh well, at least with the one-platform/engine cost cutting, they actually make money now.
213Cobra: Why do you publish reviews of rental cars? What’s the point? Rental cars are more often than not strippers, with the cheesiest tires available on the model, smallest wheels, softest suspension, fewest amenities. Worse, they are flogged by a different driver almost every day, whose driving style is just another variance on how to pilot a car like you stole it. They pretty much all suck.
Except that, when confronted with the fact that many domestic models rely quite heavily on fleet sales to prop up the sales figures, the response of Detroit’s fans is to say this will give more people a chance to experience its offerings.
If Detroit is going to use rental cars to expose import fans to its products, it needs to make sure that the best version is the one that is available from Hertz, Alamo, etc. Otherwise, don’t try.
In the face of this, the excuse that rental car sales give everyone a chance to drive the car don’t wash. Let’s see rental car sales for what they are – a desperate attempt to keep factories running that must churn out products not viewed as top-notch by the public.
213 Cobra: You recently ran a review of a know-to-be-old and soon-to-be-dropped Pontiac Grand Prix that was a rental. Perhaps you can see how the mere existence of that review of a goner looks like piling on. And beyond that, I’ve driven enough of those fleet GPs when traveling, and have been in a few that people actually own, to know that it is a vastly better car with just a few common upgrades. Badly short of perfect but still considerably better than the rental version.
Having driven a top-of-the-line version of the current Grand Prix, I have to say, “no.” The car was still inferior in virtually every way to my 2003 Accord EX sedan (four cylinder), except that, being the top model, it now cost about $6,500 more than the Accord.
213Cobra: But there are also many obscure reasons why pea-brained decisions stick to smart people. A little digging with a little less cynicism might get you closer to the truth.
The only problem is that while WE might be interested, the average car buyer doesn’t give two hoots about GM’s cost structure or Ford’s dysfunctional corporate culture. They judge the company by what they see in the showroom or on the road, or what their friends and relatives tell them about the companies’ products.
213Cobra: GM, Ford and Chrysler have, more than anything else over the past 35 years, suffered from a sudden loss of confidence that reverberates today. Their world got turned upside down between 1969 – 1975, and just as many of their most successful executives were retiring. Washington wanted cleaner air and lower fuel consumption.
Yes, but they have had three decades to recover, and so far, they have only made the necessary moves when their backs are against the wall. In the most recent example, during the late 1990s and early 21st century, Detroit (management and labor) kept riding the SUV gravy train, even though many analysts had been warning of the volatility of gas prices, and the companies themselves knew that their cost structure made it impossible for them to make profits on fuel-efficient cars. They are only addressing this now that their backs are against the wall, and it may be too late.
And don’t forget that in the early 1970s, Detroit still had a large customer base (that liked its full-size, intermediate and compact offerings), a strong dealer network and still-intact brand identities. They would throw two out of three of these away over the next three decades.
213Cobra: For the upstart Japanese, their tiny slice of the pie was supported by small platform cars for frugalists. It was relatively easier to meet the new objectives and build from there. Detroit had to re-engineer everything, after decades of making nothing truly small or light, and being under-invested in small engines.
Since the 1970s, the Japanese have expanded into large sedans, the luxury market, big pickups, large SUVs and crossovers and minivans. All of which presented just as much of a challenge to them as Detroit faced in producing a desirable small car.
213Cobra: Were the Japanese more agile than Detroit in exploiting a market change? Sure. But they had very little to change in themselves.
Can’t agree. Look at Honda. In 1977 it basically offered two cars – the Accord and Civic, which of were both small, lightweight cars powered by a four-cylinder engine. Now it offers the Civic and Accord, plus a pickup, a minivan, a line of near-luxury vehicles, a sports car and several crossovers. Not to mention more engine and transmission choices. That looks like a lot of changes to me.
213Cobra: But on the other hand we had guys like Phil Caldwell, Red Poling and Jack Telnack at Ford who clawed their company back from the brink until it was the most profitable large scale car manufacturer by the early 1990s. And they did it on product clamped to effective marketing. Tell us about their equivalents today.
Ford still had problems in the early 1990s, but the weaknesses of the competition masked them. The Ford 3.8 ohv V-6 and front-wheel-drive automatic transmissions from this time were terrible (the 3.8 V-6 was the worst engine since the Oldsmobile Diesel), but GM and Chrysler were weak, while Toyota and Honda still focused on smaller cars with only four cylinders.
Plus, Ford failed to update the Taurus sufficiently to meet the challenge of the 1990 Accord and 1992 Camry.
213Cobra: No one has mounted a convincing argument that a Toyota Camry is an interesting, engaging car.
No, but people don’t buy it on that basis. And what domestic car in that class are they supposed to buy that IS interesting and engaging? A Chrysler Sebring? A Chevrolet Impala? A Buick LaCrosse? A Ford Taurus? A Pontiac G6?
213Cobra: German cars aren’t more reliable than Cadillacs.
True, but they are, however, still better built (with better paint and interiors and panel fit). They also offer more cohesive lineups (i.e., they aren’t pulling platforms from three different sources for their products, which means that the driving “feel” is much more consistent across their lineups than it is for products across the Cadillac lineup).
213Cobra: Are interior plastics really worth undermining your own country’s economy when something as good as a Cadillac STS-V can be had as an alternative to, say, a Mercedes E or a 7 Series BMW or an Audi A8?
If interior plastics are a matter of national economic security, then GM should upgrade the them right away.
If GM can’t produce a superior product, or we must resort to patriotism to sell what it does offer, it really has no reason to exist, and the capital it uses can be more efficiently and productively deployed elsewhere, which helps our economy in the long run.
Instead of resorting to vague appeals to economic security, how about telling GM to marshall its resources to BEAT the competition, and not offer a car that is “almost there” and comes with the excuses as standard equipment.
213Cobra: Is there anything meaningfully better about a Camry than a Fusion or Taurus?
At this point, a reputation for reliability and resale value, although I agree that the Fusion and Taurus are the two best domestic alternatives to the Camry, and are competitive.
213Cobra: Thinking holistically, as an American are you really better off with that Accord rather than a competitive Pontiac or Chevy?
As an Accord driver who has listened to friends detail their experiences with Pontiacs and Chevys, and driven Grand Prixes, Malibus and Impalas, I can only say – absolutely.
Not only is the Accord superior in ride, handling and overall refinement, it spends less time in the shop, especially once the odometer crosses the 50,000-mile mark. Which means I save time, money and aggravation while enjoying a car that is much more pleasurable to drive than its GM competition.
213Cobra: My point is that Camry’s alleged advantage has always been marginal and that the car has never deserved its market share.
Starting with the 1992 model, the Camry moved MILES ahead of anything from Detroit. It deserved every sale it got, and Detroit should thank its lucky stars that it didn’t garner more sales than it did. Detroit has reduced the gap in recent years – especially at Ford – but the Camry’s reptuation keeps it ahead.
213Cobra: Really, the Accord is just a better-execution of bland than Toyota’s.
When the domestics offer a manual – let alone a sweet-shifting six speed – and a 200-horsepower four-cylinder, like the Accord does, then we’ll talk.
Lots of us WANT Detroit to succeed, but are tired of the excuses, whining and reneged promises – we’ll cut fleet sales! (except to prop up sales in August); we’ll stop badge engineering! (until Pontiac dealers demand a version of the Cobalt and Equinox); we need every brand in our stable! (except that no one cares about said brands except for the dealers and a few diehard fans on the internet, judging by the sinking sales figures).
tonycd: Robert, this part may get me zapped as being “not about cars,” but I believe it is very much a part of this debate: it’s impossible to ignore that the elephant in the room here is America’s conduct of the war in Iraq. I say this simply because every survey of how America is viewed across the pond has cratered by historic dimensions since it began. They hate our guts out there, folks. I don’t mean the original commentary by May, but the undertone on both sides that creeps into the replies. Yes, our Freedom Fries xenophobia does come back to bite us, in ways indirect as well as direct. It’s called karma. Get used to it; it’s going to be around for a while.
Their has always been an undercurrent of resentment and hatred of America in Europe, especially among the European left. The Iraq War may have inflamed it, but it was always there.
As for xenophobia – I seem to recall the French actively censoring words that were deemed to be too “English” to “protect” the “purity” of their language, and their cultural minister (the misnamed Jack Lang!) complaining about the influence of American popular culture in France. That sounds pretty xenophobic to me.
Of course, I’m sure that someone will say that the pernicious influence of Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd could ruin a hapless, unsuspecting foreign culture overnight.
tonycd: Uh, by your definition, would monitoring all our emails, herding all Bush critics at his personal appearances into pens safely out of even his limo’s sight range, and arrestiing anyone who wears an anti-Bush T-shirt constitute “limits”? When you open your eyes to what your country’s government is doing here and abroad in your name, you suddenly gain a much greater understanding of why everyone’s pissed at us.
You don’t think European countries aren’t monitoring e-mails, too?
And look at what constitutes “hate speech” in many European countries, and the punishments meted out for those offenses. No one is any position to lecture us about the abridgment of free speech.
If anything, we are still much more lenient in this regard.
I would imagine that anyone who is arrested for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt would have the case tossed by the court, so I’m surprised that anyone would be dumb enough to arrest a protestor for doing this.
Of course, if you are upset over what is going on with speech codes at many major Americann universities, that is something else, but the last time I checked, the chief proponents of those measures don’t hail from the right side of the political spectrum, and they sure don’t like Bush (not that I’m wild about him either, but let’s keep things in perspective).
We need to sign GEEBER up for a review or an editorial. Or maybe a “New for 2008 COMPARO!” Camry vs Accord vs Impala vs Aura vs Taurus.
No, TTAC is not wrong. TTAC is exactly on the spot, dead on target. And why? Editorials like this. This editorial, this paricular comments section proves that TTAC is not unfair or anti-american. Show me an anti-ANYTHING that invites its readers, ANY reader, to an introspective discussion about its means and goals. People with an agenda do not want other people to discuss their pros and cons. People with an agenda do not want “the other side” to disucss anything whatsoever that’s not on the agenda. Just the fact that TTAC allows such a discussion proves the point that TTAC are right, and that people who critize them are wrong. And if You think that my conclusion is wrong, please tell me. Would Stalin allow criticism?
I personally feel the site IS Anti-American – not in an Iranian “Death to America” sort of way, more of a British “Aren’t Americans so quaint” as they roll their eyes sort of way.
A prime example is the recent “re-wording” of the USA Today review of the Buick Enclave – USA Today didn’t like the sytling, you re-interpretted it to say that it was a complete piece of crap.
That, alone, would have been fine, had you also done the same for the NY Times review of the Enclave from the same week (they, btw, LOVED it). But ya didn’t. You only print (re-print? re-interpret?) NEGATIVE comments by others.
Having grown up in a family that USED to buy nothing but Oldsmobiles and Buicks (3 bad ones in a row killed my parents’ loyalty, and they now drive nothing but Hondas) I have always had a fondness for Buicks but have never owned one – and, to be honest, don’t see that changing anytime soon. I prefectly understand just how BAD GM got (my dad had an Olds diesel station wagon – need I say more?), but I also feel they HAVE turned around. Just because they are NOT building BMWs does NOT mean they are building BAD cars. Oddly – not everyone wants a BMW.
I feel this site wouldn’t recognize a brilliant GM car (such as the 2008 CTS) if it ran you over.
I feel this site wouldn’t recognize a brilliant GM car (such as the 2008 CTS) if it ran you over.
I guess that you didn’t see Mr. Mehta’s review, in which he gave it four stars and concluded as follows:
The Cadillac CTS is a beautiful, well-appointed machine with its heart in the wrong place. Once again, the brand’s guardians decided to chase highly-tuned European sports sedans instead of returning to the simple values that made Cadillacs– including the Escalade– American icons. Still, no question: the CTS represents genuine progress for the Cadillac brand. Minus the engine and suspension mistakes, they’re right where they should have been 15 years ago.
It could be an honest mistake on the critics’ part, but I sometimes get the impression that they are reading a different website. It is possible to like the country and not be a diehard fanboy at the same time, isn’t it?
Pch101 wrote:
I guess that you didn’t see Mr. Mehta’s review, in which he gave it four stars
Yes, I read the review, and cannot for the life of me figure out after so much bad-mouthing of the car how he came to give it 4 stars. Again – that “Aren’t Americans quaint” damning with faint praise.
I also read “Cadillac Flunks History Again”, and I disagree with it as well; I think the BTS would be good for Caddy SO LONG AS it has AT LEAST the 2.8 V-6. For the record, while the BTS is a chromed with “Art and Science” look slapped on an Opel, it is still a decent car (I have driven one in Britain)….yes, small to Caddy is like slow to porsche, but the BTS is no Cimmaron. I have the rare distinction of having driven both. I beleive Detroit has finally caught on that “luxury brands” need an entry car (sadly, Lincoln thinks the MKZ will fill that bill – it won’t, it REALLY IS a modern Cimmaron!)
Yes, I read the review, and cannot for the life of me figure out after so much bad-mouthing of the car how he came to give it 4 stars.
Because its an LS1 engine and a few suspension tweaks away from a 5 star rating.
I feel that you’re focusing heavily on the badmouthing and forgetting all the nice things in the review. (esp the interior, which is delicious) Fair enough, there’s plenty of hot-button phrases in the review that stick in the reader’s mind.
You’re not gonna see polarizing quotes anywhere else, and I’m okay with that.
Again – that “Aren’t Americans quaint” damning with faint praise.
I maintain my skepticism about whether the review was actually read. I see no Attack on America in that text. (And since when did GM become America, anyway? When it started importing Aveos?)
It’s pretty clear that Mr. Mehta thinks that the car would be better if it created some bona fide American style that didn’t attempt to ape the Europeans. As a guy concerned with branding and product positioning, I’m inclined to agree with that assessment.
I would submit that the American automakers are in deep trouble in large part because the criticism wasn’t louder and faster for the last thirty years. They seem to think that their products are lovely (wake up — they mostly aren’t, that’s why people aren’t buying them), that they have no responsibility for their fate (of course they do — who else possibly could?) and that they will be turning the corner soon. (They’ve turned so many corners at this point that they strike me as corporations caught in circles chasing their tails, an activity that tends to make one dizzy and confused.)
At the end of the day, these companies are just businesses. Not every business is profitable or makes money, there are winners and losers. If you look at a list of companies that comprised the Dow index in 1907, virtually none of them survived long enough to make it to 2007. That’s how it goes.
At this point, they’re just multinationals, anyway, with loyalty to no flag, so let the marketplace decide who’s worthwhile and who isn’t. If I want cheerleading, I’ll watch the Cowboys play on Sundays.
I was searching a site that was totally unbiased.I found it in TTAC.One that included views from the public/bloggers that actually had intellegent things worth reading.
