New Camaro

[Ginsu]

My wife works for a Chevy dealership here in town (she was pushing it when we bought our new Versa) and she came home grinning ear to ear today. They had their official launch of the new Camaro and she got to drive one around. She said she would prefer it by a mile over the best Corvette, and she's driven quite a few of those. I think we'll be seeing quite a few of the cheaper Camaro models around soon. The SS is also a good deal for the money, but still, its a lot of money considering the recession and all.

[Reed19x]

Cool cars, alot of people seem to really dig them Just hope they don't run into the same problems the Challenger did (in my area at least)..people got bored with them kinda quick. Hope it picks up like the Mustang did!

[feloniousmonk]

Have her drive some twisty mountain roads. She'll want the Corvette. GM still can't build a car that handles at a price that is for the masses. A shame because the Camaro is a fantastic looking car.

[Bubs daddy]

From the reviews and test drives I've read in R&T, C&D and others online, the Camaro handles just fine. 300 bhp in a V-6 that gets 27 mpg.

[feloniousmonk]

http://jalopnik.com/5176993/20...drive

"The 2009 Corvette ZR1 is the best car I've ever driven, the 556 HP Cadillac CTS-V is an utterly awesome performance sedan and you've already been reading about the G8 GXP. So it comes as a surprise that Chevy's flag-waving everyman muscle car doesn't live up to those driving standards. Sure it's stinking fast, but it doesn't make exploiting that performance rewarding in the way all the above did so well. It doesn't so much defy convention, as drive like you'd expect a Camaro would, a really good Camaro."

"That interior is also going to be a bugbear for the Camaro. While the overall shapes are appealing, the materials are mostly cheap plastic."

"The standard-on-SS auxiliary gauges, mounted down low in front of the gear lever, are largely worthless on the move due to their positioning, but look really cool, providing a false sense of driver/machine integration that just isn't born out in the driving experience."

"On initial impressions and despite a spec sheet that strongly claims otherwise, I'd tip the hat in the Mustang's favor when it comes to driving enjoyment too."

"it's just not the unprecedented new experience that we were hoping for, it's not a real driver's car."

"it's not likely to win many conquests from more adept sportscars like the 370Z, Audi TT and BMW 3-series as Chevy hopes it will."

[Red Devil]

http://jalopnik.com/5176993/20...drive

"The 2009 Corvette ZR1 is the best car I've ever driven, the 556 HP Cadillac CTS-V is an utterly awesome performance sedan and you've already been reading about the G8 GXP. So it comes as a surprise that Chevy's flag-waving everyman muscle car doesn't live up to those driving standards. Sure it's stinking fast, but it doesn't make exploiting that performance rewarding in the way all the above did so well. It doesn't so much defy convention, as drive like you'd expect a Camaro would, a really good Camaro."

"That interior is also going to be a bugbear for the Camaro. While the overall shapes are appealing, the materials are mostly cheap plastic."

"The standard-on-SS auxiliary gauges, mounted down low in front of the gear lever, are largely worthless on the move due to their positioning, but look really cool, providing a false sense of driver/machine integration that just isn't born out in the driving experience."

"On initial impressions and despite a spec sheet that strongly claims otherwise, I'd tip the hat in the Mustang's favor when it comes to driving enjoyment too."

"it's just not the unprecedented new experience that we were hoping for, it's not a real driver's car."

"it's not likely to win many conquests from more adept sportscars like the 370Z, Audi TT and BMW 3-series as Chevy hopes it will."

Yay model bloat and classic Chevy crapgasm.

[Bubs daddy]

Well no sheepdip, Sherlock the car reviewer. The Cadillac's a $70,000 car, of course it's not going to drive as well as a $32K "everyman's" car.

For $32,000, you have 426 bhp. LOL. Who cares about the type of plastic on the dash.

Getting 426 ponies for $32,000 in a brand new car, a great looking car at that bargain.

Comparing it to an Audi TT, BMW or 370Z as the reviewer has is futile. Different price points and far different performance points.

Quote »it's not likely to win many conquests from more adept sportscars like the 370Z, Audi TT and BMW 3-series as Chevy hopes it will."[/quote]Yeah, except that little zero to pick up your jaw now the tailights are gone acceleration.

