I’m not big on ceremony. Throw in a couple of blowhard politicians, a bevy of self-congratulatory industry execs and a swarm of self-important journalist jackals; and meetings like the 12th Annual International Car of the Year Awards are like kryptonite to my modest superpowers. The invitation from the friendly folks at Road and Travel Magazine read, “Regrets not Required.” In my case, regret was inevitable. Still, I donned a monkey suit and took one for the team with as much enthusiasm as I approached my first doctor’s visit after my fortieth birthday. Fortunately my doctor was quick and his gentle finger was warm, so that experience was not as bad as I had grimly anticipated. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for the green-themed ICOTY award pageant.
If you are thinking, I know C&D, MT and R&T, but what the hell is RTM, it’s probably because you aren’t a woman. Road & Travel Magazine was founded in 1989 by the lovely Courtney Caldwell to entertain and inform the fairer sex about all things automotive. The periodical founded the ICOTY in 1996, as an Academy Awards for automobiles.
The evening got off to a bumpy start with remarks by Michigan Representative John D. Dingell. Give the congressman credit; he boldly and proudly referenced the draconian increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. His words hung in the air above the heads of the audience born by tension and uncomfortable silence. All was made right when the old Washington warhorse called for applause for all the workers and management who supported the legislation.
This year’s convocation marked the bestowal of the first ever Earth Angel Award. This sappy honorific is designed to laud the most environmentally harmonious automaker; the car company that best carries the torch for alternative fuel transportation and whose “company position and mission on global warming” is most politically correct.
“Global warming is top-of-mind for everyone these days,” said Caldwell. “Automakers are too often criticized for environmental insensitivity when the reality is that they’re really making enormous strides on a global level to improve the earth’s environment.”
August former CBS newsman, Walter Cronkite, who wants mankind to turn back the tide of increasing global temperatures by driving new and improved cars, heralded in the inaugural Earth Angel Award via taped introduction. Carl Levin, Michigan's Senior Senator, bestowed the first-ever Earth Angel Award upon the General Motors Corporation.
In the estimation of RTM’s esteemed panel, The General best allows pistonheads to purge themselves of guilt for ravaging the earth. How so? By mapping out a comprehensive plan that will transform the automobile from a filthy mechanical machine into a clean electric appliance. Riiiiight.
The culmination of the gala event: the announcement of the International Car of the Year Award winner. J.D. Power and Associates counts votes for the nominees (not a difficult job since the electorate is comprised of a panel of just 12 “respected” journalists).
Unfortunately, the group’s previous picks look like a menagerie of mediocre moribund models mired on a used car dealership: Pontiac Grand Prix (1997), Oldsmobile Intrigue (1998), Ford Windstar (1999), PT Cruiser (2001), Jaguar X-type (2002), and Dodge Charger (2006). This is hardly a lineup of the best cars in the world. More likely these pickings bear the undeniable stench of money mildewed by a passage under the desk of RTM’s advertising director.
If you still care, the night’s winners include:
• Honda Accord Sedan, the International Car of The Year, and “Most Dependable” Sedan of the Year
• Chrysler Town & Country, International Truck of the Year, and “Most Compatible” Minivan of the Year
• GMC Sierra Denali, “Most Athletic” Pick Up Truck of the Year
• Audi R8, “Most Sex Appeal” Sports Car of the Year
• Mercedes Benz S63 AMG, “Most Respected” Luxury Car of the Year
• Volvo C30, “Most Spirited” Entry Level Car of the Year
• Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, “Most Resourceful” SUV of the Year
Clearly the Honda Accord was a safe choice, perhaps an attempt to atone for past indiscretions. The Audi R8’s selection proves that ugly is the new sexy. The only winner that seemed to rankle the crowd, at least those outside of the Ford family, was the inclusion of the pricy Volvo C30 in the entry level car category.
By night’s end, the sickening sweet smell of 1984 Ferrari-Carano Cabernet Sauvignon permeated the room and the band played on. In black ties and evening gowns, industry manager misters and their silicone sisters renewed old acquaintances within the attendant corps of scribes. To everyone’s relief, the charade was complete for another year. As for me, my doctor tells me that I have the prostate of a twenty year-old; the prognosis is good that I’ll live to suffer through the ICOTY Awards again in 2009. Assuming I'm invited.
Hmmm… maybe the Hummer H2 should have won the award as the most ‘Most Resource Intensive’ Car of The Year.
Sorry, but what a sham. Toyota develops a hybrid which becomes a top seller, offers a car that gets nearly 40 mpg and is nearly the size of a Cadillac (Camry hybrid), and makes a long-term commitment to providing their hybrid technology throughout it’s entire product line by 2010. Not to mentione their willingness to license the technology to certain automakers that haven’t done jack squat.
And GM wins???