I’m also an employee of General Motors.I frequently refer other employees’ to this site.I remind them that there is a deathwatch on this site about the Corporation that signs you’re check.Also reminding them to keep an open mind with product reviews and bloggers.
I love this site for one important reason.Motivation.Some folks here will never purchase another G.M. vehicle.Problems in the past or shoddy development/problems in the present keep them away.So be it.I wish we could build a vehicle for every-one.A vehicle that would suit their every fancy.A vehicle that inspired confidence to stay with a G.M. car or truck.
The motivation comes from those that blog.The reviews wrote by some great automotive editorialist.I believe in what they say/write.I continue to work for General Motors because I am a gear-head.Im a car fan.If a competitor designs’ and builds a great vehicle I tip my hat and recognize hard work and effort when I see it.That being said,I place as much pride on my work regardless if that vehicle is 13,000 dollars or 53,000 dollars.Craftmanship and pride means much to me.No Auto Company can afford to have people that lack passion behind their work.
All in all,one hell of a site.And thanks for being unbiased.No ass-kissin’.Its knowing that a site could be used for when really looking for constuctive critasism.
After reviewing,my spelling sucks
hehehehe
It’s pretty clear that Mr. Mehta thinks that the car would be better if it created some bona fide American style that didn’t attempt to ape the Europeans. As a guy concerned with branding and product positioning, I’m inclined to agree with that assessment.
ding, ding, ding, ding!!!
If I had a door prize to give, you’d win it.
As RF says, TTAC is a conscience of the car industry. That’s good. Parents don’t raise good kids by praising everything they do, regardless. In an industry plagued with problems (the US car industry), it isn’t helping matters that the automotive journalists are mostly cheerleaders rather than critics. Being critical is the best thing TTAC can do for the car industry. It’s a damn shame the car industry doesn’t seem to be listening.
I did think the May-Swanson beef was a bit silly, though.
–David (in Lexington, where the American Revolution began)
PS: love the 55 chevy in the red white and blue
There is a finite line between objectivity and group think.
The DW series fostered group think amongst many commenters
…when confronted with the fact that many domestic models rely quite heavily on fleet sales to prop up the sales figures, the response of Detroit’s fans is to say this will give more people a chance to experience its offerings.
If Detroit is going to use rental cars to expose import fans to its products, it needs to make sure that the best version is the one that is available from Hertz…
Detroit flubbed the rental-as-evaluation experiment. They wrongly let the rental companies define a minimum standard of equipment and went for volume, thus eroding shopper and user perceptions of their vehicles. Virtually every rental as supplied by Detroit was considerably better in the form commonly purchased at retail, than in its rental configuration.
The only problem is that while WE might be interested, the average car buyer doesn’t give two hoots about GM’s cost structure or Ford’s dysfunctional corporate culture. They judge the company by what they see in the showroom or on the road, or what their friends and relatives tell them about the companies’ products.
But WE ARE interested, and part of our job here as more knowledgeable and informed automotive mavens is to help educate those less wrapped up in our enthusiasms, but nevertheless interested in our guidance or perspective.
Since the 1970s, the Japanese have expanded into large sedans, the luxury market, big pickups, large SUVs and crossovers and minivans. All of which presented just as much of a challenge to them as Detroit faced in producing a desirable small car.
No, I don’t buy that. It is easier to upsize than to go down. Supersizing the idea of a Japanese sedan was much less of a challenge than downsizing the American idea. This is generally true in business. Moreover, incrementally growing your customer base from marginal to mainstream is easier moving from mainstream to a fractured market made up of the former marginals. The winner that’s hit a wall always has a tougher time than the upstart that is happy relentlessly finding 3% more new customers per year, over decades.
Plus, Ford failed to update the Taurus sufficiently to meet the challenge of the 1990 Accord and 1992 Camry.
Between 1992 – 1996, the Ford Taurus was the best-selling car in the US. It wasn’t the 1990 Accord and 1992 Camry that dethroned it. The Taurus’ downfall was the combination of its prior success prompting Honda to enlarge the Accord and Ford’s own missteps with the 1996 redesign.
No, but people don’t buy it on that basis. And what domestic car in that class are they supposed to buy that IS interesting and engaging? A Chrysler Sebring? A Chevrolet Impala? A Buick LaCrosse? A Ford Taurus? A Pontiac G6?
A Fusion is easily more engaging to drive than a Camry. Ditto for the new Taurus with the upgraded 3.5L. So is a G6 if optioned to.
True, but they (German luxury cars) are, however, still better built (with better paint and interiors and panel fit). They also offer more cohesive lineups (i.e., they aren’t pulling platforms from three different sources for their products, which means that the driving “feel” is much more consistent across their lineups than it is for products across the Cadillac lineup).
Yes, but the build differences are narrowing and Cadillac has some advantages. The differences in platforms do not inhibit my ability to enjoy specific cars. The V cars have much in common in terms of driving experience, despite platform variances.
If GM can’t produce a superior product, or we must resort to patriotism to sell what it does offer, it really has no reason to exist, and the capital it uses can be more efficiently and productively deployed elsewhere, which helps our economy in the long run.
Instead of resorting to vague appeals to economic security, how about telling GM to marshall its resources to BEAT the competition, and not offer a car that is “almost there” and comes with the excuses as standard equipment.
I’m not advocating patriotism as a reason to buy. It’s self-interest. There’s more to a healthy human economy and political system than capital efficiency. I don’t see differences in plastics as an indicator of “superior” product. If plastics prove not to be durable, then yes. But otherwise it is just a difference in aesthetic choice. I see no meaningful difference between BMW plastics and Cadillac’s. And at the Camry level, Ford and GM are now better on some surfaces.
The fact remains that while the Detroit 3 make progress, losing them is a real prospect, which is binary. We either have them or we don’t. There is real long-term economic value to buying the best that they have, now. I am positing that their most competitive models are fully justifiable as purchases, and in the context of them truly running out of time, the minor differences between their best and equivalent imports is not worth jeopardizing domestic economic vitality. We can communicate the imperative to improve by staying away from their uncompetitive models.
When the domestics offer a manual – let alone a sweet-shifting six speed – and a 200-horsepower four-cylinder, like the Accord does, then we’ll talk.
OK, you get a pass for your Accord, for being in the 2% of the market that (properly) wants a manual transmission in a 4 door, FWD, 5 passenger car. That’s why we had an SVT Contour in the family and now have a Cadillac CTS-V.
Lots of us WANT Detroit to succeed, but are tired of the excuses, whining and reneged promises – we’ll cut fleet sales! (except to prop up sales in August); we’ll stop badge engineering! (until Pontiac dealers demand a version of the Cobalt and Equinox); we need every brand in our stable!
I understand. There were great reasons to send a loud note of rejection to Detroit when they had 80%, then 70%, then 60% of the market and abused that largesse by shipping too much swill. But now it’s gone too far and the threat is existential. There are enough blind import buyers whose real criteria for acceptance in a car purchase would be fully met by a domestic offering. Swinging that coterie to the Detroit 3 would restore sustainability to their market and buy the time to complete their competitive transition. With the clock where it is, everyone who wants Detroit to succeed will have to take some risk and put some reputational skin in the game at the least. Else, they’re all goners. If we, the auto mavens who make 10+ car recommendations per year cannot get behind the idea of at least returning to domestic showrooms for objective comparative shopping of Detroit’s most competitive products, because we’re still smarting from some prior wrongdoing, then the Detroit 3 are goners and we’ll all be paying, just in a different way. There’s more at stake here than cars, credibility and cool.
Phil
Geeber:
Their has always been an undercurrent of resentment and hatred of America in Europe, especially among the European left. The Iraq War may have inflamed it, but it was always there.
As for xenophobia – I seem to recall the French actively censoring words that were deemed to be too “English” to “protect” the “purity” of their language, and their cultural minister (the misnamed Jack Lang!) complaining about the influence of American popular culture in France. That sounds pretty xenophobic to me.
The French just want their culture to remain French. Is that xenophobic? The US is being invaded by people from south of the border, and despite my liberal soul, I find myself feeling angry every time I hear Para Espanol, marquez le 2 on the voice mail.
I lived in France, and people treated me well. But I learned French, and I acted like a guest in their country. There were an awful lot of Americans in France who acted more like they owned the place, and so it doesn’t surprise me that many of them don’t like Americans. Yet, in 2002, a large group of French people came to the US, drove their Citroen Traction Avants (a car from the first half of the last century) across the country, stopping in cities everywhere to thank US war veterans for liberating their country.
President Bush behaves as if the rest of the world is of no consequence. No wonder a lot of people hate us. It’s a damn shame, especially after the sympathy we got after 9-11.
Phil—Your logic is sound and your comments wonderfully worded.
Thanks for taking the time to think through your response and state what those of us who buy competitive domestics believe.
I am drinking a beer as I write this—all I can say is cheers !
Last, while I am no Bush lover—blaming the current geo-political scene totally on him is very simplistic. The undercurrent of stress in the world started after the cold war. The cold war united the US and Europe for over 40 years against a common goal. Absent that goal—-the US / Euro differences have come to the surface exacerbated by Islamofacism, poor US planning and leadership in Iraq, and the self serving interests of our European allies. Even if we get out of Iraq any time soon—2 of the 3 factors will still remain. Good luck figuring it out Hillary.
Katie Puckrik,
So glad to see you didn’t leave us after all. Looking forward to more of your insightful comments. David
In 1984 the vast majority of computers sold in the USA were built in the USA with a goodly helping of US made components inside them. In 2007 almost none are made in the US and few of the components are as well. Today’s computers are far more capable, reliable and lower in cost than were the 1984 versions. Would anyone really want to use an IBM-AT or a first generation Mac today?
It does not seem that the US economy came crashing down on itself during this time. In fact, the explosion of low cost computing power allowed for the creation of entire new industries and new ways of communicating which TTAC is in fact a product of. Had computers all been built in the USA in union factories without meaningful foreign competition there is a good chance this very forum we are using now wouldn’t even exist.
Why do so many people insist that if we buy Japanese designed cars built in the US like the Accord that we are doing harm to our mutual selves and should instead buy Ford Fusions built in Mexico? It makes no sense.
As the reviewer who recently tested the Grand Prix for this website, allow me to comment on some of the remarks made above.
The car I reviewed was a 2008 model. It was equipped with the standard 3800 engine and four-speed automatic that are offered in most of the Grand Prix being sold today. Love it or hate it, this drivetrain combination better represents the average Grand Prix being sold today than do either the optional 3.8L supercharged or 5.3 V8 editions that most of the magazines. (In typical fashion, most of the enthusiast magazines never went to the bother of reviewing this model, even though this is the car that the average consumer would be most likely to buy. Go figure.)
The car included power windows, power door locks, power mirrors, a gauge package with a tachometer, 4-wheel independent suspension, climate control, fold-down rear seats,and multi-speaker sound system as standard equipment.
My vehicle was also equipped with three option packages: “Preferred”, “Security”, and “Sport” . These added power lumbar supports, a multi-function trip computer, traction control, leather steering wheel and shift knob, audio controls on the steering wheel, five-spoke sport wheels a lighting package, remote start, chrome interior trim, additional interior lighting, sunglass storage, fog lamps, floor mats and side airbags, among other things. Combined, these added about $2,700 to the Grand Prix’s MSRP.
In other words, the car was not lacking for equipment. And, more to the point, the options had little impact on the ultimate conclusions reached in the review. In fact, some of the criticisms that I leveled at the car were specifically because of the optional equipment that, despite the added cost, did not make the car any more desirable: the garish front air dam containing those optional fog lamps, those optional power seats that were mediocre at best, the optional chrome insets that were uncomfortable on the steering wheel and looked cheap as cladding on the door handles, and the trip computer whose array of buttons just added to the sense that this vehicle was a compromise choice. The best thing about the car was the ride, and those suspension components were part of the standard equipment package.
In other words, my tester was an outstanding example of what this car is all about when reasonably well equipped. No matter. The options didn’t help, for they only made an undesirable vehicle slightly less undesirable, and in some respects made it worse.
Furthermore, Mr. Farago previously reviewed the GTP model, as you can see elsewhere on this website. His criticisms of that more costly model were quite similar to mine, conclusions that he and I reached independently. (My article was not edited for its editorial position.) If anything, the added power from the 3.8 liter supercharged car that he tested exacerbated the handling problems that were noted in my less powerful tester — adding another 60 horsepower to the front wheels worsened the car’s composure considerably, making a poorly handling car even worse. And his car wasn’t exactly an aesthetic achievement, either, as the photos will indicate.
As a matter of policy, TTAC tests vehicles that are currently available on the market. The Grand Prix tested will be sold through the end of the 2008 model year. That makes it fair game for a review.
This car positions itself as a viable alternative to a whole host of sedans offered in the market today. While I have driven worse — my assessment was actually kinder than were the opinions of several of our readers — I have also driven better, and I cannot in good conscience advise our readers in North America to spend their hard earned money on this vehicle.
That position does not make TTAC or myself anti-American, but pro consumer. Call it what you will, but I will stand behind the content of my review and the reasonableness of my tester as a fair representative of what this vehicle is all about. You can disagree with my conclusions, but please don’t libel either myself or the site by accusing of us of testing minimally equipped vehicles as if we have an agenda to find problems before the fact. That is not TTAC’s policy, and if it was, I would certainly not write for it.
Holzman:
President Bush behaves as if the rest of the world is of no consequence. No wonder a lot of people hate us. It’s a damn shame, especially after the sympathy we got after 9-11.
Umterp85:
the US / Euro differences have come to the surface
This talk of the anti-Americanism directed toward us from around the world is a thorny topic for an apolitical forum, but indulge me a bit and I’ll connect this back to automobiles.
The United States is and has been the most different place. We have the society that is the richest materially, the most adaptive and successful economically, and we have more of our destiny within our grasp than most countries. We also now have the only military with global reach, able to project force and protect our interests wherever necessary via land, sea or air. All of this also resides in a geographically large territory that is hugely diverse, resource-rich and we enjoy relatively low population density. We also work harder/longer per year than people in most developed countries. Our leisure is bursty, not ingrained like it is for Europe. We are as a culture still very much future and opportunity-driven, and we’re usually in a hurry. We’re accustomed to having dramatic impact on anything we seriously set out to do. We expect to win, but when we don’t, we move on for the next challenge.
Moreover, while nearly all of the rest of what we think of as the First World is in demographic decline, the United States is slated to be the only such country that will be larger at the end of this century than it is today. We’re currently on schedule to be 400 million before 2040, and perhaps half a billion by 2100 if immigration holds up. As much as that alarms some people, we can easily accommodate that population. About 80% of our population currently lives on 2% of our land, hence the sense of overcrowding in certain centers. We’ll perhaps have to build a national water distribution system, and stop the knuckle-headed madness of allocating land and water for corn-based fuel. We might actually get around to building that solar farm in a 100 x 100 mile desert lot that could meet all our electricity demands today. We’ll upgrade the power grid, and we’ll be paving more roads, laying track, building bus-lanes, etc. But the point is, growth is good; we’ll be growing. Most of our peer countries will not. We’ll be growing while India and China assert themselves. We’ll still be a force, and may possibly remain *the* force.