Besides the fact that the Camaro is not a sportscar it will still dust the above cars from noon to Sunday for the money.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 5:52 PM 4/15/2009

[Andrews Chalmers]

For $32,000, you have 426 bhp. LOL. Who cares about the type of plastic on the dash.

Getting 426 ponies for $32,000 in a brand new car, a great looking car at that bargain.

On paper it looks to be an impressive muscle car. We'll see how the production models are.

Although I must admit... I've never understood the stop sign/light to light "racing" that people bother with on the road.

[Rockhound]

Well no sheepdip, Sherlock the car reviewer. The Cadillac's a $70,000 car, of course it's not going to drive as well as a $32K "everyman's" car.

For $32,000, you have 426 bhp. LOL. Who cares about the type of plastic on the dash.

Again, this is the kind of thinking that helped push GM to their upcoming demise. GM management has been saying "who cares?" to legitimate complaints like interior quality (among other issues) for decades, and look where it got them.

I don't care how much horsepower a car has, for an MSRP north of $30k, I'm going to need an interior with better than "melted-down toy sword" quality. I'm already an impatient driver on my daily commute in the slow cars I've owned, and sometimes it's nice to sit back and enjoy the ride and not feel like you're piloting a huge Fisher-Pricemobile.

Yeah, except that little zero to pick up your jaw now the tailights are gone acceleration.

Besides the fact that the Camaro is not a sportscar it will still dust the above cars from noon to Sunday for the money.

Do you really think that anyone that owns any of those other cars really cares about a Camaro?

It's like those Pontiac G8 commercials that compare the G8 to a BMW 5-series for its superior fuel economy and rear-seat legroom. Do you really think there's some 5-series owner out there hitting his forehead saying "DOH!" because he could have had more legroom and 1 MPG better on the highway in a Pontiac?

From the reviews and test drives I've read in R&T, C&D and others online, the Camaro handles just fine. 300 bhp in a V-6 that gets 27 mpg.

So the two dinosaurs of automotive journalism gave the Camaro's handling the thumbs-up, so it's gotta be good? If you hadn't noticed, those publications lost their bite about 20+ years ago. Now everything is just a varying level of "good enough" for fear of offending anyone, manufacturers or readers alike.

If you want insightful automotive commentary, you need to try out something like thetruthaboutcars.com, where the writers tell it like it is, no matter who makes the car. They don't get press-vehicles (or ad dollars) so they're not worried about making some exec mad.

And no offense, but the average writer for those mags is in his 50s, and they all yearn for the "glory days" when the American automakers only worried themselves with "muscle cars" and no one cared about handling or getting more than 10 MPG. Now they're the ones with midlife crisis Corvettes, bemoaning the loss of the dinosaur companies since even they can't comprehend that a niche-player halo sports car and a also-ran pony car aren't enough to keep a huge corporation in the black.

The Camaro may be the best thing since sliced bread, but it's too little, too late. GM needs to dig deep and "rethink" their whole business model before, during, and after C11 to actually be a relevant competitor in today's market.

[feloniousmonk]

Well no sheepdip, Sherlock the car reviewer. The Cadillac's a $70,000 car, of course it's not going to drive as well as a $32K "everyman's" car.

Perhaps you have selective reading. It also said it isn't a driver's car compared to a 370Z, which is also in your $32k "every man's" car category.

Quote »For $32,000, you have 426 bhp. LOL. Who cares about the type of plastic on the dash.[/quote]Apparently you are so well off that you don't care if you're getting your money's worth when you spend it. I, on the other hand, expect to get a all-around more than decent car for $32k. I make a comfortable living in advertising and no matter how much more I make, $32k is still a good chunk of money.

426 bhp is s*** if it comes from a platform that can't put it all too good use. Your mentality, magnified in greater numbers, is exactly the cause why the domestics could never and still can't compete. Good enough is just not enough. It isn't bad luck that we, tax payers, are bailing out GM and Chrysler.