I’m sure the greenbacks of mutual sponsorship were alive and well during that transaction. Don’t forget to close the windows of reality when counting up those ‘votes’.
To paraphrase Jon Stewart, these awards sound like a “recipe for sadness”.
Are the folks who built the ‘winners’ (Grand Prix? Windstar??) in such deep denial that they actually believe those vehicles are the best in the world? Or is the cynicism so pervasive in their culture that the cars don’t really matter? Is it just about the celebs and free booze?
Rome/Fire/Nero/Fiddle
I look at it this way these sham awards by questionable auto authorities are actually just another reason for why this site exists. The more banal, the more trite, and the more paid off these type of auto awards or reviews etc become from the existing established print media, then the more relevant TTAC becomes.
I get the problems with the selection of the ’97 Grand Prix, the ’99 Windstar, and the ’02 X-type.
But, what was so bad about them selecting the PT Cruiser in 2001, the Intrigue in 1998, or the Charger in 2006?
Memo to auto executives: Many MANY, people understand exactly how the system works, and why awards like this are simply the equivalent of advertising. The educated buyer ends up in areas like this, to find out what’s really going on. The bottom-line sales figures tell a somewhat different story in the grand scheme of things. The objective IS to sell product, right?
Which car gets Miss Congeniality?
@raast:
Having “North American Car of the Year 2007” on its mantelpiece hasn’t really helped the Saturn Aura.
@ajla:
I agree with you about that part. I think they hit those on the money. If anything, this shows how hit-or-miss these declarations based on a couple test drives are. I don’t think Motor Trend will ever let down voting the Renault Alliance in as COTY in ’83.
I feel for you guys having to stomach this stuff in the flesh, there must have been a lot of gasps or WTF’s at announcement time.
Hate to say it, but some those awards perpetuate the female stereotype of being dumb about cars. The publisher should be ashamed of herself.
Would be interesting though to know how “Most Sex Appeal” is measured or What “Most Compatible” is compatible with.
@CarShark
I believe if you re-read the post (maybe between the lines, didn’t think it was that subtle), that was my point…
Since when is the Town & Country a truck? Isn’t it built on a car platform?
confused1096
Since when is the Town & Country a truck? Isn’t it built on a car platform?
That’s irrelevant. The EPA classifies it a truck because the rear seats disappear (fold down leaving a flat cargo compartment) or are removable) leaving a cargo compartment sans passenger capability. Other vehicles they classify as trucks that are built on passenger car platforms include the PT Cruiser, HHR, Magnum,and Taurus X.
Now you’re probably more confused. I know I am.
What makes a truck “athletic?” Is this another appearance-based category, again perpetuating the notion that women only care how a vehicle looks and neither know nor care about its performance? Shouldn’t people be insulted by this kind of lame stereotyping? Might as well add a “cutest car” or “Best vanity mirror” category they’re at it.
I saw the rear of a C30 in person for the first time last week…it reminded me of this terrarium coffee table my neighbor’s had, circa “The Regal Beagle.”
These choices had nothing to do with imagined female automotive dumbness. The choices were made not by the magazine but by the jury, which included such stalwarts as Dave Davis and Ed Lapham.
Frank Williams: That’s irrelevant. The EPA classifies it a truck because the rear seats disappear (fold down leaving a flat cargo compartment) or are removable) leaving a cargo compartment sans passenger capability. Other vehicles they classify as trucks that are built on passenger car platforms include the PT Cruiser, HHR, Magnum,and Taurus X.
Now you’re probably more confused. I know I am.
You’re right, I am. Thanks for the information though.
Well at least it sounded more exciting than the recent Golden Globe Awards. And about as relevant.
I thought all vans were classified as “light trucks” merely because they are vans. Then again, maybe the fact the seats can go away (every minivan ever made has removable and/or foldable rear seats) means that it’s a truck.
Of course, if foldable rear seats is all it takes, then my Scion xA is a “truck”. Hell, maybe it is actually classified as such, who knows. Sure would help Toyota’s truck CAFE numbers, balance out a few Tundras.
It’s the Montgomery Burns First Annual Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of… Excellence.
Geotpf
Of course, if foldable rear seats is all it takes, then my Scion xA is a “truck”. Hell, maybe it is actually classified as such, who knows. Sure would help Toyota’s truck CAFE numbers, balance out a few Tundras.
It’s a truck only if the seat folds into the floor or removes completely to form a flat-floored cargo area. This, in the minds of the bureaucrats, makes it a cargo vehicle (whether or not it’s ever used to haul cargo). Seats that just fold down or fold then tumble forward don’t count. In other words, if you can still see a the seat in the cargo area, it ain’t a truck.
A Volvo that pushes $30K is “entry level”? These people need to get out into the world.
I hear Chrysler won “Most likely to enter bankruptcy.”