All of these traits generate a lot of envy. Some of that envy leads to people in other countries saying, “I’m outta here. My future is in the US.” For some people it means their life is more secure and they prefer where they are. It also leads still others to think, “Gotta tear that down.” To people who want to tear us down, Europe, Canada and Latin America are routes to the US. There is a US to ameliorate risk to Europe, Japan, Canada, Mexico and elsewhere. Who has our back? I recall reading that when we were considering whether we’d have to invade Iraq, and were tallying up what kind of logistics help we could get from the EU, it was reported that the entire European aggregate military cargo fleet had a grand total of 4 C5 Galaxy cargo planes for heavy airlift. We had over 100. Folks, no one effectively mitigates risk to the US. This gives us a different point of view about when and how to throw down. Right now, it’s really just us that understands we’re waging “The Long War.” Iraq and Afghanistan get the coverage, but our military is in 30 other countries specifically and quietly hunting down Islamo-fascist bad guys and bolstering the locals’ ability to do it.
So, all things considered, some people are going to resent us. Tell me something new. We deal.
RF’s tapping his fingers by now, looking for the car connection.
We like to push out our boundaries, keep our threats distant and have free range at home. The average car buyer in Glasgow isn’t thinking that he’s looking for a car that he might drive to Istanbul or Tehran once or twice a year. But for a long time Americans bought a car thinking about how good it would be for that summer drive from Philly to San Francisco. Baltimore to Seattle. Boston to Los Angeles. From anywhere to the Grand Canyon, or the Columbia River, or Yosemite. Someone from Chicago might routinely roll down to Memphis or over to Oklahoma City. How about driving from Dallas to San Antonio for dinner? This argued for big, roomy cars with lots of torque for humping us and our stuff over the Appalachians, the Rockies, Sierras or all three. Frosty air. Straightforward engineering. 80 – 90 mph was fine for making some serious time because at those distances, no one has the attention chops for 1000 miles at 140 mph. Sure, we can sacrifice a little road feel and, you know, maybe that turn-in could be a little less incisive. Brakes? If the hot-rodders want them bigger, there’s a speed shop in every town. We were able to supply a lot of our own oil for a decades, and we still pump about a third of our needs.
First the GIs then the coastal kids in the US got a taste of how the rest of the world does it on skinny, winding roads where fuel was either more precious or made that way through taxation. Eventually, all the miseries of the Beetle, British roadsters and cramped, slow Japanese tin yielded to the BMW 1600/2002. Fiat 124s & 128s helped. Austin Marinas didn’t. Now, if you needed a largely local car around New England or eastern Pennsylvania, or seldom ventured out of a 5 county area of SoCal or the Bay area, this alpine sedan thing seemed pretty cool in the era of Detroit bloat; especially for rebellious Boomer kids like me.
35 years later we have a sharply divided market. Cheap air travel took the cross-country drive off the table for the portion of the population that can’t imagine anything less interesting than 600 miles of driving per day. For this person, a car doesn’t get used for any travel more distant than 400 miles. Forget the Crown Vic, I’d rather have a 3 Series. Or a Mini. But half the market still thinks about that cross-country trip. Or the 1000 mile outing 3 or 4 times a year. Or taking the boat and the bikes to Havasu any weekend the weather holds up. A pickup, or an SUV; a DTS or a Crown Vic makes perfect sense. And look how much fits from a single run to Home Depot or Costco!
Some people travel to the US, and see all this with a sense of wonder. Others just see waste. Or they are of the mistaken notion that life is a zero-sum game so if Americans are living like this, it must be why they’re not.
So I don’t expect most people from the UK, France, Germany or Japan to understand an Escalade , Suburban, or an F350 dually in private hands. A Crown Vic or Town Car is hard enough for a Continental to grasp. I get that such a person will see a Mustang and think it’s way too huge for a sports car. Except it’s not a sports car; it’s a pony car and you don’t have such a thing “over there.” I fully expect people from an educated craft culture with a long history of engineering to deride solid axles and pushrod engines, not realizing that for some things those designs are entirely appropriate. I don’t expect people who must negotiate hairpin turns at speed in daily driving to grasp why an M3 is twitchy and fatiguing on a 1000 mile dash on I40 between the ranges, rendering a little steering numbness a-ok.
Now, imagine you’re CEO of one of the Detroit 3. The ROW (Rest-of-World) way has chewed into your market as the coastal megalopoli have filled in and cheap jet travel has changed a big part of the market’s buying criteria. Yet for a lot of other people nothing’s changed. You took upright rear-drive cars off the market 3 decades ago to address hysteria over a fuel crisis, only to find that move made pickup trucks a lot of people’s new first choice. You came up with the SUV and had some of the most cash-rich years of your history. But you also ended up fracturing all your brands trying to straddle the divide.
Yeah, it should have been done better, but there’s that legacy of dealers all wanting in on the cash cow. Plus, hell…the New York – Chicago axis used to be the center of the universe. Anybody good in business wanted to live somewhere along it. But now Silicon Valley, Los Angeles, Miami, Denver, Seattle and Las Vegas (Vegas! for cryin’ out loud) are sucking business talent. New thinking, always tough to push into these big manufacturing companies, becomes almost impossible to recruit. Even mediocre guys like Mark Fields wangle deals to commute in from Florida!
Three-buck gas shifted the market. “Dang, should’ve been ready! But hey, us Detroiters are still selling 3 million pickups and as many SUVs. Any way you look at it, we keep finding ways to deliver a new version of a ’55 Chevy, ’cause that’s what Americans really want. Except for those that don’t. Problem is, the number of those that don’t keeps changing.”
We’re the most different place. We have the most open market. Our diversity is epic. Every idea gets to play out here, but in cars the core idea of an American automobile is exportable only to a few places: Australia, Canada, China, the Arabian peninsula, maybe eventually Brazil. No auto company outside the US has the job of defending turf commensurate with what the Detroit 3 face today. They must get better at it; find the talent to prevail. If others dislike us for one locally and temporally restricted reason or another, we’ll live with that. We know why. All the more reasons Americans should see the value in rewarding competitive products from the Detroit 3, now. People resenting us is no reason to dilute our interests and identity.
Phil
Would anyone really want to use an IBM-AT or a first generation Mac today?…..Why do so many people insist that if we buy Japanese designed cars built in the US like the Accord that we are doing harm to our mutual selves and should instead buy Ford Fusions built in Mexico? It makes no sense.
PCs and cars are not even closely ranked in economic leverage. We could have retained more of the PC manufacturing business but having not retained our consumer electronics business a few years prior, the funding sources and management of the PC companies were not inclined to invest in massive assembly capacity even in non-union regions, for two reasons. First they knew PCs would be rapidly commoditized if the platform was as successful as they hoped. And second, the real value was in the CPU design and in software. There was a brief sense of crisis around that time about the US losing memory fabrication to Asia. But correctly, we bet that Intel, AMD, et al would be the real computing wealth generators in chips.
Preserving manufacturing is about diversity of both opportunity for a still growing country, and for reducing our external dependencies as the only viable global leader for liberty. Yes, the Intel-based PC supported a torrent of innovation that fostered large wealth-producing companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Lotus and later Yahoo, Google, Cisco, not to mention oodles of small-caps on NASDAQ. But their employment leverage is relatively low. The market caps for these companies are driven by fewer employees than is true for the major car companies. Their social footprints are smaller. The social and economic leverage of the employment GM, Ford and Chrysler generate is huge compared to Intel, Dell, or HP. Their economic leverages are both terrific but orthogonal. I am not dismissing the vast impact of the PC — it put my life on a completely different vector. But as a person with blue collar origins, I appreciate what the “old economy” does for us too.
A domestic-built vehicle purchase from the Detroit 3 has at least 30% more economic leverage than a domestic-built vehicle from a foreign brand. One of the differences is that the Accord purchase does not support the tens of thousands of high-wage headquarters jobs that one from the Detroit 3 supports. Also, the supply chains of the domestics are generally more local than those for locally-assembled imports though this has narrowed some. Moreover, those companies are still shipping higher-value components over to the US from their home markets.
The case of the Mexican-built Fusion and the Ohio-built Accord is murkier. The profits for the Ford go to Dearborn. The profits from the Honda cross the Pacific. But the clincher is NAFTA. Economically, we still get leverage out of a NAFTA purchase, particularly one from a border plant in Mexico where the profits go to Michigan and the supply chain is substantially American. Honda is, much more than Toyota, a quasi-American company. Honda was and is an outsider in Japan and doesn’t do as well in its home market as here. We’re Honda’s linchpin market. I don’t view Honda as rapacious, in the manner Toyota is. The whole spirit of the company is more compatible with our interests. But edge in economic leverage goes to Fusion. In Camry’s case, it’s clear-cut for Ford.
Had computers all been built in the USA in union factories without meaningful foreign competition there is a good chance this very forum we are using now wouldn’t even exist.
Had PCs been only built here, the price might have dropped more slowly, but that’s not certain, since the vendors were all intensely competitive. But assembly manufacturing was not the competitive playing field. It was chip architecture, fabrication and OS. All of the viable CPU competition was here in the US. There was no foreign challenger. Intel, AMD, Motorola. Microsoft, Apple, SCO, IBM, Sun. There were no viable entries from elsewhere for the CPU and OS battles, and Apple raised the only serious challenge to Microsoft on the desktop OS, early in the game.
The foundation for today’s internet was laid beginning in 1969. The need for the software interface to the internet that the Web represents was mandated by the ubiquity of personal computing and recognition that taking the internet out of its exclusive, esoteric defense/academia domain would yield immense personal, organizational, ecosystem and creative benefits everyone could appreciate. LANs in the 1980s + graphical computing + the road paved by Compuserve and early AOL before 1990 assured the inevitability of the Web. The innovation engine behind the CPU and the software to leverage it were independent of the assembly economics, and took place while PCs were still quite expensive.
Adrian Imonti:
It looks like you reviewed a more representative rental than usual. That information would have been useful to know, but I realize TTAC’s strict 800 word limit constrains reviewers. By the way, your review was well-written with appropriate scope.
Nevertheless, from a perception of Detroit bashing, what’s the point? I don’t mean for you writing it, but for TTAC to publish. It’s a model everyone here knows is old. It’s scheduled to die. Much better vehicles are superceding it within GM.
Phil
Nevertheless, from a perception of Detroit bashing, what’s the point? I don’t mean for you writing it, but for TTAC to publish.
When you work your butt off to get three new car reviews a week for several months, what’s left to test? I ask you to re-think your point: after all, the car mags ask you to pay them for 3-4 new car reviews a month.
Sure we don’t have the press cars and measurement tools, we give 3 reviews a WEEK and don’t charge you a dime for the honor of inviting us in your homes/offices.
In other words, wait a week or two and TTAC’s publishing schedule will be more to your liking. How ’bout them apples?
When you work your butt off to get three new car reviews a week for several months, what’s left to test?
If this topic of whether TTAC is anti-American had never come up, I wouldn’t have mentioned the Pontiac GP rental issue. However, since that’s the central issue raised here, my point was that if you want to see how someone might see a bias against Detroit’s cars in TTAC, that review presents an example that could be so construed.
Personally, I’m happy to read about anything that’s tested. Although I do think using rentals is a dubious proposition. RF should consider adding extra space specifically for “as equipped” notes on car reviews, IMO.
Phil
“So I don’t expect most people from the UK, France, Germany or Japan to understand an Escalade , Suburban, or an F350 dually in private hands. A Crown Vic or Town Car is hard enough for a Continental to grasp. I get that such a person will see a Mustang and think it’s way too huge for a sports car. Except it’s not a sports car; it’s a pony car and you don’t have such a thing “over there.” I fully expect people from an educated craft culture with a long history of engineering to deride solid axles and pushrod engines, not realizing that for some things those designs are entirely appropriate. I don’t expect people who must negotiate hairpin turns at speed in daily driving to grasp why an M3 is twitchy and fatiguing on a 1000 mile dash on I40 between the ranges, rendering a little steering numbness a-ok.”
I was born and raised here, and I don’t really understand it either. I see an escalade and I think “Wow, that’s a lot to pay for a Tahoe”. I also think it’s a lot of gas to use to haul one person around, and one person is what I usually see.
As for big trucks, you have to admit they’ve become a status symbol of sorts. Many people driving them do not use them as trucks, even on rare occassions. And many driving the 3/4 ton 4×4 with monster V8 could easily get by with a half ton and a 6. There was a time when a truck was a work vehicle, not a commuter vehicle.
I partly get the Mustang. It’s a sporty (as oppossed to sports) car, with a marginal back seat big enough for small kids. But a single guy wouldn’t have kids, and when you get married and your wife becomes pregnant, she’ll make you trade it in on a minivan, so what’s the point. Might as well have had a true sports car.
This thread should be preserved as a priceless commentary on the automotive industry, as well as a window on how different generations view the industry.
Dynamic 88: “I partly get the Mustang. It’s a sporty (as oppossed to sports) car, with a marginal back seat big enough for small kids. But a single guy wouldn’t have kids, and when you get married and your wife becomes pregnant, she’ll make you trade it in on a minivan, so what’s the point. Might as well have had a true sports car.”
Agreed. The beauty of the Mustang (especially for two car families) is that it is still usable if you have two kids or less; the “practical” difference between a pony car and a true sports car I guess. I traded in my 3 series for a 2005 Mustang after I had kids and it has been a useful transporter of the two young ones when my wifes car is unavailable. Also, if you are truly passionate about a car—-NEVER cave to the wife—keep it—drive it—love it ! Life is way too short.
213 cobra great post. I too thought the Grand Prix review was little harsh. The G.P has maybe 6 weeks left so its allready dead.Why flog it?
As far as TTAC being bias,its getting more balanced as time goes on.
I get little pissed off at the folks that can’t wait to see one of the big 2.5 go belly up.Its mean and nasty and not in the spirit of TTAC.Me thinks that RF should be a little quicker on the delete/ban button,when folks write comments like die GM die, or the UAW is a cancer, it insults a lot of people.It also doesn’t do anything for journalistic integrity
Just my thoughts, you did ask
Michael
mikey: The G.P has maybe 6 weeks left so its allready dead.
As I noted above, I tested a 2008 model Grand Prix. The Grand Prix is scheduled to be sold alongside the G8 after it is released in 2008. The G8 is not a direct replacement for the Grand Prix, and the GP will stay in production until sometime before the end of the 2008 model year.
All of this means that the Grand Prix will have as much as another twelve months remaining in the lineup. (The model year typically runs roughly from September to August.)That’s quite a long time, not just a few weeks.
mikey: Why flog it?