Oh, and a tip, never start an argument by calling names. If you want people to respect you and your opinion, that is not the way you'll ever get it. The only thing you accomplish, and do well, is revealing to the world what a complete moron you truly are.

It's like those Pontiac G8 commercials that compare the G8 to a BMW 5-series for its superior fuel economy and rear-seat legroom. Do you really think there's some 5-series owner out there hitting his forehead saying "DOH!" because he could have had more legroom and 1 MPG better on the highway in a Pontiac?

As a BMW owner and member of several BMW forums, I can say with confidence that any BMW owner would laugh to death if asked to consider the G8 or any Pontiac. MPG? If you ask BMW M owners if MPG was a factor in their purchase decision, they too would laugh to death.

[AG]

feloniousmonk makes sense

btw I wanna see and laugh how those "426 hp" would perform.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Oh, and a tip, never start an argument by calling names.[/quote]Thanks for the tip. Here's a tip in return, calling someone "Sherlock" is hardly name calling.

I was referring to the writer of the article as an obvious detective. It was said with tongue in cheek. Hardly a pejorative. I think he can handle it.

If you want to elevate that to stage II "moron" go ahead. I'm sure you advertising types have the lexicon to go much further than that though. If you're gonna swing, swing.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Again, this is the kind of thinking that helped push GM to their upcoming demise. GM management has been saying "who cares?" to legitimate complaints like interior quality (among other issues) for decades, and look where it got them.

I don't care how much horsepower a car has, for an MSRP north of $30k, I'm going to need an interior with better than "melted-down toy sword" quality. I'm already an impatient driver on my daily commute in the slow cars I've owned, and sometimes it's nice to sit back and enjoy the ride and not feel like you're piloting a huge Fisher-Pricemobile.[/quote]Then you can get that Toyota Camry of your dreams. It is available at a Toyota dealer near you. It has that cushy soft dash, too. Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot more than $32K for that kind of horsepower, handling, AND the aforementioned, so important dashboard materials.

Quote »Do you really think that anyone that owns any of those other cars really cares about a Camaro?

It's like those Pontiac G8 commercials that compare the G8 to a BMW 5-series for its superior fuel economy and rear-seat legroom. Do you really think there's some 5-series owner out there hitting his forehead saying "DOH!" because he could have had more legroom and 1 MPG better on the highway in a Pontiac?

[/quote]No. That's why I was wondering why the author cared about whether or not those owners cared about a Camaro. I never thought those drivers crossed shopped those cars. But he brought it up as you can see in my quote.

As far as the BMW 5 owner, he's probably slapping his forehead because he's didn't get as many cupholders either.

Quote »So the two dinosaurs of automotive journalism gave the Camaro's handling the thumbs-up, so it's gotta be good? If you hadn't noticed, those publications lost their bite about 20+ years ago. Now everything is just a varying level of "good enough" for fear of offending anyone, manufacturers or readers alike.

If you want insightful automotive commentary, you need to try out something like thetruthaboutcars.com, where the writers tell it like it is, no matter who makes the car. They don't get press-vehicles (or ad dollars) so they're not worried about making some exec mad.

And no offense, but the average writer for those mags is in his 50s, and they all yearn for the "glory days" when the American automakers only worried themselves with "muscle cars" and no one cared about handling or getting more than 10 MPG. Now they're the ones with midlife crisis Corvettes, bemoaning the loss of the dinosaur companies since even they can't comprehend that a niche-player halo sports car and a also-ran pony car aren't enough to keep a huge corporation in the black.

The Camaro may be the best thing since sliced bread, but it's too little, too late. GM needs to dig deep and "rethink" their whole business model before, during, and after C11 to actually be a relevant competitor in today's market.[/quote]That's a pretty condescending remark coming from someone who, what is it again? Oh yes, finds gas in rock pores or something like that. Look, I know you're younger and reading your posts in the forums you seem bright enough but although you may think you know a bit much more than everyone here, you know more than some and less than others.

For example. The fine folks who have been writing for Car and Driver for quite some time and also their newer staff. You would be absolutely wrong and arrogant to presume that these gents all yearn for their glory days. The plain fact is you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Their readers, in fact think they are in the tank for BMW, Honda, Mercedes and some others. Their criticisms of domestics cars hasn't really changed over the years. They state the same niggles, some bits don't match up, materials could be better, but overall, far and away better than the dreadful seventies and eighties.

