Both Niedermeyers, the younger and the elder, are off and away on some family thing for the day.

BS, assisted by Cammy Corrigan somewhere in Great Britain, is home alone!  So if you miss Ed’s wit and Paul’s curbside classics: Don’t despair. They will be back.  Tomorrow.

I’m off to see some seedy bar in Beijing for Friday night.  During that time, all TTAC commenting policies are not in effect, so fire away.

But wait until daddy BS is back.

Our crack team of Canadian coders has finally tracked down why many of you could not edit comments. It did not work on most browsers except Internet Explorer, and even then, it occasionally crapped out. Good news: Problem fixed.

If you have still problems with editing comments, please leave an (unedited) comment here.

As TTAC moves into its next chapter, it’s important that we revisit a topic that has long been a defining factor in our site’s success: our comment moderation policy. TTAC strives to provide the very best discussion on all things automotive, and in order to maintain decorum and high-quality online discourse, we’ve always moderated comments. This will not change, because—as a visit to most other car blogs proves—it’s the only way to prevent otherwise interesting conversations from devolving into ad-hominem, flaming and general unpleasantness. To help combat the internet’s endless supply of insulting, angry, incoherent, thoughtless, unfunny and generally annoying commentary, I’ve enlisted longtime TTACers Jeff Puthuff and Daniel J. Stern to help patrol our community. If you step over the line, expect to hear from one of us. Meanwhile, hit the jump for a little more detail on on community expectations and behavioral standards here at TTAC.

Read More >

The inmates are running the asylum today while our fearless leader takes the day off to celebrate the BIG FIVE-OH.  We all wish Robert a very HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

Let’s get one thing straight: There are very few inanimate objects which inspire my personal distaste, contempt, and revulsion as much as the Toyota Prius does. It’s a sad, sick, suppository-shaped little plastic box which exists for the sole purpose of letting spoiled, faux-progressive Americans feel virtuous as they continue to consume the lion’s share of the world’s finite resources. I will go to my grave believing that the Japanese Government subsidized its development for the purposes of economic warfare on the United States, and that the Prius lost money for years in a way that no automotive nameplate that does not begin with “Aston” would consider even vaguely defensible. Sometimes, the Prius even kills its own assembly-line workers. In my perfect world, it would extend the same service to its smug, open-mouthed, emo-glasses-wearing, lane-blocking owners.

I could go on, but you get the point: I hate the car. And yet, when I read Jay Shoemaker’s infamous single-star review of the latest model, I cannot help but think that in his place, I would have given the blandmobile from Toyota City four stars . . . or, whisper it, five.

TTAC stands virtually alone among major automotive news sources in providing its reviewers carte blanche to review a vehicle as they see fit. The flip side to this is that the reviewer is understood to speak for himself, not for the site as a whole. The road tests in magazines like Car and Driver are intended to represent the opinion of that magazine, not that of Tony Swan or Patrick Bedard in particular, so the opinions of the individual writer are smothered beneath a leveling flow of groupthink. The reader is therefore reassured that Car and Driver conducts all its reviews using approximately the same standard, and that one may read individual reviews of competing products and obtain a useful comparison by doing so.

Bland consistency is the secret behind Ray Kroc’s billions and billions served, but it holds no sway on this website. Our reviewers judge cars by widely different standards. The new Mustang? I loved it, but Farago thinks it’s lousy! Our methodologies differ widely. Sajeev Mehta examines assembly quality, Robert considers market positioning, I recently took a drum-rear-braked Ford Focus to a public trackday and passed an Exige by cutting an entire corner on the track and showering the Hethel hearse with dirt and rocks. We’re all different and we’re all permitted to have our say.

With this in mind, I’d like to receive some guidance from TTAC readers as to how I rate cars, and if the other reviewers choose to take heed as well, that is up to them. From my reading of the comments surrounding Jay’s test, I have concluded that there are three major suggested rating methodologies:

1.  Rate the car in accordance with how well it performs its particular intended mission. We rate the Prius on its efficiency, the Veyron on top speed, and the Sonata on how well it matches up to the Accord.

2.  Take the core qualities of a car for granted and rate it on its ability to perform other tasks. We assume the Prius is efficient, so we judge it based on excitement or aesthetics. We know a Veyron is quick, so we rate it based on its usability.

3.  Consider how the vehicle stands within the overall automotive marketplace and rate it accordingly, adjusting for price or not as you see fit.

Let me take those in reverse order. I’m not a fan of “overall rating”. Consider the Honda Civic. Compared to a BMW 335i, the Civic is a piece of garbage. Compared to an Elantra . . . not so much. Which comparison is more important? Nor do I like the idea of rigorously price-adjusting ratings, because it leads to comparison tests where the Infiniti G37 “beats” the aforementioned 335i despite being wholeheartedly inferior.