Because this is a car that Pontiac currently sells (or at least tries to sell) to American consumers. GM delivered over 62,000 Grand Prix between January and August of 2007. Of its six-vehicle lineup, the Grand Prix comprised 26% of Pontiac’s total deliveries during the first eight months of this year. Of Pontiac’s offerings, this is its second best-selling car. Only the G6 sells in larger quantities.
Based upon current production numbers, it may sell perhaps another 100,000 units between now and when it is retired. Based upon past performance, you can expect that about 25% will be sold at retail. And until now, TTAC had never reviewed it with the 3.8 liter standard engine, the version that sells the most.
So there was absolutely no reason not to review this vehicle. I do hope that you’re not suggesting that those 25,000 future retail customers, or however many there happen to be, aren’t deserving of a current review of a vehicle that is available today at their neighborhood dealerships.
The fact that most of these sales will probably go to rental is not the fault of TTAC or the automotive press. If TTAC had a policy of not reviewing GM products that mostly end up in rental lots, then TTAC would have almost no coverage of GM vehicles at all. I have my doubts that TTAC readers would want us to limit our reviews to Corvettes and a few specialty GM cars, while avoiding the cars that sell the most.
213Cobra: Much better vehicles are superceding it within GM.
If you peruse TTAC’s reviews of GM vehicles, virtually every GM vehicle currently on the market has already been tested. Some, such as the Enclave and Corvette, have been reviewed in differing configurations and/or have been reviewed at least twice.
When the G8 is released, I have no doubt that TTAC will review that, too. But it isn’t here now, and if you want to buy a full-sized Pontiac sedan today, the Grand Prix is currently the only choice you’ve got.
213Cobra
We’re currently on schedule to be 400 million before 2040, and perhaps half a billion by 2100 if immigration holds up. As much as that alarms some people, we can easily accommodate that population. About 80% of our population currently lives on 2% of our land, hence the sense of overcrowding in certain centers. We’ll perhaps have to build a national water distribution system, and stop the knuckle-headed madness of allocating land and water for corn-based fuel.
Actually we’re on track for almost half a billion by 2050. You’re certainly correct about land and water for corn-based fuel. I predicted the rise in the cost of food that’s been seen because of this fully 28 years ago in Solar Age Magazine. But do you really think corn-based ethanol is a problem, but trying to produce food for twice as many people as we have now is not? It’s all agriculture. And it’s all fueled by petroleum. With the likelihood that we’re about to pass the point of peak oil in the next 10 years, it’s really scary that people aren’t worried about how this is going to affect th cost of food.
Your comment about occupying 2% of the land is a vast oversimplification. We occupy every road, farm, city, commercial forest, and reservoir even if people do not physically cover them most of the time. Roads, cities, and farms, for example, are barriers to many of the creatures we share the earth with; they change ecological factors, albedo, etc.
Your comment about water distribution is a bunch of hand waving. Much of the US, including the great plains, and much of the area from the eastern slopes of the rockies to the west coast simply doesn’t have enough water to support a lot of people. We have been mining the Ogalalla aquifer, the main source of water from Texas to the Dakotas and eastern Montana for years, and it’s ever shrinking, and there’s no way you could have huge numbers of inhabitants. The Colorado does’t make it to the ocean anymore–all the water has been taken before it gets there.
Furthermore, modeling of the greenhouse effect indicates that much of the US is likely to become afflicted by drought most of the time.
Finally, we use more resources per capita than any other country. The US is the worst place in the world for population growth because of this. We also produce more greenhouse emissions than any other country–six times as much as Mexico, the source of half of all immigration. (One out of every seven Mexican workers works in the US.) Besides causing drought in much of the US the gh effect is likely to wreak havoc with agriculture, bring tropical diseases north, etc., and if the US keeps growing, it will only be worse. Yes, it would be great to have all that solar electricity, and it will probably happen eventually, but allowing the US population to explode because you expect technology to save the day is like the family that gets in hock to credit card companies because they assume their income will grow.
Adrian : If I,m not mistaken,and I just might be,the Grand Prix stops production in Oshawa on Nov.30/07.
Now maybe a US plant will pick it up?I don’t know.
I do know that the review was not fair.For the record the G.P in Canada is a good bang for the buck.Yeah I gotta agree its a little ugly,but so is a Camry.
You know if a guy didn’t have a lot of cash,and needed a good car,a new or gently used a GP would be a great buy.
Lots of space big trunk,a proven and reliable engine.
But no, TTAC kicked the crap out of it.IMHO for no other reason than its a G.M.
RF I,m under the impression that we are still in a “fire at will” mode.Cause I know that the last comment crossed the line at TTAC.
mikey :
You’re good.
The present Grand Prix has an image problem first and foremost. Its probably a reasonable car for what it is, and it probably performs comparable to other comparable vehicles.
The image….
What is the replacement the upcoming G8?
Actually we’re on track for almost half a billion by 2050.
Well, the 400mm by 2040 is in the bag, but the further out we look, the less certainty to the extant vector. To get to half a billion mid century, there’d have to be no reduction in immigration. Factoring out immigration US birthrate is slightly below replacement rate. Either way, we’re getting bigger and almost every other developed country isn’t.
With the likelihood that we’re about to pass the point of peak oil in the next 10 years, it’s really scary that people aren’t worried about how this is going to affect the cost of food.
On peak oil, Daniel Yergin disagrees with you.
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444
Yergin and his Cambridge Energy Research have been consistently close to the mark on their estimates of energy reserves for the past 35 years. Man has pumped 1.2 trillion barrels of oil out of the ground to date. Yergin identifies another 3.7 trillion barrels as recoverable. Since 2004, others have expanded that estimate. We won’t pass peak oil point in the next 10 years. Further, the cost of food is relative, if as a whole we’re rich enough to pay the price. Catastrophe was widely predicted in the 1970s and we saw that instead things can turn out quite differently if we expand economically and find efficiencies.
Of course, we could screw up. Plus, there may be a temporary problem with food production and some other resource constraints caused by population growth, but given the reliability of wealth as birth control, world population will peak in this century and then begin to decline. Unless Yergin turns out to be wrong for the first time, I’m more concerned about water, and regressive soil management in agriculture. Growing corn — a water-intensive and soil-depleting crop — for fuel is bone-headed. This is a policy error. Sure, Brazil has a mass sugar cane business in wet areas and they can ferment the biomass. It’s there either way. But us growing corn for ethanol? For the first time, I agree with Fidel Castro. Corn as fuel in the US will displace food production and is an immoral response to the problem. Moreover, because of subsidies, for the first time in decades, farmers are planting corn without crop rotation. That’s bad for soil management. Further still, there isn’t enough arable land for ethanol to be a major fuel source. The ratio of water and harvest needed to yield just one tank of “gas” is too extreme for that to work. We need to kill this ethanol subsidy and if Brazil has a surplus to sell, and if we want it in the fuel mix, let’s buy some from them.
Your comment about occupying 2% of the land is a vast oversimplification. We occupy every road, farm, city, commercial forest, and reservoir even if people do not physically cover them most of the time. Roads, cities, and farms, for example, are barriers to many of the creatures we share the earth with; they change ecological factors, albedo, etc.
It’s not an oversimplification, it’s fact. I didn’t say we don’t USE more of our territory to support people who live on 2% of our land. We can accommodate our projected growth, in terms of having a comfortable population density compared to most countries.
Reservoirs can be expanded, and we should build more. Forests in the US have expanded dramatically since 1900 (the end of the great continental clear-cut for agriculture) and there’s still room for more. The changes imposed by man’s alterations of the surface ecology have consequences. We’ve learned to tread more lightly than, say, 60 years ago. We drive a point of economic growth on less than half the energy we needed for same 35 years ago. But we’re getting more people and therefore it’s just a simple reality that our footprint will expand. Whose problem would you rather have, and which location would you prefer to manage it in, ours or China’s?
Your comment about water distribution is a bunch of hand waving. Much of the US, including the great plains, and much of the area from the eastern slopes of the rockies to the west coast simply doesn’t have enough water to support a lot of people. We have been mining the Ogalalla aquifer, the main source of water from Texas to the Dakotas and eastern Montana for years, and it’s ever shrinking, and there’s no way you could have huge numbers of inhabitants. The Colorado does’t make it to the ocean anymore–all the water has been taken before it gets there.
Hand waving? We haven’t been imaginative enough for solving our local water problems. In toto, the US gets a vast amount of rain, and eastern rivers shoot huge amounts of water straight to the ocean. We don’t capture nearly enough run-off, either. We could tap and store rivers in the east during the winter when they are high. We store and distribute oil, gas, gasoline, aviation fuel, natural gas, LP, etc. There is no reason we couldn’t or shouldn’t capture more water, store, manage and distribute for national needs. This would allow reduced demand on various overdrawn aquifers. It would be a vast infrastructure project, which would be good for everyone. We have the means to ameliorate local persistent shortages of water relative to demand, and we can must pollute the groundwater we have, progressively less.
Further, we’re not going to have a population surge in the Great Plains. That area is emptying. It’s the SunBelt, some spots in the already dense northeast, and of course California, that are going to get most of the 100mm coming. The East gets a surplus of water and doesn’t manage what’s available from its rivers. There’s too little storage. Same with the northwest. We can reduce demands on the Colorado and the Ogalalla, but we have to think bigger about water supply & distribution, and invest in the solution. We do it on a regional level, e.g. moving water to SoCal and expanding local storage; feeding NYC from upstate, Boston from mid-state. Expanding the scope of our problem-solving vision from hundreds to thousands of miles is only inhibited by imagination and will.
Furthermore, modeling of the greenhouse effect indicates that much of the US is likely to become afflicted by drought most of the time.
Chinese climate researchers are already modeling a cooling trend beginning within 20 years. No one knows whether they will be right, but since the current climate models don’t explain past warm periods, we shouldn’t have much confidence in the current alarmism either. The idea of anthropogenic climate change is conjecture and likely incorrect. We do know we’re getting warmer now. We do know that there is simultaneous climate warming occurring on Earth, Mars and Uranus now, and we do know that fossil fuel combustion is not the common thread between planets in the solar system. Also, the largest greenhouse gas contributors are all natural and it’s conservative to say they dwarf man’s piddling contribution. In any case, if the anthropogenic warming alarmists are correct or if the sun is in a long-term rise in irradiance, then what’s going to happen is going to happen, and we should be focusing our wealth on coping rather than hand-wringing. Neither is likely the case. But if so, drought is the tap on the shoulder to think about water continentally and get busy. Rising sea levels are a nudge to change our coastal development policies for new construction and get busy building sea walls where appropriate. The Dutch do it. What’s stopping us?
Finally, we use more resources per capita than any other country. The US is the worst place in the world for population growth because of this. We also produce more greenhouse emissions than any other country–six times as much as Mexico, the source of half of all immigration. (One out of every seven Mexican workers works in the US.) Besides causing drought in much of the US the gh effect is likely to wreak havoc with agriculture, bring tropical diseases north, etc., and if the US keeps growing, it will only be worse. Yes, it would be great to have all that solar electricity, and it will probably happen eventually, but allowing the US population to explode because you expect technology to save the day is like the family that gets in hock to credit card companies because they assume their income will grow.
Ah, but we use less per capita, and per unit of economic growth, than we used to. The US gets more and more efficient. The US is going to keep growing. That’s a fact, so all the ifs are irrelevant. In percentage terms, going from 300mm to 400mm and then 400mm to 500mm is not an explosion; it’s just growth, and some of it displaces growth that would happen elsewhere at higher rates if everyone stayed home. WEALTH REDUCES birthrates. It always has, and always will. Expanding economic opportunity and development is the surest way to moderating the population of people.
It’s not just technology that saves the day. Technology is merely a tool, and only one. What saves the day is imagination. Have some confidence! I do know that every catastrophe projected as certainty in my lifetime has failed to materialize. Mass famine, nuclear war, nuclear winter, global cooling, currency collapse, severe depletion of oil, runaway inflation, runaway deflation, killer bees, pandemics, etc. There are always problems. It’s what we do to solve them that counts.
The US is getting more people, and there is nothing you or I can do to change that. We as a nation can tamp immigration and reduce the growth curve several decades out. But there will be 400 million of us before mid-century. Let’s accept that and get started on making room. And here’s a tip: water, not carbon contribution, is the environmental problem worth our immediate attention.
Phil
TTAC has superb comments. They’re often better and more insightful than the articles.
If TTAC want to keep it this way, they should ban the ubiquitous non-argument which basically says: “shut-up; you’re not allowed an opinion on this”. Let’s call it SUYANAAOOT for short.
SUYANAAOOT is so common in public discourse that we hardly notice that it’s not an argument at all. It’s a dodge of the argument/proposition and an attack, all rolled into one childish package. It comes in many guises:
“…He can’t talk, their cars are crap…”
“…He can’t talk, he lives in big house…”
“…He can’t talk, he’s rich…”
“…He can’t talk, he’s poor…”
“…He can’t talk, his teeth are yellow…”
…and so on, ad nauseam (emphasis on the nauseam).
When I hear SUYANAAOOT, I find it useful to think: “Who is it that is uniquely positioned to have an opinion this?”. Usually it is no-one and everyone. Then I think about their argument or proposition. It’s a refreshing antidote to our tendency to confuse SUYANAAOOT for thinking and discussion.
Who knows, the interesting/crap ratio of TTAC comments might go through the roof.
Oh, and if you disagrees with me on this, it’s because you’re stupid. :-)
cheers
Malcolm
Cobra
In percentage terms, going from 300mm to 400mm and then 400mm to 500mm is not an explosion; it’s just growth, and some of it displaces growth that would happen elsewhere at higher rates if everyone stayed home. WEALTH REDUCES birthrates. It always has, and always will.
In fact, Mexicans have more children when they come here than when they stay home. And again, they consume like Americans when they come here, and they consume like Mexicans when they stay home. And again, they represent about half of all immigration. The rest of the main countries contributing to mass immigration have even smaller per capita consumption.
I do know that every catastrophe projected as certainty in my lifetime has failed to materialize. Mass famine, nuclear war, nuclear winter, global cooling, currency collapse, severe depletion of oil, runaway inflation, runaway deflation, killer bees, pandemics, etc. There are always problems. It’s what we do to solve them that counts.
And, by the way, John Holdren, last year’s head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had already been worrying about global warming for a number of years in 1974, the year that the global cooling thing hit the papers. (I know because I was taking his class.) He was not worried about global cooling then, and he is still very worried about warming now. He is the one who says 3 degrees of warming will send agriculture into a tailspin, and I trust him the way you trust Yergin
Again, you can live within your means, or you can risk catastrophe. I prefer the conservative approach. And yes, imagination is great, but I will believe the fruit of it when I see it.
The US is getting more people, and there is nothing you or I can do to change that. We as a nation can tamp immigration and reduce the growth curve several decades out. But there will be 400 million of us before mid-century. Let’s accept that and get started on making room. And here’s a tip: water, not carbon contribution, is the environmental problem worth our immediate attention.