The test and review with various methods and categories, all kinds of cars. They study trends, the industry, materials, technology, and everything that relates to the car enthusiast. If they like the Camaro, they'll tell you. If the dash seems cheap, they'll tell you that, too.

Only someone who hasn't read C&D often or not at all would make such a baseless comment because it is not true. They love cars with gear boxes that snick snick. They love the BMW 3 series. It's their standard. The 5 gets too complicated with too much I drive and all that gadgetry. 3 series. Simple. Handles. Goes. Stops. It's tight. It's a drivers car.

So save the mid life crisis rubbish. They like cars. Always have.

Their writers have degreees from MIT and other institutions in engineering and other fields, amongst them journalism, many have certifications for track and racing in various divisions and classes. They have been around cars, have been driving cars, have been writing about cars, racing cars, repairing, modifying, designing and reviewing cars, some long before you were born. They've forgotton more about cars than you know.

I know it's hard for the younger set with a college degree and strong opinions that someone else may have a bit more knowledge than you. Some people call that experience, wisdom, a foundation of knowledge.

Those magazines haven't lost their bite. You've just lost your manners.

[Red Devil]

If all people cared about was performance then everyone would trade in their Ferrari's for Corvette ZR1's. When you buy a Ferrari, you not only get the performance, you get the heritage, prestige and high interior quality. Plus Ferrari's sound amazing.

[MinisterofDOOM]

http://jalopnik.com/5176993/20...drive

This review sucks. The moment it began touting the Mustang over the Camaro it showed that the review has NO IDEA WHAT he is talking about. The Mustang is a crude, cheap budgetmobile that happens to come with an optional V8 that manages to make up for the car's utter mediocrity with torque. The Mustang and Camaro aren't even the same type of vehicle anymore. The Mustang is still a classic ponycar using 60s production goals (not a bad thing if that's what you're going for). The Camaro is a thoroughly modern sports car with a fantastic V6 AND V8 to choose from. The V6 Mustang is a joke, with it's gutless, crude, harsh, unpleasant-sounding and gas-guzzling 25-year-old V6 standing as a shining example of the reasons progress is a very good thing. The Mustang handles like garbage (my FWD Maxima is more agile and obedient and the Mustang managed to somehow understeer MORE than my front-drive sedan!) and the interior design is horrible (WHY does the dash flare UPWARD!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!). The Mustang is certainly attractive from the outside, but that is the SINGLE thing it has going for it.

The Camaro has a world-class V6 (on par with the VQ) under the hood of it's $24k base model. It has advanced modern independent suspension. The Mustang is no longer in the same league. Mustang can keep playing retro-pony-appeal. The Camaro has moved on to the Big Leagues where real modern sportscars play.

I don't know what Mustang the Jalopnik reviewers drove, but the one I drove was NOT agile and it was certainly not light on its feet. I constantly had to feel around the car's weaknesses while attempting to toss it around. The car does NOT go where you point it. You play an irritating and very blind game of "turn the wheel and see how well the car follows" until you can nail down just how much turn-in is needed to achieve the desired rotation. Steering feel means NOTHING if it is accompanied by a car that seems to ignore input or at least run it through a vat of molasses before it hits the ground. In a real car, a proper car, a car that's not designed with teenaged girls in mind (and the Mustang is) you turn the wheel, point the car, and the car does what you tell it. The back follows around and the front carves. NONE of this is anywhere to be found in the Mustang. It's just numb blind ambiguity and the hope that you're giving the right inputs because you won't know until you've made them whether they're what you need or not.

Don't think I have anything against the old way of doing things, either. Half my heart lives in the 1960s with Chevelles, Camaros, Impalas and Galaxies. But anyone who puts the crude budget-purposed Mustang ahead of a thoroughly modern piece of engineering like the Camaro needs to have their reviewing rights revoked.