The second idea, advanced by several TTACers in the Prius-test comments, also leaves me a bit nervous. I don’t like the idea of rating a Lotus Elise on storage capacity. You could argue that most of the major magazines use #2 as their guide, which leads to universal praise for well-rounded cars like the Honda Accord. The Accord’s a great car, but for some people the Altima is better and for others the Camry would satisfy more, precisely because those two vehicles stray from the “all-rounder” idea to emphasize individual features.

Which leaves us with #1. That’s how I like to rate a car. The Mustang GT500 is a five-star car because it’s the best ponycar you can get, the Prius is probably a five-star car because no other hybrid delivers the unique features and experience to the same extent, and the BMW Z4 is not a five-star car because it falls short to the Boxster in all the ways that really matter.

What do you, the TTACer, think? I’ll read all the comments, attempt to figure out what the majority opinion is, and deliver my next review (the 2010 Ford Fusion SE Duratec six-speed) to your specifications.

Now is the time to clear out the cobwebs, dust off the servers, tidy up the code, and polish the site. The frenzy of breaking (bad) news, sales and takeovers, and flamewars has somewhat subsided and we take this time now to vet some ideas we’ve been kicking around.

First, are you, our loyal readers, satisfied with the number and time of postings? More specifically, do you prefer the way we do it now with a bunch of postings made early in the morning, a few an hour until around noon PST, and then a posting or three in the afternoon; or, would you prefer we schedule the posts to publish every hour throughout the day? Does the current method give you enough time to read the article and participate in the comments?
Read More >

Now that Jack Baruth’s editorial series “Maximum Street Speed Explained” has hit the servers, more than a few of TTAC’s Best and Brightest have hit the roof. A few of them felt so strongly about the inadvisability of the rants’ publication that they’ve followed Elvis’ example and left the building. I can understand that. Road safety is an emotional issue. As Lord Humongous said, “We’ve all lost someone we love.” Or worry about same. But, in this case, my empathy does not extend to self-censorship. In other words, I stand by my decision to publish Jack’s editorials. Before I present my case, I want to get a few things out of the way . . .

First, Jack’s views are not my own. Many of our enervated readers concluded—wrongly—that giving the “oxygen of publicity” to Jack’s how-to guide means that I condone speeding on public roads. As someone who’s lost both his license (twice) and close friends to illegal driving of one sort or another, I believe that motorists should all follow the law. Scrupulously. Fastidiously. That is my official stance. Period. 

[In case you were wondering, I am not hypocritical in this regard. OK, most of the time I’m driving a minivan. And I will admit to giving the Boxster S its head on the odd off-ramp. But generally speaking, I would never do ANY of the things that Jack describes, even if I have done some of them in the past.]

Second, I didn’t publish Jack’s work as a form of “trolling.” Those of you familiar with this site will know that our goal is, believe it or not, to tell the truth about cars. When I called for GM to ditch the Corvette, I wasn’t kidding, trolling or pimping for readers. While TTAC will never run from a fight, nor will we hesitate to start one, we never head fake. We never “pretend” to believe something to stimulate debate or increase viewership. That’s just not how we roll. 

Third, “we.” Ever since this site began, I have actively sought contrary opinions. And published them. I have never believed that I—or anyone else—has a “lock” on the truth. In fact, it is my firm conviction that the truth emerges from vigorous debate. In some cases, it withstands that debate. In other cases, the conflict reveals the original assertion as incomplete, ill-considered, flimsy and/or just plain wrong. So be it. Not to get all hippy-dippy, but as far as I’m concerned, the truth is independent from the person who gives it voice. It is what it is.

And so we turn to this particular case . . .

In this series, Jack is providing information based on his experience as a law-breaker. He is also advising others how they might break the law and get away with it. The danger is clear: someone might read his words, attempt to follow his “guidelines” and injure or kill themselves and/or others. I get it. 

But this is not likely, nor is it his intent. To me, Jack’s message—if not the underlying morality—is clear. IF you are going to engage in this activity known as speeding, THIS is how you should do it.

Which brings us to an uncomfortable, statistically verifiable truth: speeding is like masturbation. Few of us admit it, but we all do it. Yes, there’s a vast gap between what the law allows and what Jack’s describing. But pretending that his actions are not ours writ large is disingenuous at best.  

Anyway, doing it is one thing. Reading about it on TTAC is another.

I decided to publish Jack’s editorials because I think they raise important questions worthy of closer examination and spirited debate. However inadvertently. And so they have. To my mind, that’s a good thing, not a bad thing. Commentators who believe that I should have excluded Jack’s opinions undervalue their own contribution.  