There are in fact things that I am doing about it. I’m one of about 3/4 of a million bipartisan members of NumbersUSA who stopped the Bush-Kennedy amnesty from taking place, and I intend to keep doing what I can to lobby for population stabilization.
I agree water is a big problem, but I think global heating is potentially a lot worse.
Chinese modelers talking about cooling? I know from Holdren that the Chinese are very worried about global heating becuase they are feeling the effects more than we are. Warming on Mars and Uranus? What about Venus, Jupiter, and the asteroid belt?
Cobra,
I do agree with you completely about corn-based ethanol, and buying from Brazil. And if Yergin says so, maybe we won’t reach peak oil in the next ten years.
But there are only problems, not benefits to be reaped from having more people in the US. Environmental burden = per capita consumption, pollution, etc., X population.
We are a sovereign nation with the power to control immigration, and to use incentives to modify native growth, and a lot of the problems people complain most about are due to population: sprawl, traffic, housing prices, etc.
You mention that we have lessened our footprint. True! In fact, due to enlightened policies enacted after the oil embargoes of the ’70s, Californians consume only 2/3s as much energy per capita as the rest of the country. Nonetheless, their overall energy consumption has not dropped, because their population has boomed.
213Cobra: But WE ARE interested, and part of our job here as more knowledgeable and informed automotive mavens is to help educate those less wrapped up in our enthusiasms, but nevertheless interested in our guidance or perspective.
And after all is said and done, the final question for most people will be, “Which is better, the Accord or the (Impala, Grand Prix, Sebring, etc.)?”
And the answer most likely will be the Accord.
If we are telling them otherwise, we aren’t educating them, we are misleading them.
213Cobra: No, I don’t buy that. It is easier to upsize than to go down. Supersizing the idea of a Japanese sedan was much less of a challenge than downsizing the American idea. This is generally true in business. Moreover, incrementally growing your customer base from marginal to mainstream is easier moving from mainstream to a fractured market made up of the former marginals. The winner that’s hit a wall always has a tougher time than the upstart that is happy relentlessly finding 3% more new customers per year, over decades.
It’s not a matter of the business growing larger. It’s a matter of the each business growing its sales by building a new and unfamiliar type of vehicle. The challenge faced by the Japanese was just as difficult as that faced by the Big Three, especially since the Big Three HAD a customer base that would be willing to try its new products.
In 1970, Chevy and Ford each had a loyal customer base that would be favorably disposed to consider a subcompact made by those divisions.
Over the next decade, they would proceed to blow it, although in different ways.
213Cobra: Between 1992 – 1996, the Ford Taurus was the best-selling car in the US. It wasn’t the 1990 Accord and 1992 Camry that dethroned it. The Taurus’ downfall was the combination of its prior success prompting Honda to enlarge the Accord and Ford’s own missteps with the 1996 redesign.
By 1992, the Taurus was already relying heavily on fleet sales and big incentives to move the metal, thus devaluing the nameplate (it became a “bargain basement” vehicle in its segment) and setting the pattern for Detroit in the coming years.
When the all-new 1996 model debuted, Ford tried to move it back upscale, but people were so used to the car being sold with rebates and incentives, that it could not do so. The controversial styling didn’t make Ford’s job any easier.
Nor did the rampant problems with the 1992-95 models, which included automatic transmissions that grenaded at about 50,000 miles, head gaskets that failed on the 3.8 V-6 with alarming regularity, air conditioning compressors that gave up the ghost just out of warranty, and defective motor mounts.
213Cobra: A Fusion is easily more engaging to drive than a Camry. Ditto for the new Taurus with the upgraded 3.5L. So is a G6 if optioned to.
The Fusion? Agree.
The Taurus? Can’t agree – it’s basically the same idea as the Camry, with a bigger trunk and more “European” styling. And note that Ford has retuned the new Taurus (as compared to the Five Hundred) for a softer ride. It’s certainly competitive than the Camry, but I can’t say that it’s more engaging to drive.
The G6? Another GM case of the final product being less than the sum of its parts.
213Cobra: Yes, but the build differences are narrowing and Cadillac has some advantages. The differences in platforms do not inhibit my ability to enjoy specific cars. The V cars have much in common in terms of driving experience, despite platform variances.
The differences in sources for various platforms make it virtually impossible to give Cadillac a strong brand identity based on performance and driving characteristics.
If you assembled the entire BMW lineup, removed all of the badges and identifying trim, and then allowed people to drive them, I would bet that virtually every driver could tell that these vehicles are built by the same company.
It would be the same with the Mercedes lineup.
The same could not be said for Cadillac.
213Cobra: I’m not advocating patriotism as a reason to buy. It’s self-interest. There’s more to a healthy human economy and political system than capital efficiency. I don’t see differences in plastics as an indicator of “superior” product.
You may not, but other people do, and it’s their money. People spend lots of time in their vehicle’s interior, and they want it to look and feel like it’s worth the money they paid.
213 Cobra: If plastics prove not to be durable, then yes. But otherwise it is just a difference in aesthetic choice.
Not necessarily, it’s a difference in feel as well.
And please note that Harley Earl (and later Bill Mitchell) played a key role in building the GM empire by catering to aesthetic choices of customers.
In the free market, if customers are choosing a product or attribute and voting with their dollars, it’s the responsibility of competitors to either match the competition or offer something better, not tell them that they don’t need to worry about this feature, or that their choice is “wrong.”
213Cobra: There is real long-term economic value to buying the best that they have, now. I am positing that their most competitive models are fully justifiable as purchases, and in the context of them truly running out of time, the minor differences between their best and equivalent imports is not worth jeopardizing domestic economic vitality. We can communicate the imperative to improve by staying away from their uncompetitive models.
The problem is that too many of their models aren’t competitive. GM, for example, can’t survive if people just buy the Cadillac CTS, Acadia/Outlook/Enclave, Siverado/Sierra, Tahoe/Suburban/Denali/Escalade, Aura, Vue, Avalanche and Corvette.
So, if we truthfully tell people to stay away from the uncompetitive models, GM is still up the river.
Are we really going to tell people to buy a Grand Prix? A Cobalt?!
213Cobra: That’s why we had an SVT Contour in the family and now have a Cadillac CTS-V.
The Contour SVT was a great idea, but Ford took the typical beancounter route and dropped it, as opposed to bringing out a second-generation version with the faults addressed and the strong points continued (as, say, Honda or BMW would do).
The Cadillac CTS-V is a nice car, but it is priced beyond the family sedand market.
213Cobra: There are enough blind import buyers whose real criteria for acceptance in a car purchase would be fully met by a domestic offering. Swinging that coterie to the Detroit 3 would restore sustainability to their market and buy the time to complete their competitive transition.
If people are satisfied with their Toyota or Honda, there is no reason for them to switch, just as there is no reason for satisfied Chevy owners to switch.
Plus, the days of the Big Three having the majority of the market are over. The American market is evolving in the direction of the European one, where 6-7 companies duke it out for largely similar market shares. No one company will dominate, as GM did in the U.S. from 1940 to 1985. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai are here to stay in the “mass market,” while BMW and Mercedes will stay at the high end.
GM, Ford, Chrysler and the UAW will have to adapt to survive.
David Holzman: The French just want their culture to remain French. Is that xenophobic?
You originally suggested that the U.S. is “xenophobic” because of the Freedom Fries issue (which I agree was silly).
That, in my book is no different than Jack Lang getting worked up about the influence of American movies, or trying to keep all anglicized words out of common use in France. If anything, the French effort is more systematic and organized.
The French can do what they want. I don’t care. It’s their country.
But let’s not suggest that Americans are gripped by some sort of special close-minded attitude because of one (admittedly silly) flap over the naming of various food products.
The simple fact is that our culture is far more open than the cultures of European countries, and accusing Americans of xenophobia, especially compared to other countries, just doesn’t hold water.
David Holzman: The US is being invaded by people from south of the border, and despite my liberal soul, I find myself feeling angry every time I hear Para Espanol, marquez le 2 on the voice mail.
Yes, but the last time I checked, it isn’t just George W. Bush advocating a more open border policy than I would like.
I seem to recall that, when (Republican) California Governor Pete Wilson tried to crack down on illegal immigration and championed a tougher approach to immigration issues in the 1990s, the Democrats were happy to oppose him to gain the loyalty of the Hispanic voting block.
And everytime someone raises the issue, either through articles or by passing laws and ordinances, the cries of “racism” result from various activist groups, and, if laws are passed, the ACLU sues.
Again, last time I checked, activist groups and the ACLU don’t exactly have the reputation of being Republican-leaning organizations.
David Holzman: I lived in France, and people treated me well. But I learned French, and I acted like a guest in their country. There were an awful lot of Americans in France who acted more like they owned the place, and so it doesn’t surprise me that many of them don’t like Americans. Yet, in 2002, a large group of French people came to the US, drove their Citroen Traction Avants (a car from the first half of the last century) across the country, stopping in cities everywhere to thank US war veterans for liberating their country.
David, I have nothing against France or the French. I just used them as an example to show that the U.S. is not especially xenophobic compared to other countries.
Although anyone who suffered through ownership of a Renault Alliance or Encore can be forgiven for questioning the automobile-engineering skills of the French…
213Cobra: President Bush behaves as if the rest of the world is of no consequence. No wonder a lot of people hate us. It’s a damn shame, especially after the sympathy we got after 9-11.
Again, they hated us long before President Bush came to office, and a fair amount of the sympathy after 9/11 came attached to some barbed comments.
As someone mentioned above, these tensions have their roots in issues that were in place long before January 1, 2001.
And, quite frankly, the anti-Americanism of some Europeans serves as a nice substitute for addressing big issues that they have been avoiding for decades.
David Holzman: True! In fact, due to enlightened policies enacted after the oil embargoes of the ’70s, Californians consume only 2/3s as much energy per capita as the rest of the country.
And I wonder how much of that advantage comes because of their climate.
San Diego, for example, enjoys mild weather all year. On New Year’s Day 2006, I enjoyed an outdoor brunch on the porch of the Hotel Coronado. Think that happens in Pittsburgh on New Year’s Day very often?
When in Los Angeles, we didn’t have to wear coats at all during the week between Christmas and New Year’s Day. Think that happens often ANYWHERE in Pennsylvania during that week?
I’ll bet Pennsylvania’s energy per capita use would drop dramatically, too, if residents of one major metropolitan area basically didn’t have to heat and cool their homes, or no one needed heat in December or January.
I’m all for energy efficiency. My wife and I are looking for a new house next year, and you’d better believe that low heating and cooling bills will be at the time of our concerns.
But I’m not giving up effective heating or central air conditioning to be “green.” We don’t live in San Diego.
Geeber,
San Diego certainly has a big advantage on heating bills, but California is more than San Diego, and a lot of the country doesn’t suffer from the miserable winters of the rust belt and the northeast. California reduced per capita energy use a lot after the oil embargoes, even if not as much as the 2/3s implies.
I’m probably just as pissed off as you with the ACLU for blocking the Hazelton ordinance, and the various activist groups that cry racism. I don’t care what party they are.
213Cobra: President Bush behaves as if the rest of the world is of no consequence. No wonder a lot of people hate us. It’s a damn shame, especially after the sympathy we got after 9-11.
WHOA…look carefully, I didn’t write that!
I’ll bet Pennsylvania’s energy per capita use would drop dramatically, too, if residents of one major metropolitan area basically didn’t have to heat and cool their homes, or no one needed heat in December or January.
I’m all for energy efficiency. My wife and I are looking for a new house next year, and you’d better believe that low heating and cooling bills will be at the time of our concerns.
I’m from Pennsylvania, spent 10 years in New England and now live in California. Everywhere in the US, economic growth is driven by less energy use than it was 35 years ago, regardless of regional variances in how and why energy is used. My personal experience confirms this.
And after all is said and done, the final question for most people will be, “Which is better, the Accord or the (Impala, Grand Prix, Sebring, etc.)?”
And the answer most likely will be the Accord.
If we are telling them otherwise, we aren’t educating them, we are misleading them.
That’s the narrow view. The real question is, if a vendor with more economic leverage with respect to your prolonged self interest has a good vehicle within a general trend of progressively improved competitiveness, is the slender advantage of a specific model available now from a vendor that erodes your prolonged self-interest worth the nod in your purchasing decision? I say no, or at least maybe not. We are not misleading people by recommending a decision based on a more holistic view of their interests.
The differences in sources for various platforms make it virtually impossible to give Cadillac a strong brand identity based on performance and driving characteristics.
If you assembled the entire BMW lineup, removed all of the badges and identifying trim, and then allowed people to drive them, I would bet that virtually every driver could tell that these vehicles are built by the same company.
It would be the same with the Mercedes lineup.
The same could not be said for Cadillac.
Today, this is an issue. I am saying it is far smaller than you claim and that the platform diversity does not preclude enjoying Cadillacs, nor in evaluating any one as competitive. I nevertheless expect the product development path at Cadillac to progressively address this. In the meantime, I’ll buy.
The problem is that too many of their models aren’t competitive. GM, for example, can’t survive if people just buy the Cadillac CTS, Acadia/Outlook/Enclave, Siverado/Sierra, Tahoe/Suburban/Denali/Escalade, Aura, Vue, Avalanche and Corvette.
So, if we truthfully tell people to stay away from the uncompetitive models, GM is still up the river.
Are we really going to tell people to buy a Grand Prix? A Cobalt?!
They can survive if enough of these vehicles are sold, and the resulting revenue is used to expand the line for more vehicles of that competitive ilk. Meanwhile, for some people, a Cobalt or a GP are perfectly good cars at the prices they can buy them for today. The market isn’t all like us.
If people are satisfied with their Toyota or Honda, there is no reason for them to switch, just as there is no reason for satisfied Chevy owners to switch.
Plus, the days of the Big Three having the majority of the market are over. The American market is evolving in the direction of the European one, where 6-7 companies duke it out for largely similar market shares. No one company will dominate, as GM did in the U.S. from 1940 to 1985. Toyota, Honda, Nissan and Hyundai are here to stay in the “mass market,” while BMW and Mercedes will stay at the high end.
There’s reason to switch if alternatives are good enough and people are looking at the total impact of their purchase. As individuals we have much more leverage than we give ourselves credit for, if we raise our eyes and look beyond the product in front of us.
I want a diverse market, and ours is the most open in autodom. But I don’t want existential threats to our domestic companies. I don’t want market regulation to protect them either. I want enlightened consumers to holistically understand that buying the best of the domestics has real prolonged value to the economy in which they raise their children. I don’t believe a Camry or a Tundra, Mercedes C or E, BMW 7, Nissan Titan or Lexus SUV or many other examples have any material meaningful advantage over the best domestic counterparts, to overcome the larger interest. In some cases the gap is great enough to give the nod elsewhere. But enough of the import market share could move to domestics while fully satisfying customer needs and wants, except possibly the social drag of having to “explain” your choice to others who are primarily peer-driven in their purchasing.