The biggest problem here may not be the substance of Jack’s views, but the way he presents them. For some of you, Jack’s rant is like a sex tourist bragging about having intercourse with an underage prostitute. Fair enough. But it is my experience that the majority of writers worth reading are born braggadocios. There is only one effective weapon against the terror of the blank page: ego. Jeremy Clarkson excepted, do not mistake mission critical rhetorical flamboyance for arrogance.

My final argument is this: TTAC started as vanity publishing. It has become something much more sophisticated, and worthwhile. It has become the conscience—the proverbial canary in the coal mine—for the carmaking industry. It’s also become a safe place for pistonheads to share their unvarnished, often prickly love of all things automotive.

We did not get where we are today by excluding thinkers with controversial, often polarizing opinions. The brand demands that we encourage strong voices, and err on the side of outrage. And so we shall.

[Note: as this series has triggered some strong emotions, I’ve turned off our no-flaming the website/author policy. Ish. I reserve the right to douse particularly egregious examples, in a first amendment-friendly sort of way.]

The Truth About Cars presents news and opinion in an informal, conversational manner. As the site’s freshly anointed copy editor, preserving this style without being too anal retentive is a real challenge. I keep telling myself not to adhere to the rules of formal writing (Strunk & White be damned). This is a new age. The old styles aren’t always appropriate for Web 2.x (and beyond). This internal struggle informs my desire to write the official TTAC style guide. I’m trying to reconcile our contributors’ literary voices with necessary structure and, this is the important bit, community consensus. I want to give TTAC a distinctive, consistent voice in the autoblogosphere, during a time of uncertainty and change. I need your help.

Let’s begin this journey with torque and horsepower; twist and ponies. While I don’t want to reduce TTAC writers’ freedom to describe a car’s thrust, something must be done about the use of engine-related statistics on this site.

Recently, TTAC contributor Jonny Lieberman co-opted Jeremy Clarkson’s use of the word “torques.” Our left coaster did it twice, clearly intending the term to replace “lb/ft” or “pound-feet of torque.” Not to mention, Farago’s recently abandoned, UK-centric “ft.-lbs.”

The newly christened nickname certainly sounds faddish. To some, it’s an overly familiar affectation. “The Porsche Carrera GT has 435 torques.” That said, plenty of pistonheads use “ponies” or “horses” in place of “horsepower.”

Be that as it may, Jonny’s assault on my anal retentive nature underscores the need to agree on a house style for the stat: a standard technical designation for an engine’s torque.  So, what should it be: lb/ft or pound-feet or foot pounds or ft-lbs. or something else?

If only it were that easy…

Next, should we list the rpm at which maximum torque arrives? “The Porsche Carrera’s V10 delivers 435 ft lbs @ 5750 rpm” as opposed to “The Porsche Carrera’s V10 develops 435 torques?” [NB: don’t get me started on “develops,” “stumps up,” “generates,” and so forth.]

Keep in mind that TTAC reviewers butt up against an 800-word limit. Every word—and number—counts.

Just to make matters that much more complicated, what about Newton meters?

TTAC has a global audience, many of whom use the metric system. Should we offer both lb/ft (or whatever) and Newton meters? If we do use Newton meters, should we use the formal “Newton meters” or “N-m” or (and I’m kidding here) just use “newts?”

Horsepower is not as straightforward as it sounds. We can choose between HP and hp and a space between the number and numerical statistic, or not. “The Carrera GT’s engine is good for 605 hp” or “The Carrera GT’s engine is good for 605hp” or “The Carrera GT’s engine is good for 605 HP.”

Again, metric issues arise: kilowatts! Should we go there? If we offer newts, why not kwatts?

And if we do do that voodoo that kilowatts do, should it be “KW” or “kw,” space or no space? And if we offer an rpm arrival point for maximum torque, why not horsepower? For example, “The lightweight Porsche Carrera GT has tremendous torque (589.78 nm / 435 ft lbs @ 5750 rpm) and prodigious power (451.2 kw / 605 bhp @ 8000 rpm).” I’ve got a headache…

The alternatives don’t stop there. We could prevent an international incident with a hover hack: readers could mouse over the U.S. ratings (or not) to discover the equivalent metric amount.  Or we could add a horsepower and torque box with the stars and stats and not worry about numbers in the actual review. And finally…

We could drop the whole thing. RF figures TTAC’s not Car and Driver. “We’re trying to convey the soul of a machine. We’re not under no obligation to provide ANY statistics.” Thanks for that, boss. But if we do offer engine output numbers—and you know we will—TTAC should do so with logic, clarity and complete consistency. Please, help me in this quest by taking this survey.

Well, you know how it is. Every now and then we turn our anti-flaming rules off so that we can debate our editorial stance– or, more precisely, stances. In other words, if you wish to slam the site, this is the time and place to do it. That said, I will delete comments that stray over the line between you suck and here’s why and you suck you NSFW NSFW NSFW. To get things started, I’ve republished an email from a “fan” after the jump, with my answers to his main points. In any case, thanks for all your comments, which help make TTAC an island of semi-sensible discussion in a sea of inchoate insults.

“I’m still not able to post to TTAC….short of maybe getting a new e-mail address. BUT, that may be OK. At one point, the TTAC commentary on the Big3 amused me. But as time goes on, it appears to be more and more biased, specifically against GM, the company that I am a part of, and I have recently been reconsidering the impacts of TTAC commentary.

You often call others out on non-objective journalism, but I would like to ask you to look in the mirror. I applaud your mission to provide “Candid and unbiased auto reviews by industry experts”, as this allows consumers to make more informed choices when they make one of the more significant purchases in their life.

If, however, a customer is reading about a great new car that GM, Ford, Chrysler, or even Tesla are making, but the first editorial that pops up is slamming the company, culture and management…..don’t you believe that person will reconsider the strength of the review and their purchase decision.

Yes, I’m suggesting that the management editorials may be having more impact on customer choice than TTAC’s unbiased product reviews.

As I mentioned before, I am a part of GM, more specifically an Engineer in Product Development. I take a significant amount of pride in my job and the talent of my co-workers. There are many things that can be improved with the way we do business, and we all work to make those improvements every day.

The environment at work is NOTHING like quoted in one of your pieces. There is a major level of concern regarding all of our futures, but there is also a sense of hope and optimism that we will get to see the results of our hard work as successful products in the marketplace. I have yet to see people praying to get out or excessively stressed about their careers. What I have seen are people putting in longer hours, bonding together, and trying to make the best of a very difficult situation.

Your commitment and devotion to TTAC is very clear. I ask you to please consider:

1. What do you REALLY want TTAC to accomplish and stand for? How is it doing?

2. What kind of culture do you want to encourage? Criticism, support, or objectivity?

3. Is TTAC’s current stance truly un-biased, or is there a huge “I told you so” in the making?

4. How much are TTAC editorials affecting consumer choice? Are consumers really coming away from the site with unbiased information?

5. What kind of companies should the American People support? Companies that have for many years contributed technology, safety, financial support, and higher standards of living, to the betterment of our society? Or, should we support those that contribute in a more self-serving manner. The text below highlights this concern.

6. Are your words putting your neighbor (figuratively, not literally) out of work? Thank You for taking the time to consider another viewpoint.

My reply:

1. As a source for the truth about cars. You tell me. Oh wait…

2. Yes.

3. I’m not sure what “truly unbiased” means. Is it different from unbiased or not-so-unbiased? All I can say is that we– me, you, other writers and commentators– call it like we see it. We try to tell the truth as best we can– given the inherent limitations involved in that pursuit.

4. We must have some impact on consumer tastes– otherwise manufacturers wouldn’t be running ads on the site. Or, on occasion, giving us access to press cars. I’ve had around 50 emails from people who said they bought or didn’t buy a car based on our recommendations. Not a single complaint in that regards. Yet.

5. Americans should support companies by buying the goods and services that they want to purchase (as opposed to, I dunno, a taxpayer-funded bailout). As long as these companies adhere to all applicable laws and regulations, they’re OK with me.

6. My primary responsibility is to tell the truth about cars (and carmaking) to my readers. My second job: to provide a safe place for vigorous debate, so that TTAC’s Best and Brightest may share this freedom of speech in an atmosphere of mutual respect (with a bit of a kick to it, admittedly). My third… nope, that’s it.

RF

The first time I met an American muscle car, my friend Ben was encouraging me to carve the donut in the Sears parking lot just a little tighter and give it just a little more gas. He wanted to hear the 1977 Chevy Malibu’s big block snarl like he knew it could when you pressed the pedal all the way to the floor boards.

The “Green Machine,” as we called it, would eventually die and give way to my friend Eric’s equally green 1969 Chevy Impala, motivated by a freshly rebuilt small block 327. If we weren’t busy buying gas, we were taking Eric’s ride out to the city’s unofficial drag strip (if they didn’t want racing, why did they build a quarter-mile stretch, straight as an arrow, right along the water front?) and going head-to-head with all varieties of tuned imports.