It’s not a matter of the business growing larger. It’s a matter of the each business growing its sales by building a new and unfamiliar type of vehicle. The challenge faced by the Japanese was just as difficult as that faced by the Big Three, especially since the Big Three HAD a customer base that would be willing to try its new products.
My reference to upsizing being easier than downsizing wasn’t a reference to company or business size, but to upsizing and downsizing of product in the car business.
GM, Ford, Chrysler and the UAW will have to adapt to survive.
True.
Phil
Mexicans have more children when they come here than when they stay home. And again, they consume like Americans when they come here, and they consume like Mexicans when they stay home. And again, they represent about half of all immigration. The rest of the main countries contributing to mass immigration have even smaller per capita consumption.
And yet the Latina birthrate for Mexican immigrants is lower here for that population than is Mexico’s. Your claim is just not true. The fact that someone comes here and “consumes like Americans” is OK with me. That means they’re doing better, likely to be recycling more, driving a cleaner-emitting vehicle, harboring less disease, getting educated formally or informally, and generally becoming more productive. Our consumption is adaptive and market forces will induce adjustments if necessary. I know of no experience from history where making people poorer accomplished anything positive, whereas the progressive consequences of wealth creation have been reliably beneficial.
And, by the way, John Holdren, last year’s head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had already been worrying about global warming for a number of years in 1974, the year that the global cooling thing hit the papers.
Holdren might prove correct, might not. The evidence isn’t trending his way. But man-induced CO2 release isn’t going to be the determinate. Venus, by the way, might be warming. We do have empirical data from Earth, Mars and Uranus, including solar reflection corresponding to increased solar output.
By the way, here’s a link to a document detailing the reasons for an internationally dispersed group of scientists retracting their prior support for the idea of anthropogenic cause to climate change:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42
You don’t have to agree with them, but the diversity of expertise combined with the consistency of their reasons for loss of confidence in their prior conclusions, is a solid indicator that the facts are breaking down the alleged “consensus” on AGW.
As for cooling, Russian, Chinese and American scientists are spotting a change. Interested in cooling in 6 – 9 years?
http://www.breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=26240
How about a forecast for protracted cooling due to a solar weak period?
http://planetdaily.ws/index.php/site/more/77/
There are hundreds more, and incidence of this view in Google query results is increasing. I am looking for the Chinese study released earlier this year, and will amend this post when I find it.
Point is, we have multiple natural phenomena at work, some of which will balance each other out and all of which dwarf any small effects man might have. The sun is the overriding factor and we don’t control its output at all. If global cooling materializes, I am sure many people will be looking for what we did to cause it. Let’s understand that our comprehension of causality in climate on a planetary basis is primitive and not actionable. We are much better off being responsive to the results we must cope with.
I intend to keep doing what I can to lobby for population stabilization.
That’s your political right. Go ahead. We’re still going to add 100mm people or more.
Phil
“When the all-new 1996 model debuted, Ford tried to move it back upscale,….”
The 1996 redesign of the Taurus was first and foremost a design and engineering disaster. The design team got the crazy idea in their head that ovals everywhere would make a cool theme. They ended up making the back seat and trunk less useful than they had been on the previous design and came out with a weird looking car, complete with a weird radio and hvac control panel. Sales began to dive immediately after the new version came out. This is a clear case where an ill-conceived redesign of a best seller killed the product. Tactical marketing issues like incentives and fleet sales played a role, but the real killer was the botched redo.
Another thing the original Taurus had was a bunch of neat little surprise features that were useful. The second visor under the main visor so that you could block sun from both the front and side comes to mind. Over time the bean counter mentality killed these little features.
That said, the current Camry is also plug ugly and that doesn’t seem to be hurting it’s sales, but I’m not a Camry kind of guy in the first place.
213 Cobra: As individuals we have much more leverage than we give ourselves credit for, if we raise our eyes and look beyond the product in front of us.
Its surprising and almost shocking how most individuals use technology to talk about the product, and not empower themselves towards the manufacturers of the product. The individual gets lost in the trees and misses the forest.
geeber:If you assembled the entire BMW lineup, removed all of the badges and identifying trim, and then allowed people to drive them, I would bet that virtually every driver could tell that these vehicles are built by the same company.
It would be the same with the Mercedes lineup.
They don’t all drive the same, these manufacturers make a clear distinction between the low line, mid line, and high line offerings, the low line cars are a lot tinnier in feel than the high line cars. The low line cars in North America are destined to a price / incentive driven market segment.
The Europeans are very protective of their domestic manufacturers, wether the product is good or not, wether the competition as better offerings or not. Many of these manufacturers flopped miserably in North America years before the Japanese.
The resurgence of Fiat (the 2B from GM helped)is partially based on “redoing the past” and re awakening old names and models.
In North America there is a lot of “churning” going on with lower line vehicles, were product loyalty is 50% at best. Yes they do switch, over anything, and everything the incentives and promotions are not there to only push unsaleable metal.
There is increased product loyalty with higher line cars, than low line cars.
213cobra writes great posts. Give him a blog! Heck, give him the New York Times!
5O merc:213cobra does indeed write great posts.
My take. . . Yes, TTAC is unfair.
It was coverage of the Tesla Roadster that really drove it home to me. It came across as nothing less than a vindictive smear campaign. TTAC published a lot of negative speculation thinly disguised as journalism, plus a number of claims in those articles that had to later be rescinded as they were shown inaccurate and misleading.
Worst were the claims shown to be wrong that weren’t rescinded. In particular. . . TTAC claimed in August that the Roadster had suffered another delay in its schedule. This was clearly not referring to a new delay, but rather to the transmission change that Tesla had told us about way back in Dec 2006.
When Mr. Farago was challenged to explain the discrepancy, he ignored the question. Instead he announced he was standing by his report — but he made no effort to explain it or provide any sources, justification or explanation.
That’s unfair.
And yet the Latina birthrate for Mexican immigrants is lower here for that population than is Mexico’s. Your claim is just not true.
Yours is not true. The birthrate of Mexican immigrants is about 3.1. The birthrate in Mexico is about 2.6.
The fact that someone comes here and “consumes like Americans” is OK with me. That means they’re doing better, likely to be recycling more, driving a cleaner-emitting vehicle, harboring less disease, getting educated formally or informally, and generally becoming more productive.
That would be fine with me if the world weren’t using resources at a well-beyond sustainable level.
I know of no experience from history where making people poorer accomplished anything positive, whereas the progressive consequences of wealth creation have been reliably beneficial.
And mass immigration makes the most deprived US workers poorer. From 1980-1995, the wages of US citizens who had not completed high school dropped by 30%; half of that was due to mass immigration according to the US National Academy of Sciences.
If you want to help the Mexicans, or citizens of other deprived countries help themselves and their countries, go to kiva.com and participate in microlending. Our taking in a couple million from those countries annually does nothing to help the people left behind, including the 80 million born into poverty every year.
(Me) And, by the way, John Holdren, last year’s head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science had already been worrying about global warming for a number of years in 1974, the year that the global cooling thing hit the papers.
Holdren might prove correct, might not. The evidence isn’t trending his way. But man-induced CO2 release isn’t going to be the determinate. Venus, by the way, might be warming. We do have empirical data from Earth, Mars and Uranus, including solar reflection corresponding to increased solar output.
The sun’s contribution to the current warming is quite small according to Holdren. The physics behind anthropogenic warming is indisputable. Holdren, among many other things, is a man of exceptional integrity.
By the way, here’s a link to a document detailing the reasons for an internationally dispersed group of scientists retracting their prior support for the idea of anthropogenic cause to climate change:
You don’t have to agree with them, but the diversity of expertise combined with the consistency of their reasons for loss of confidence in their prior conclusions, is a solid indicator that the facts are breaking down the alleged “consensus” on AGW.
On the contrary. It’s an example of the law of very large numbers at work. With thousands of scientists working in vaguely relevant areas, as well as truly relevant areas, and the climate change denial machinery on full bore (I have a relative who keeps sending me this sort of stuff), it would be surprising if you couldn’t find a dozen people with these kinds of views.
Furthermore, some of these people have platforms that aren’t really relevant to climate. Hans J.J. Labohm is an author and economist. He’s described in the Morano posting as a scientist, but unless Morano has forgotten to tell us what his other PhD is in (I’m assuming since he’s described as an economist, that’s where his PhD, if, indeed, he has that), he’s not an authority.
When the peer-reviewed journal articles start suggesting that humans are not causing climate change, I’ll believe it.
TTAC claimed in August that the Roadster had suffered another delay in its schedule. This was clearly not referring to a new delay, but rather to the transmission change that Tesla had told us about way back in Dec 2006.
Tony,
Granted I didn’t write the Tesla article(s) but reading your comment leaves me puzzled. What’s wrong with reporting “another delay” even if it was last year?
It was still a delay, right?
Counterpoint editorials (factual rebuttals) are usually welcomed here, so go ahead and un-spin what you don’t like. GM was given this offer (maybe its a standing offer) and they have declined.
If Robert let me write for this place, he’ll let anybody sound off. :)
The point is. . . Farago reported it as *another* delay, a second delay, a new delay. There was no second delay. There was no new delay, no slippage from the schedule that everyone had already been familiar with for eight months.
TTAC wasn’t the only blog site to incorrectly report a second delay in the roadster schedule. Even the New York Times has reported it incorrectly. My gripe is Farago’s refusal to acknowledge or correct his mistake after it was pointed out.
I see your point. (sorry, I haven’t done the research to say anything else) But I was expecting a little more to justify your first post. Like this comment:
Worst were the claims shown to be wrong that weren’t rescinded.
What other claims? Might as well air them all out since Robert published this editorial.
FYI: I asked a GM public relations person to debate me on the financial facts of the GM Death Watch and where we got it wrong–I was actually trying to start a dialog–and I was met with a blank face and dead silence. Deafening silence, in fact.
The birthrate of Mexican immigrants is about 3.1. The birthrate in Mexico is about 2.6.
I found figures similar to this on a web site advocating immigration control. I also found other figures elsewhere that show different data. The hard part is knowing the birthrate per woman among the illegal immigrant population, since we don’t know how many illegal immigrant women there are. Where I do see agreement is on the Mexican birthrate. The immigrant case looks murkier. But let’s go with your assumption there is a verifiable gap for now. If that population gets on a wealth ramp — and they largely are — this will take care of itself.
That would be fine with me if the world weren’t using resources at a well-beyond sustainable level.
The old “Era of Limits” handwringing again. 35 years ago we were projected to be in famine and out of oil by now. Worry less, please. We have a lot of waste still to wring out of global consumption. American distributional efficiency spread elsewhere by itself can solve alot of problems associated with alleged “unsustainability.” We only have to manage another 3 billion people before population peaks. We’ll get through it.
And mass immigration makes the most deprived US workers poorer. From 1980-1995, the wages of US citizens who had not completed high school dropped by 30%; half of that was due to mass immigration according to the US National Academy of Sciences.
If you want to help the Mexicans, or citizens of other deprived countries help themselves and their countries, go to kiva.com and participate in microlending. Our taking in a couple million from those countries annually does nothing to help the people left behind, including the 80 million born into poverty every year.
We have a competitive system that doesn’t guarantee income short of welfare. Immigration has resulted in a net increase in domestic wealth, but some people fall behind if they are not willing to climb the ladder. I do agree that helping countries help themselves is the first line of defense against our country carrying too much of the load for the world’s ambitious, but people who have the gumption to seek a better way are generally going to keep looking for a way into the places that foster success. I already do participate in micro-lending and have been for over 20 years. Before that I have done the equivalent via personal connections and I’ve been a Peace Corps volunteer.
I’ve slept on a dirt floor of a hut and woken with a rat on my chest, or gone to sleep feeling the tap, tap, tap of flying cockroaches dive-bombing my flesh. I’ve killed my own food on land and sea. I’ve had amoebic dysentery alongside people trying to gain traction in their locale. But you know what? The really determined, the dreamers, the people who refused to be practical, kept their eye on how to get to the US because they were impatient and wanted to get going. Getting to the US is a filter. I now live in Los Angeles and see every day that the “lazy Mexican” is a myth, and Americans made poorer by their presence generally should be looking in the mirror for the reason.
The sun’s contribution to the current warming is quite small according to Holdren. The physics behind anthropogenic warming is indisputable. Holdren, among many other things, is a man of exceptional integrity.
The operative phrase there is “…according to Holdren…” His idea has expert detractors. The physics behind the greenhouse effect are indisputable, but that’s not the same thing as saying the physics of global warming are indisputable. We know of MANY things that warm and cool the climate, but we can’t model their complexity. We do know the planets climate has warmed and cooled on its own. The issue in contention is whether current warming is anthropogenic. People of high integrity disagree with Holdren; whether a majority or minority is irrelevant. Integrity isn’t correlated to being correct scientifically. You’ll notice that the majority of scientists retracting their support for AGW cite inability to correlate carbon content to what’s actually happening, as well as to what’s happened in the past before we (humans) were numerous enough to even be remotely considered a factor.
When the peer-reviewed journal articles start suggesting that humans are not causing climate change, I’ll believe it.
I know that’s your point-of-view. Have patience. Assimilating the continuing stream of new data into written works that go through peer review takes time. Peer review will catch up to the evolving evidence. In any case, I’d much rather see us use our time and wealth to get coping strategies in place for climate change, because climate change in one direction or another is constantly inevitable with or without our presence on the planet.
Phil
Is TTAC biased against US cars? Yes, I believe it is. True, there are occasional words of praise for some US cars, but the website’s overall view of Detroit and its products is overwhelmingly negative.
Sad to say, I too am biased against US cars–not because of any antipathy towards America or Americans, but because of my experience with Fords, Chevys and Chryslers. They cost less to buy than their imported rivals, but the expense of keeping them running more than made up the difference. And come trade-in time, the reputation earned by their shoddy quality translated into heavy depreciation.
Today, cars are generally much more reliable, and the difference on average between better and worse cars has shrunk. Detroit (well, at least Ford and GM) products have improved dramatically. But it takes time for reputation to catch up to reality. “Made in Japan” once had the same connotations as “Made in China” today. It took time for the Japanese to earn their reputation, and it will take time for GM and Ford to re-earn theirs. Customers like me who have been screwed by Detroit will not return so quickly.
Detroit’s current focus on restoring quality is not the only dynamic at work. Carmakers are not monolithic entities. Websites like TTAC that hold Detroit’s feet to the fire are critical to any hope of Detroit’s future success.
I don’t think TTAC is anti-American, I think the site is biased towards General Motors — to gratify your import-oriented readers. If GM ever comes out with a new car or you see they are improving… you decide to review one of their older models (like the Grand Prix) that everyone (who reads other car blogs) already knows the results for. I think overall the site is overtly-depreciating, and you-Robert Farago- don’t know when to give up a grudge against GM. Some of these Death Watches sound as ludicrous as a Rush Limbaugh show. On the other hand, I only read your blog to get mad… so keep it up- I guess?