Oh, how those times have changed for my two friends. Eric has since moved to the big city and has sworn off cars, while Ben cruises around in a gas-sipping, 2wd Rav-4. Don’t even bother asking these two about either of their cars–Ben will laugh it off and remind me of the spade of problems the Malibu had and the family of raccoons who took up residence in the trunk once the car was put out to seed. Eric might reminisce for roughly 30 seconds before glancing down to the street and realizing he has about as much a chance of parking an Impala in New York City as Tara Reid does of being granted sainthood.

So what happened? Reality, that’s what. Before the this generation’s car buffs turned their attention to Hondas and Scions, the only reasonable thing to buy was eight cylinders of American power. As gas prices began steadily rising out of their $2 resting place, my friends were losing their $100-a-tank cherries well before $4-a-gallon fuel was even being fathomed by Detroit. The Impala was great, but at $100-a-week to drive it, there wasn’t much left over for date night.

From the girlfriends’ perspectives, switching to a car where the steering little less slippery and the acceleration a little less powerful was a good thing. The looks of European and Japanese cars were also easy bargaining ploys. Why should they drive something that (in their opinion) looks bloated when they were trying to keep their own bodies from appearing that way? For the ladies involved, a sensible Corolla was a no brainer–of course, this was before the automotive industry realized that a chrome bedecked grill and window trim are good things and not necessarily an out-moded design concepts.

But what was so great about these muscle cars wasn’t their design or their power (all though these factors did wonders for attracting hordes of allegiance pledging teenagers to the hot-rod cause), but rather their simplicity. With an engine compartment roughly the size of my first apartment, we could literally climb inside the Impala and take apart its carburetor or adjust the throttle control, the air filter, or whatever part was rattling around this week.

With today’s cars, people don’t even bother to look under the hood. When something as simple as a headlamp goes out on a Nissan Altima, those of us mechanically-disinclined begin groaning and looking for a qualified service rep. Now that every car has a transverse-mounted four banger shoe-horned into a compartment three sizes too small, the last thing a car nut (or anyone else for that matter) wants to think about is changing a starter, let alone tinkering around for another 20 or 30 horsepower.

Somewhere in the build up of technology toward more and more efficient cars, working on them stopped being fun and starting being a scary, confusing, diagnostics-machine-requiring money pit and therein lies the problem with the notion of an American muscle car. Unless Detroit can find a way to make them fun–not just to drive but to work on, too–we’ll never have the same passion for this particular automotive genre again. If gas prices continue to rise, the best American muscle will come in the form of highly tuned V6s or diesels that sip their fuel, rather than guzzle it by the gallon.

All this is not to say we shouldn’t keep trying. My lovely, modern-car disparaging wife sites the PT Cruiser and the Chevy HHR as her favorite cars, not because they’re loaded with muscle (which they ain’t) but because they made risky design choices during a time when dull was the automotive standard. As she sees it, if we can’t make them fun (i.e. faster than hell) let’s at least make them pretty. Until America can strike that happy balance between muscle and beauty, the big 2.8 are doomed to the go the way of that ’77 Malibu: up on blocks with a family of raccoons living out of the back.

[This article is presented without editing.]

Sounding every bit as superficial as the redneck poseur he portrayed, the expression on actor Warren Oates’ face as he uttered those words in the 1971 cult classic “Two-Lane Blacktop” spoke volumes about what a muscle car was and what it was built for.

As his right foot slammed through the firewall and the big ’70 Judge GTO lunged forward, the contrast between Oates’ character and the two car-obsessed drifters he raced across the U.S. couldn’t have been starker: his brand-new orange Pontiac was a mean machine, but their beat-up primer-gray ’55 Chevy was the real deal.

In a recent blog, Motor Trend’s Angus MacKenzie pontificated about the fate of the muscle car.  Mainly, he opined as to the engines and body styles it might possess in the not-so-V8-friendly future.

No offense, but I think Angus bypassed an important point.  His view of what will happen to the muscle car and how it must change assumes that the concept’s definition is relatively static.  History says it’s not.

Few would call the seemingly junkyard-ready Chevy in “Two-Lane Blacktop” a muscle car.  Yeah, it was fast, but it didn’t particularly look fast to the non-automotive bystander.  On the other hand, The Judge looked every bit the part, but by 1970 Pontiac performance had taken somewhat of a back seat to the appearance of Pontiac performance.

I’m not saying that muscle cars are all about style over substance.  If anything, I think they were originally meant to embody the style of substance.  But that style is subject to debate and (as Mr. MacKenzie correctly notes) evolution.  Still, the dynamic nature of the concept makes prescriptions for the future somewhat risky.

A “muscle car” was originally defined as an inexpensive, small or intermediate (by 1960’s standards) two-door with the high performance engine/drivetrain from a larger, more expensive vehicle.  The idea was to create a brand-invigorating yet affordable factory hotrod that would garner lots of buff book ink and make teenage boys drool.  Exhibit A: The original Pontiac GTO.

Except if you do a Google image search for “1964 Pontiac GTO,” you’ll see a smallish workaday coupe that doesn’t look quite as tough as a muscle car is supposed to.  Now google “1971 Dodge Challenger R/T” and check out those photos.  This car will certainly look more like a muscle car to most people than the ’64 Goat.  Both are muscle cars, but the original more-true-to-the-concept Pontiac looks less muscular than the Challenger-esque archetype.

Some combination of a bad-ass performance image and big horsepower fun is definitely required for any version of the muscle car recipe to work.  But here’s the rub:  If the formula can’t keep changing (and changing more than MacKenzie allows for), the term “muscle car” will either become universally misapplied or will die.

The big question seems to be whether or not the definition of a muscle car evolved much after the early 1970’s.

In the late Seventies, domestic cars shrunk and large two-doors became the size their intermediate counterparts were fifteen years earlier.  In 1964, stuffing the brawniest of mills in a Riviera coupe would most definitely not have launched the concept we know today, but the 1980’s T-Type turbo Buicks transcended their “regal” origins to become honest-to-God muscle cars by almost any gearhead’s standard.

Allow for two more doors, FWD, and fewer cylinders, and even the putrid little K-car-based ‘91 Dodge Spirit R/T seems to capture the essence of what Pontiac was thinking in the mid-1960’s vis-à-vis “cheap car + big power = sales-boosting image builder.”

Stretch the definition that far, and what’s next?  Do we ditch the “intermediate-sized” restriction and include powerful large cars (‘94-‘96 Impala SS, etc.)?  If we do that, why can’t we say that any subcompact shitbox with a turbo four is a muscle car?

Okay, it’s gotta stop somewhere.  But something else transcends the physical definition, anyway.

I’m willing to bet that “muscle car” is as much of a feeling as it is a tangible product.  Maybe it’s when you feel as tough as a ’71 Challeger R/T looks, or when you own the crazy grin of Oates’ character in “Two Lane Blacktop.”

Yes, a special automotive formula is needed to elicit those reactions, and as technology, consumer preference, and economic reality all change, the formula will have to change, too.

But constraining muscle cars to a set blueprint and allowing only certain aspects to evolve is to ignore the bigger point of why muscle cars exist in the first place.

They exist for the same impractical reason – maybe an existential reason – that a mid-40’s GTO driver would race two kids thousands of miles for the pink slip to their ragged ’55 Chevrolet.  And as long as that spirit is alive and well, the muscle car will never die.

[The above article is presented without editing.]

Yes, you little nimrods! The American muscle car does have a future! Detroit simply needs to stick to a few basic principles. The first thing it mustn’t forget is that any muscle car worth building will have a V-8, expensive fuel or no. To any camel admirers ready to start preaching the gospel of turbonium and other unnatural elements, I’ll just say that no other amount of cylinders or configuration can match the distinctive presence of a V-8 – especially a good ol’ American one. Sound MATTERS. Nothing brings out the hairy chested, knuckle dragging Neanderthal in me faster than a carnivorous sounding V-8. If it’s cammed up, it’s all over. I’d be ready to run the Mille Miglia after a vasectomy.

Proximo, a muscle car must be RWD. I believe that on any car, and specifically on those motivated by brute force, FWD is an abomination no more desirable than exchanging fluids with one of the half breeds on The Island of Dr. Moreau. But wait…AWD has its merits you say? Fine, just remember that a muscle car flaunts said muscle the old fashioned way. AWD is to one of these cars as another tattoo is to Kat Von D’s epidermis: unnecessary and ruinous. Transmission wise, a proper stick or a traditional slushbox is all that’s needed at muscle beach…paddle shifters here would be akin to vein augmentation surgery. And sorry, Dodge Charger. Sedans have no place in musclecardom. Leave the four door bruisers in the hands of coppers. Or piston heads of questionable character. Oh, and Ford? ALL muscle cars should have an IRS. Live axles are more modern than the suspension on Ben Hur’s chariot…but not by much. The drag strip crowd can fend for itself via the aftermarket. Where there’s a will there’s a way.

For the love of Benji, I wish Detroit would lighten its muscle cars up. The new Challenger’s a 2 ton pig. The Mustang and Camaro aren’t far behind. Ideally, these cars should weigh no more than 3,500 lbs. Weighing less, they could employ smaller motors while retaining impressive performance. The whole size thing is a bloody travesty. The Mustang, Camaro and Challenger are as big as they are because the big 2.8 have resorted to one-upmanship, plain and simple. It’s more than a horsepower race. Cost cutting, safety and emissions regs and platform sharing all factor in, yes, but providing more car (pork?) than the competition is the misguided ethos right now. Leave the bloat fest to the Accord, Camry, and Altima camps.