TTAC is not anti-american. TTAC is anti- low -quality -junk site. they want to explain your choices,why should you pick one car over another. what they skip is family tree, relatives, advertizing bribery and personal preferences. they show american cars as they are. and in most cases they are either good quality because represent nothing else than an amercan logo on an import, or under average, because they are really american. What has it to do with, that america is unable to create a single goddamned sedan platform? we don`t hate american cars, we hate the idle hands that take no attitude in making them. we hate that almost nothing is left that would stand behind american quality in manufacturing field. we are anti low input business. we are anti-unjustified patriotism purchase site. TTAC stands for art of irony for the ones that deserve it. they deride and mock the ones who have no single alibi .well deserved.
I think everyone here loves ( or at least likes a lot ) the site. We like reading about cars and the car industry, and value the insight that TTAC and its contributors lend.
Therefore, I must admit I did get a bit upset by the rebuttal published to the James May article, and the discussions that followed. The article was written as part of his regular series in the motoring section of the Saturday Daily Telegraph in the UK. His brief is very broad, to write pretty much about anything, as long as it is vaguley related to cars but NOT specifically reviewing a car.
James May is a bright, insightful person, with a slight whimsical reserved British studied eccentricity. Yes, he poked fun at certain American habits but, at the end of the day, so what ? There are thousands of articles published every day that do this, and most are far more vitriolic. Is TTAC going to publish a rebuttal to all of these ?
The fact that James May and Telegraph, which targets a certain type of reader, decided to take this route may say something about them. The fact that TTAC felt that it had to launch a similiar styled, and far more vitriolic reply, struck me as stirring things up unnecessarily, just to raise jingoistic debate. The sadder fact that the readers of TTAC rapidly plunged into this with all fist flying…
Can’t we just stick to talking about cars, in a relatively sane and sensible way ? If you want to “discuss” why one country is better than another, or who is to blame for whatever war, then please do it somewhere else….
KatiePutrick: GM will work off some inventory (provided they can find the customers to buy that rubbish) …
When comments such as these go unchallenged and unanswered, then the allegations of bias are prone to fly.
Everyone should take pains to correct commentators on such overgeneralizing comments that lower the level of debate on this forum.
And, for the record, I do believe plenty of customers will be willing to purchase “rubbish” such as the Silverado and Corvette.
anti-american, wow you had to ask?
213Cobra: That’s the narrow view.
It’s the accepted one, based on reviews by various publications – both online publications and old-fashioned print media.
The Accord is either better than the competition or it isn’t.
Since a variety of publications (and remember that Consumer Reports uses different criteria to judge a vehicle than Car & Driver does) are in agreement on how the Accord ranks compared to the domestic competition, I’m inclined to take their word for it.
This is the automobile business, not the first-grade athletic competition. Not everyone deserves a gold star just for showing up.
213Cobra: The real question is, if a vendor with more economic leverage with respect to your prolonged self interest has a good vehicle within a general trend of progressively improved competitiveness, is the slender advantage of a specific model available now from a vendor that erodes your prolonged self-interest worth the nod in your purchasing decision?
Sorry, but Charlie Wilson’s pithy, “What is good for GM is good for America, and vice versa,” is no longer the gospel truth, unless one works for GM or lives in Michigan. It’s not 1955 anymore.
Buying Hondas and Toyotas encourages those companies to increase their design, engineering and production presence in the U.S.
This exposes American workers, businesses and suppliers to new practices and ideas.
For example, Honda and Toyota have a much different method of dealing with suppliers than the Big Three. It would benefit American businesses if these practices spread throughout the country. (Surveys regularly show that suppliers prefer to work with Honda and Toyota, as opposed to one of the Big Three, because of the approach those companies take to dealing with vendors.)
They also have different approaches to developing vehicles, setting CEO pay, and managing worker relations, all of which, quite frankly, American business would benefit by studying and adapting in one form or another.
Given these facts, the “holistic” approach will not necessarily lead to the purchase of a GM, Ford or Chrysler product. The transplants are transforming the way the American automobile industry does business, and it benefits the Big Three and the UAW to adopt those practices. If anything, it benefits all of us if more businesses adopt those practices, as they improve quality.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, the Big Three and the UAW don’t make changes until their backs are against the wall, and even then they change only grudgingly. Your approach only encourages more of the same from the Big Three and the UAW, and lots of us have had enough of that.
Finally, the advantage of the Accord over most of the competition is more than “slender.”
213Cobra: Today, this is an issue. I am saying it is far smaller than you claim and that the platform diversity does not preclude enjoying Cadillacs, nor in evaluating any one as competitive. I nevertheless expect the product development path at Cadillac to progressively address this. In the meantime, I’ll buy.
It hampers the brand’s efforts to forge a strong brand identity. The new CTS looks great, but, unfortunately, if one wants to move up, there is no guarantee that Cadillacs higher up the totem pole will provide the same level of quality and performance relative to the competition.
For example, the build quality of the 2008 CTS is very good, based on the two that the local dealer has on the lot. It is better than anything else in GM’s lineup, and looks to be competitive with foreign offerings. If one wants to buy an Escalade, however, one gets a vehicle that really isn’t any better made than a Tahoe.
213Cobra: There’s reason to switch if alternatives are good enough and people are looking at the total impact of their purchase. As individuals we have much more leverage than we give ourselves credit for, if we raise our eyes and look beyond the product in front of us.
Translation: “We need to look at something else, because the product is either lackluster or uncompetitive.”
Sorry, but Detroit has relied on smoke and mirrors for far too long, and I’m not about to be an enabler.
The final product is either good enough to buy, or it isn’t.
213Cobra: But I don’t want existential threats to our domestic companies.
The main threat to their existence I see is their own arrogance and complacency, which has been successfully exploited by competitors.
213Cobra: I want enlightened consumers to holistically understand that buying the best of the domestics has real prolonged value to the economy in which they raise their children.
I want my children to grow up in an economy that is receptive to new ideas, and rewards excellence, not one that allows excuses to justify mediocre performance.
If a company keeps phoning it in on the product front, it deserves to die, plain and simple.
After all, it was a very famous 1915 Cadillac ad that said, That which deserves to live – lives.”
213Cobra: But enough of the import market share could move to domestics while fully satisfying customer needs and wants, except possibly the social drag of having to “explain” your choice to others who are primarily peer-driven in their purchasing.
And those who buy domestics are not primarily peer-driven in their purchases? Sorry, can’t buy it.
The idea that people who buy Hondas and Toyota are primarily driven by peers to make that purchase, and thus unfairly ignore domestic offering, just doesn’t wash.
Here’s how it usually happens – people either have a bad experience with a domestic, or try a friend’s foreign vehicle, and like it. They buy one, are satisfied, and buy another. That is the way that successful companies grow and prosper. Honda and Toyota follow this plan. The Europeans haven’t been as good at this, primarily because of poorer reliability (hence VW’s problems).
Interestingly, most people I know who won’t drive a domestic have taken that position because of poor experiences with domestics. Meanwhile, those who won’t drive imports have typically never driven one.
Which is more “enlightened,” or at least a determination based on actual experiences, as opposed to prejudices?
213Cobra: My reference to upsizing being easier than downsizing wasn’t a reference to company or business size, but to upsizing and downsizing of product in the car business.
Either way, one is not more difficult than the other.
AGR: They don’t all drive the same, these manufacturers make a clear distinction between the low line, mid line, and high line offerings, the low line cars are a lot tinnier in feel than the high line cars. The low line cars in North America are destined to a price / incentive driven market segment.
Sorry, can’t buy it. There is still more consistency in driving feel among various BMW and Mercedes models than there is among various Cadillacs.
geeber, the older versions/models of Teutonic cars had a specifc brand consistency about them, from one model line to the next. The newer versions are less consistent. Especially M-B going from coil springs, to air suspension, to ABC suspension. The various models have distinct feels.
If you are referring to dash layouts, control, yes there is an overall consistency across the models.
Geeber:
Sorry, but Charlie Wilson’s pithy, “What is good for GM is good for America, and vice versa,” is no longer the gospel truth, unless one works for GM or lives in Michigan.
Wilson’s whole quote was: “What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” He was walking a two-way street. This idea that buying from GM only benefits me if I live in Michigan or work for GM (or Ford or Chrysler) is the root of many problems in the United States, isn’t it? Personally, I consider myself American before Californian, and before Angeleno. Our economic choices are connected to the well-being of other Americans.
In a basic competitive system, there’s value to shared concern that reaches across states. I am willing to include that in my major purchases, and I don’t have to buy uncompetitive products to direct my leverage in Detroit’s direction. There were a few years in the 1980s when I couldn’t buy a competitive domestic car in a specific category, so I bought imports. But for 15 years I’ve been able buy completely trouble-free, competitive vehicles from GM and Ford with the only possible penalty being a reduction of superficial social standing from a group of people I have no interest to impress.
I’m interested in “accepted views” only insofar as they give me a basis to understand what needs to change. I act on my own view. We all agree the goal for the Detroit 3 must be to win on product first and foremost. But like it or not, now they need more time than their cash will buy them. The economic factors, consumer self-interest, citizen self-interest and basic community concern combined with cash and therefore time becoming short, make a more nuanced evaluation worthwhile. Yes, if everyone simply looks at their purchase as, “Hey, I’m just buying a car here,” then nothing else will count. But consumers have it in their grasp to assist the turnaround of the Detroit 3, for the good reasons cited. If buyer focus is on the competitive offerings from the domestics, this is entirely appropriate even for a market capitalist. I’m positing that when the perceived advantages favor the import and those differences are small, it’s not worth undermining the domestic economy.
Competition is essential and I don’t want government regulation to interfere. I am advocating consumer self-interest drive a more holistic view of their buying decisions and that people become more conscious about choosing how to use the economic leverage of their purchases. We have an open automotive market and there is room for plenty of imports. But the person who buys on social pressure, blind brand alignment or without understanding what any of the product advantages are either way could be buying domestically with no loss of satisfaction. I am sure there are more than enough of those people to put the Detroit 3 on their feet with the momentum to solve their non-product problems and compete on the merits, since that vector is already in play.
For example, the build quality of the 2008 CTS is very good, based on the two that the local dealer has on the lot. It is better than anything else in GM’s lineup, and looks to be competitive with foreign offerings. If one wants to buy an Escalade, however, one gets a vehicle that really isn’t any better made than a Tahoe.
That Tahoe is pretty well made, and the Escalade is materially better today. The new CTS is the first in a vehicle cycle that will see the rest of the line upgraded. I agree with AGR who noted that a BMW 3, 5 and 7 series have very different driving feel, despite the narrower platform deviance. A 7 Series has more in common with a large Benz than it does with a 3.
In any case, no import manufacturer has taken their car quality standards and extended them uncompromised to SUVs and trucks. A M.Benz SUV or a BMW X don’t have the build execution of their sedans. Audi gets closer. GM and Ford have actually pushed their trucks ahead of some of their cars, in some respects. Getting the Escalade aligned to the CTS’ build execution is not the first concern right now. More important to do the same to the STS and then the XLR-V.
The final product is either good enough to buy, or it isn’t.
The final product, if chosen well, is more than good enough if you as a consumer and citizen exercise the total economic and social impact of your purchase. Again, I am only advocating buying competitive domestic vehicles, not to subsidize failures.
…which is more “enlightened,” or at least a determination based on actual experiences, as opposed to prejudices?
I’ll climb out on a limb and say based on a few decades of observation in multiple markets that no more than 20-30% of import purchases are actually objectively information-driven. Relatively few are enlightened by anything other than hearsay and social factors that constrict the scope of cars they evaluate. It’s not that this is illegitimate. Lots of things are bought on emulation and reference. But there’s an option to do more. Such a buyer experiences a Camry or Accord or some such, somehow, and feels socially lubricated to buy. And frankly, this gets worse as you move into the luxury class, where peer affiliation is extremely powerful. If the number of people buying imports in their various guises actually had a bad experience with a Detroit 3 car, GM/Ford/Chry would have been gone long ago. Social momentum has been a big influence on the swing to imports, additive to the core problems of sag in domestic build quality, design missteps, and materials deficiencies.
And those who buy domestics are not primarily peer-driven in their purchases?
In cars, the domestic vehicle buyer is generally buying against social momentum, or no better than the absence of it. Peer-driven purchasing is still a factor in pickups, maybe in large SUVs like Suburban vs. Expedition. It will return in the upcoming ponycar battle.
I want my children to grow up in an economy that is receptive to new ideas, and rewards excellence, not one that allows excuses to justify mediocre performance.
Nothing I am advocating here interferes with an economy that is receptive to new ideas and rewards excellence. Excuses aren’t involved. It’s forgiveness for what’s passed and buying competitive product to give the Detroit 3 a chance to complete their change. I live in an sector of the economy that is all new ideas, nothing but. I want to see the next generations also grow up in an economy where people realize economic decisions have a larger context and carry available leverage that can help shape the world they want.
Phil
86er : There is no glut of Silverados or Corvettes, therefore these models are not the rubbish in question. If GM only made these two lines, they might be profitable.
Where I do see agreement is on the Mexican birthrate. The immigrant case looks murkier. But let’s go with your assumption there is a verifiable gap for now. If that population gets on a wealth ramp — and they largely are — this will take care of itself.
Phil,
You make it sound as if this increased wealth you foresee will somehow solve environmental problems instead of making them worse. But as I’m sure you realize, Americans use a lot more resources than Mexicans, and Mexicans who come to live like Americans make the problem worse. Also, re your comment that seemed to imply that I thought Mexicans are lazy, I don’t. But I don’t think they are harder working than anyone else, either. But I can tell you that any normal person, if they could suddenly make 5-10 times as much money for the same labor, they might well work harder because of that. But importing third world labor because they will work harder for lower wages than Americans should ever have to even think about accepting is not a sustainable solution to anything.
Moreover, mass immigration does dumb down our schools. A friend who is a top hard scientist in the Boston area told me that when he was teaching at UC Santa Barbara, he was appalled to find out that his daughter, then in 3rd grade, was in the 35th percentile nationally in math. He went to see the teacher. Not to worry! he was told. His daughter was the star of the class. And California, which once had pretty good public schools, is now 49th in the nation. And yes, yes, I know, there are other things that can contribute. But when schools are being overwhelmed with foreign students who come from countries that don’t have a tradition of education–his daughter’s school was 80% immigrant–this outcome is not surprising.
The old “Era of Limits” handwringing again. 35 years ago we were projected to be in famine and out of oil by now. Worry less, please. We have a lot of waste still to wring out of global consumption. American distributional efficiency spread elsewhere by itself can solve alot of problems associated with alleged “unsustainability.” We only have to manage another 3 billion people before population peaks. We’ll get through it.