A smaller, lighter car needs less engine to get the job done. That’s a fact. Detroit needs to stop putting the biggest and dumbest V-8’s it can fit into its muscle cars.  The added complexity, cost and packaging issues of DOHC valve trains more than justify themselves. I’d rather have a 4.0+L, 7,000+ RPM DOHC fire breather than some big, dumb and slow push rod fossil any day. Yeah, pushrods have their benefits, I read up on the Corvette. But c’mon, brothers, at what cost progress? How many more improvements can be made to the same basic design? The constant improvement to and evolution of the basic design of the 911 is a marvel to behold. But even magnifying glass focused Porsche knew when to abandon its air cooled boxers. Change is inevitable. For nostalgia’s sake though, I will admit that in a classic muscle car, a push rod motor is in its natural habitat.

Speaking of nostalgia, trips down memory lane make me feel alive.  Those Sha Na Na and Leif Garrett clips on You Tube…never mind. Let me just say it. Whatever numbskull at Ford thought to go retro with the 2005 Mustang needs to be skinned alive and dipped in iodine. Twice. Enough with the friggin’ retro already! What a way to lead by example, Ford. What ever happened to imagination and creativity? And shame on you Chevy and Dodge for letting yourselves be lured into a fad that will eventually crash and burn as hard as one of those Libyan MiG’s that tried to do the tango with a Tomcat.

While the hybridization of just about every automotive segment continues apace, muscle cars should remain immune to this. Either you’re a carnivore or you ain’t. So yes, even in these conservation and efficiency conscious times, there indeed is a future for the American muscle car. We want and need them. Unlike the pick up trucks that are never used to haul or tow, or the SUV’s that never go off road, a muscle car’s existence and use is justifiable on just about any road, at any time. No other type of car could serve as a better antibiotic to the ills of fuelmiseritis and its bedfellows. You can bet your grandpa’s fillings on that.

[The above article is presented without editing.]

Today marks my final day as Managing Editor of The Truth About Cars. Never in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that when I forwarded a snarky letter I'd written to Car and Driver complaining about their lack of editorial direction to some guy at a web site I'd just discovered, it would lead to this. It's been a wild roller coaster of a ride, occasionally aggravating, usually entertaining and always educational –  but never boring. I'm going to miss it. A lot.

The decision to leave TTAC didn't come easily. In fact it took an offer of considerably more money and some pretty sweet benefits to pull me away. (OK, so I'm a sellout.) I won't be writing a lot or working in an automotive-related field, so I'll have some adjustments to make. By far, the biggest will be going through Farago withdrawal. 

I can't say enough good things about Robert Farago. Yeah, he can be stubborn, opinionated, hard to get along with and a real pain in the ass at times, but he's also one of the best persons I've ever had the honor of working with. You'll never find anyone as dedicated to anything as he is to this site. Nothing gets published that he hasn't read and approved (and usually tweaked at least a little). And yes, he really does read every single comment. Robert Farago is TTAC.

Robert liked the snotty letter I sent C/D and asked me to write something for the site. When I finally realized he was serious, I submitted my first article. I didn't think it was very good but he saw something in it, worked the Farago magic on it, published it, then asked for more. I was hooked and he knew it.

As the site grew, he approached me about being the part-time Managing Editor. I thought he'd lost his mind, but I agreed to give it a try. Then when the State of Georgia did me a favor freed me to pursue other opportunities by abolishing my position, he offered me the chance to do it on a full-time basis. My momma mighta raised an ugly child, but she didn't raise no stupid one. I jumped at the chance.

I think almost every pistonhead has a secret fantasy of being an automotive writer.  I've been lucky enough to live that fantasy. And because of Robert and TTAC, I've had the chance to rub elbows with journalistic giants like Stephan Wilkinson and Brock Yates. I've also worked with some of the best writers on the web.  Guys (and gal) I'm going to miss all of you. It's been a genuine pleasure. And thank you, Robert for believing in me and giving me the chance of a lifetime.

To our readers all around the world, a big word of thanks. This site wouldn't be what it is today without you. I can't count the number of times Robert and I have gotten emails expressing wonder at the quality of comments and the depth of discussion found here. And they were spot-on. You won't find another site in the blogosphere with the brilliant readers and civil discourse you'll find here.

I know TTAC will go on without me and do just fine. Justin will keep things flowing smoothly and the site will continue to grow. Hopefully some of the changes Robert's visualizing for the future will come to fruition. If so, the TTAC experience will only get better for everyone. 

Yes, I'm going to miss all of this. But don't think you're getting rid of me that easily! I'll still be lurking in the shadows, making pithy comments occasionally and calling bullshit when necessary. I'll also continue doing the "By the Numbers" and inventory/sales per dealer editorials every month and working with the Ten Worst and Ten Best Auto awards. Basically, if it's a job for a spreadsheet monkey or involves a poll, I'll most likely be involved somehow.  

You'll also see a review from me from time to time, so don't be surprised when you see my byline pop up.  I'll no longer be here on a daily basis but I'll still be around. TTAC's like a drug — easy to get hooked on and tough to walk away from, and I'll still have to have my regular fix. So until I see you again, take care, drive smart and keep on tellin' the truth!

All hail Frank Williams. TTAC’s Managing Editor spent the best part of last week speccing-out our new website. Every current and future link, every button, every function, every everything. Frank’s road map contains the kind of “granularity” that code writers adore, that I consider “grit,” whose creation requires true grit. In the course of this odyssey, Frank and I made a lot of strategic decisions. Most were easy (a strong brand makes it so). While I’m completely confident the new TTAC will leapfrog the competition (no Volt comparisons please), there’s an 800-pound feature in the room that we need to discuss: forums.

We understand full well TTAC’s core strength: the relationship between our no-holds-barred rants, reviews and news; and our Best and Brightest (reader) commentary. Most sites offer sensible posts with deranged comments. We provide deranged posts with sensible comments. In other words, the commentators, our base, are an integral part of what makes us us. If we lose them/you, we lose our spiritual core.

TTAC sustains its Best and Brightest in three ways. First, our editorial team writes its collective, metaphorical ass off. We attract the B&B with our automotive zeal, literary courage, quality thinking and sardonic wit. You know, ideally. Second, we encourage cross-fertilization between [barely] paid editorial staff and commentators. This open-door editorial policy ensures that our writers are in tune with our readers because they ARE readers. Third, perhaps most importantly, we have a stringent no-flaming policy.

I reckon that five percent of all visitors to any “open” website are there for the express purpose of destroying it. Over the last three years or so, I’ve banned over 600 aspiring anarchists. (This doesn’t include all the commentators who were warned and disappeared.) I can’t overstate the importance of blanket moderation. The policy creates a safe space for vigorous debate. The quality of the commentary is a logical result of the protections we afford.

So, forums. We want to have lots of topic-related forums with user-generated threads. But how can we encourage/allow large amounts of user-generated content without losing our ability to moderate every comment, all the time?

Hiring professional moderators is the best, easiest and most logical answer. No can do. At least not yet. Alternatively, we could appoint unpaid moderators from within your ranks. That idea completely freaks my inner control freak, who knows that cash payments are the better part of assuring valor. I mean, eventually, maybe, it could work. But not from the git-go.

So Frank and I devised a plan to take us from here (excellent moderation, no forums) to there (excellent moderation, lots of forums).

Basically, we firewall TTAC-generated content. In other words, we keep the current set-up for our news, reviews and editorials: our post, tied to your comments. Example: “Tesla Runs Out of Gas,” “49 comments.” At the bottom of the page, we also offer readers an option to “Read Tesla-related topics.” This links you to “lightly moderated” user-generated threads. Although we’d have a prominent “report flaming” button, and do our best to police it, the area would be clearly identified as the “bad” part of town.

THEN we’d look for moderators for each topic. (Topics are based on categories in the drop-down menus.) Once we identify a suitable moderator, we upgrade the topic from a standard-looking forum thingie to a TTAC-looking home page, complete with its own topic-related news, reviews and editorials.

When we post TTAC-generated material on the home page on the topic (e.g. “Tesla Gets Another Lease on Life”) it ALWAYS appears on the Tesla page. But there would ALSO be topic-specific (user generated) material on the new, topic-related home page that DOESN’T appear on the home page.

And here’s another tricky bit: the ed staff surfs TTAC’s own topic-related home pages for user-generated material to post on the main home page— and pays for it.

It sounds crazy, maybe even incoherent, but it just might work! To my mind, the plan would assure current quality, allow a transition to fully-moderated “forums,” nurture new talent and widen our audience. To THAT end, the new site will also have the other stuff you might have expected, say, two years ago: photo and video galleries (both TTAC and user-generated), easier navigation, etc., and at least one killer app. We’re also going to clean-up the bugs (e.g. can’t post urls in emails to TTAC, iPod listings, etc).

This time ‘round, we’ll invite the Best and Brightest to stress test the site before launch. Meanwhile (and it could be a while), rest assured that we know who we are. I promise TTAC won't lose its heart, soul and integrity as we kick this thing up a notch.

For now, please let me know what you think of the forum plan. Thanks!

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.