You’re assuming the absolute best in a world where the wealthiest country hasn’t been able to summon the political will to raise the fleet average from something like 21 (real) mpg although we could easily double that. If people were as sensible as yo make them out to be we’d have a carbon tax by now.
3,000,000,000 more would be a 50% population increase. Take off the rose colored glasses, please.
(ME) And mass immigration makes the most deprived US workers poorer. From 1980-1995, the wages of US citizens who had not completed high school dropped by 30%; half of that was due to mass immigration according to the US National Academy of Sciences.
We have a competitive system that doesn’t guarantee income short of welfare. Immigration has resulted in a net increase in domestic wealth, but some people fall behind if they are not willing to climb the ladder.
On the contrary. Mass immigration is costing us billions for medical care, education, incarceration, and more. I can’t remember the precise figures, but something like 40% of Mexican immigrants are on welfare, compared with a much smaller number of native citizens (source, George Borjas, Harvard U). Many hospitals, something like 60 in California, have closed becuase they got stuck with the cost of caring for indigent immigrants (source, NYTimes).
Furthermore, Mexicans are pushing the poorest Americans off the ladder, because the Mexicans, used to earning about one tenth the pay for equivalent work, take lower wages than Americans, and the oversupply of cheap labor makes it easy for companies to lower wages. This is what happened when Walmart went into southern California, and started paying grocery clerks $7 instead of $17/hr. The same thing happened to the meat packing industry. This is corporate welfare through outsourcing by importing the cheap labor.
I do agree that helping countries help themselves is the first line of defense against our country carrying too much of the load for the world’s ambitious, but people who have the gumption to seek a better way are generally going to keep looking for a way into the places that foster success.
So they should come here, denying their countries their talents? Actually, one reason so many Mexicans come here is that their government has a deliberate policy of encouraging their poorest to emigrate. It’s a safety valve for an incredibly corrupt country. Mexico is not that poor in the grand scheme, but income distribution is terribly unequal.
I already do participate in micro-lending and have been for over 20 years. Before that I have done the equivalent via personal connections and I’ve been a Peace Corps volunteer.
That’s commendable.
I now live in Los Angeles and see every day that the “lazy Mexican” is a myth, and Americans made poorer by their presence generally should be looking in the mirror for the reason.
You’re failing to see the world from the point of view of the deprived Americans. see comments above re labor supply and wages.
(ME) The sun’s contribution to the current warming is quite small according to Holdren. The physics behind anthropogenic warming is indisputable. Holdren, among many other things, is a man of exceptional integrity.
The operative phrase there is “…according to Holdren…” His idea has expert detractors. The physics behind the greenhouse effect are indisputable, but that’s not the same thing as saying the physics of global warming are indisputable. We know of MANY things that warm and cool the climate, but we can’t model their complexity. We do know the planets climate has warmed and cooled on its own. The issue in contention is whether current warming is anthropogenic. People of high integrity disagree with Holdren; whether a majority or minority is irrelevant. Integrity isn’t correlated to being correct scientifically. You’ll notice that the majority of scientists retracting their support for AGW cite inability to correlate carbon content to what’s actually happening, as well as to what’s happened in the past before we (humans) were numerous enough to even be remotely considered a factor.
I think integrity IS correlated with being scientifically correct. Along with brains. And Holdren, as last year’s head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is certainly one of the most respected. Your retractors of support for global warming are a tiny minority. You also have a tiny minority of relevant scientists who believe in intelligent design, and there may even be a few medical scientists who think cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer. There are also people out there who think that 9-11 was a plot of the US government. There are always people who look at the world through warped glasses. Holdren is absolutely not one of them, but I would bet that most of your detractors are. Furthermore, Holdren’s view is that of the vast majority, but he’s not following the crowd. As I said yesterday, he’s worried about human-caused climate change since the late ’60s, long before most other people. Also, the models have greatly improved. (I can remember in his class, “quantitative aspects of global environmental problems,” learning about all the different factors that affect climate change, and calculating their influence.)
In any case, I’d much rather see us use our time and wealth to get coping strategies in place for climate change, because climate change in one direction or another is constantly inevitable with or without our presence on the planet.
The problem with this is that according to the models, if we don’t get a grip on things, the climae is going to change so much every ten years or so that a few of us may be coping while most of the world will be starving and dying. Under “business as usual,” Holdren predicts as much as 20 degrees’ warming by 2100.
And, by the way, are you aware of the problem of ocean acidification? the pH is already changing, and if this keeps up, there won’t be any fish left in the ocean.
By the way, if anyone on this list serve wants to keep listening to me argue with Phil, why don’t you say so. I’m writing this around midnight eastern the 24th. Phil, if no-one evinces an interest, and you want to argue with me some more, you can send your thoughts directly to me at supernova1@aol.com.
You make it sound as if this increased wealth you foresee will somehow solve environmental problems instead of making them worse. But as I’m sure you realize, Americans use a lot more resources than Mexicans, and Mexicans who come to live like Americans make the problem worse.
Wealth absolutely solves environmental problems because it increases the resources available to improve efficiency, clean up prior problems and implement cleaner means of consumption. I don’t worry about the supply side of wealth. That is, consumption is OK. Markets regulate consumption.
Look at the US. In 1969 the Cuyahoga River caught fire, Lake Erie was declared “dead,” and air quality in major cities made your lungs hurt. I know, I made the transition from a rural area to an urban one every time I went to a baseball game.
Now, almost 40 years later, we have progressed from a $1 trillion economy to a $13+ trillion dollar economy. Air quality is much better in urban areas in most respects, people can fish and swim in Lake Erie, rivers are cleaner and we’ve recovered many polluted locations. Contrast that with the huge pollution problems in poorer countries (China, India, Russia, for Soviet Republics, former East Germany, much of Africa) that could not / cannot make those investments. Wealth is ALL good. I don’t think anyone can argue sensibly that the US is cleaner and on a much better environmental vector than 40 years ago, while dramatically expanding its economy, and growing its population. Consumption is a misplaced concern. Markets will work their influences. I am certain if our wealth had stagnated, that the US would have made much less progress becoming cleaner.
Moreover, mass immigration does dumb down our schools.
Generally I agree. But I also have to point out two things: 1/ Our schools were being dumbed down well before the modern wave of immigration. This really began when teachers widely unionized, and when too many Boomers flooded college elementary education programs and standards dropped. 2/ Our education system’s response to immigration has been ham-handed. From school boards to administration to teachers, there has been a general spiraling down of average competence in these ranks seems common. I can’t say this empirically, but observationally I’ll stand by it. There is a third key element and that is the loss of intergenerational consensus on supporting education through appropriate taxation.
Perhaps this is where I should also point out that I fully endorse toughening enforcement against illegal immigration, but I have no bone to pick with anyone who won entry legally.
You’re assuming the absolute best in a world where the wealthiest country hasn’t been able to summon the political will to raise the fleet average from something like 21 (real) mpg although we could easily double that. If people were as sensible as yo make them out to be we’d have a carbon tax by now.
Well you already know that I don’t believe a carbon tax is useful or appropriate, and I do not believe climate change is anthropogenic. So raising the fleet average fuel efficiency isn’t an environmental issue as much as one of economic policy. If we decided reduction of oil imports is a good idea for balance of payments, foreign policy or middle-eastern politics, fine…let’s have that debate nationally and sort out a policy. But as it stands, what you drive won’t have any effect on global temperature over the next 200 years. Carbon tax? No.
Moreover, if we were serious about reducing carbon, transportation isn’t the place to start. Stationary power generation permits immediate investments in carbon sequestering. Solar power could be massively subsidized for rooftops now. These things could have real benefits in 5 years. Changing the auto fleet takes decades. Creating land use, water problems and food displacement by growing corn for ethanol wouldn’t even occur to people. The political follow-through on climate alarmism is nonsensical and revealing of the real control agendas behind many of its proponents’ actions.
one reason so many Mexicans come here is that their government has a deliberate policy of encouraging their poorest to emigrate
And that “safety valve” is a good thing for us. As is NAFTA. The last thing we need is Mexico in chaos on our southern border.
You’re failing to see the world from the point of view of the deprived Americans. see comments above re labor supply and wages.
You don’t know enough about me to say that. Suffice to say I’ve been alot closer to “deprived Americans” than you might imagine. It’s possible, you know, for someone to see the world from that perspective and come to different conclusions than you have.
On Holdren: I can’t comment on his integrity. I assume he’s honest and intelligent. It’s just that these two assets don’t correlate to being correct. Science, history, academia are all replete with hyper-smart people being dramatically wrong. Same is true with majorities. Majority opinion isn’t persuasive to me in matters of actionable science. I’m not interested in *who’s* right, only in what’s right. I believe Holdren is sincere in his AGW advocacy. Unfortunately, that by itself isn’t persuasive. His position only earns him a right to be thoroughly heard.
Under “business as usual,” Holdren predicts as much as 20 degrees’ warming by 2100.
And, by the way, are you aware of the problem of ocean acidification? the pH is already changing, and if this keeps up, there won’t be any fish left in the ocean.
I am confident we’re not headed for 20 degrees average warming. And I am aware of the ocean acidification problem. This is also a naturally-fluctuating phenomenon. But the key matter in all of this is whether climate change is anthropogenic. If it is, then some of the research is actionable. If it isn’t, then we’re wasting time and resources in the wrong place. I don’t believe global warming is anthropogenic (put another way, the reasoning for AGW appears deeply flawed and I am not persuaded), but I do believe we have to adapt to a changing world. I’m a lot more worried about managing water.
Phil
There is no glut of Silverados or Corvettes, therefore these models are not the rubbish in question. If GM only made these two lines, they might be profitable.
GM would be insanely profitable.
I just have a problem with painting a corporation with such diverse products as GM with one giant brush. I know Katie may not have meant the Silverado and Corvette, but when someone comments on a company’s ability to sell its “rubbish” what is the lay person supposed to infer?
We’re having a discussion on whether or not TTAC is unfair, among other things, and this commitment has to extend to the commentators as well otherwise the value of the debate contained here is debased.
Sir-
Given that the editorial policy of TTAC specifically reminds commentators to “make their point without personally criticizing this website, its authors or fellow commentators,” I find it rather hypocritical that you have published Mr. Swanson’s editorial, which clearly violates your own guidelines. To review, Mr. May is:
1) Intellectual Agility: Slow
2) “always happy to take an analytical shortcut”
3) “incapable of the intellectual rigor…”
Seems like personal criticism to me. Regardless of your opinion of American cars or English food, (I don’t like either) what has become a Matter of National Pride would have been avoided altogether if Mr. Swanson’s piece were subject to your own editorial guidelines. I wonder why it was not.
AnalogKid :
At the risk of seeming pedantic, TTAC’s posting policy only forbids flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. Fourth parties are fair game– unless you’re trolling (i.e. “President Bush is an asshole”).
If a commentator wants to call Bob Lutz an idiot, he or she may do so as Mr. Lutz does not work for this site or use its comments section.
I know it seems hypocritical that the gloves can come off in an editorial but not in a comment, but there it is: TTAC’s posting policy.
Again, you’re free to disagree violently with any idea expressed on the site, but you cannot personally attack the specified trinity.
Anyone who feels constrained by this policy, and wants to throw some fireballs, may do so in an editorial.
It’s not a perfect policy (what is?), and its subject to my own personal/subjective idea of what’s acceptable, but so far, so good. Both myself and many members of this community feel safe, comfortable and engaged. And that’s because we enforce our policy without fear or favor.
Phil,
re your last post: The US IS cleaner than 40 years ago, but the things that are cleaner are all things that were easily reversible and didn’t threaten civilization in the way that global heating and overpopulation do. Wealth is all good? I don’t see the good in 6,000 sq ft houses, or big SUVs, or corn syrup… I could go on and on. You have a lot of misplaced faith in markets. They work, but only when well-regulated. (By the way, when you cite that $1 trillion economy from 40 years ago, is that $1 trillion in 1967 dollars, or in 2007 dollars? I suspect the former, in which case it’s more like $5-$6 trillion–not nearly such a drastic jump.)
As for factors besides mass immigration dumbing down schools, again, California is 49th, and California has the highest proportion of south-of-the-border immigrants. I’m not disputing that other factors contribute, but when the daughter of a top flight hard scientist and a doctor is the star of the class and at the 35th percentile nationally in a class with 80% immigrants in a college town, you know something is way, way, way out of kilter.
Again, on climate change (beating a dead horse, here), the models I’ve seen from Holdren show clearly that it is anthropogenic. The reasoning is solid, not flawed. (Besides being last years AAAS pres, Holdren is a MacArthur fellow.) The insurance industry seems to agree as well. A handful of scientists out of probably thousands disagree, and if I notice that number rising steadily, significantly over the next few years, I will certainly take note, but I’m not holding my breath. I understand what you say about majority opinion–I know there was a time when most relevant scientists thought continental drift was baloney, but so far I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the dissenters have anything solid on their side. And by the way, one of the things about Holdren, unlike some of these climate warming skeptics is that he has no axes to grind. Like you, he’s strictly interested in what’s right. True objectivity is rare, but he is as objective as anyone I’ve ever encountered.
As for reducing carbon, assuming it’s partly anthropogenic, it’s so urgent that doing everything possible to slow it down is of the utmost importance ASAP. You’re certainly right about solar on the rooftops, but transportation is critical, too. I do like a carbon tax because it lets the market sort out what is most effective, but I’d also advocate subsidized weatherizing (I’m about to spend 5k to take my roof from R-maybe7 to R-40; but a lot of people can’t afford this sort of stuff) and maybe solar rooftops as well.
I doubt we’re headed for 20 degrees either, just because I do’nt think our institutions are THAT stupid. I do think we could easily have some major catastrophes, and that 3-5 degrees could do that.
You tend to emphasize the fact that climate is naturally variable. This is taken into account in the models. As for ocean pH, it’s trending towards levels not seen in millions of years.
Incidentally, when there is more than one possible and rasonable explanation for a phenomenon, and they are not mutually exclusive somehow, I tend to think that both are likely to be operating. You seem to be saying that no significant part of global warming is anthropogenic. Given the obvious physics behind the phenomenon, and the fact that we’ve about doubled CO2 in the atmosphere, your position seems a little… uh, closed minded perhaps? to me. I challenge you to consider that with an open mind, and let me know what you think after you’ve had some time to let it percolate. Again, my email, supernova1@aol.com, if you want to communicate after you’ve given this some time.
BEst, –David
My only issue with TTAC is that there are those of us who are “libs” who still like cars, and TTAC is pretty rabidly “conservative,” which gets tiring. Just look at the unthinking and pandering poke at the “liberal CBS newsroom” in this editorial (like giant CBS isn’t as conservative as any other mega-industry).
On the other hand, I stop by every once in awhile, so it’s not impossibly so.