[Red Devil]

This review sucks. The moment it began touting the Mustang over the Camaro it showed that the review has NO IDEA WHAT he is talking about. The Mustang is a crude, cheap budgetmobile that happens to come with an optional V8 that manages to make up for the car's utter mediocrity with torque. The Mustang and Camaro aren't even the same type of vehicle anymore. The Mustang is still a classic ponycar using 60s production goals (not a bad thing if that's what you're going for). The Camaro is a thoroughly modern sports car with a fantastic V6 AND V8 to choose from. The V6 Mustang is a joke, with it's gutless, crude, harsh, unpleasant-sounding and gas-guzzling 25-year-old V6 standing as a shining example of the reasons progress is a very good thing. The Mustang handles like garbage (my FWD Maxima is more agile and obedient and the Mustang managed to somehow understeer MORE than my front-drive sedan!) and the interior design is horrible (WHY does the dash flare UPWARD!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!). The Mustang is certainly attractive from the outside, but that is the SINGLE thing it has going for it.

The Camaro has a world-class V6 (on par with the VQ) under the hood of it's $24k base model. It has advanced modern independent suspension. The Mustang is no longer in the same league. Mustang can keep playing retro-pony-appeal. The Camaro has moved on to the Big Leagues where real modern sportscars play.

I don't know what Mustang the Jalopnik reviewers drove, but the one I drove was NOT agile and it was certainly not light on its feet. I constantly had to feel around the car's weaknesses while attempting to toss it around. The car does NOT go where you point it. You play an irritating and very blind game of "turn the wheel and see how well the car follows" until you can nail down just how much turn-in is needed to achieve the desired rotation. Steering feel means NOTHING if it is accompanied by a car that seems to ignore input or at least run it through a vat of molasses before it hits the ground. In a real car, a proper car, a car that's not designed with teenaged girls in mind (and the Mustang is) you turn the wheel, point the car, and the car does what you tell it. The back follows around and the front carves. NONE of this is anywhere to be found in the Mustang. It's just numb blind ambiguity and the hope that you're giving the right inputs because you won't know until you've made them whether they're what you need or not.

Don't think I have anything against the old way of doing things, either. Half my heart lives in the 1960s with Chevelles, Camaros, Impalas and Galaxies. But anyone who puts the crude budget-purposed Mustang ahead of a thoroughly modern piece of engineering like the Camaro needs to have their reviewing rights revoked.

Tout? They mention it 2 times. They also mainly complain about the drive being less involved and withut as much feel. If you have better involvment and steering feel, which usually result in you being able to explore the limits of the cars handling, you usually are either faster or feel faster.

Take a deep breath and calm down. As much as you seem to dislike Ford, they've begun to turn their products around, towards the right direction.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Perhaps "tout" was the wrong word. My meaning was that anyone who claims the Mustang is more fun to drive needs to be evaluated mentally. It's not a BAD car to drive, but it's certainly nothing special. As I said, my 16 year old front-wheel drive family sedan is more spry and enjoyable to drive than the Mustang I drove was. The Mustang just didn't feel like it did anything at all particularly well. It did what I asked, but without any enthusiasm. Not particularly engaging to drive at all.

I don't necessarily dislike Ford (though I am unhappy with many of their recent decisions and changes), I just don't like the Mustang. I like pretty much everything else they make except the obsolete Focus (hey, obsolecense is what the two products I DON'T like have in common. Hmmm.. ). The Fusion is a great product without a doubt and there's even a car with the Taurus name that's worth buying for the first time in a decade (It'd be better with the Five Hundred or Galaxie name on it, though!). Not bad at all. Although why they had to kill oFf the Mark LT I don't know, and I refuse to forgive them for that one.

And I'm calm. I just used caps for emphasis. No yelling intended.

[marlin29311]

Then you can get that Toyota Camry of your dreams. It is available at a Toyota dealer near you. It has that cushy soft dash, too. Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot more than $32K for that kind of horsepower, handling, AND the aforementioned, so important dashboard materials.

No. That's why I was wondering why the author cared about whether or not those owners cared about a Camaro. I never thought those drivers crossed shopped those cars. But he brought it up as you can see in my quote.

As far as the BMW 5 owner, he's probably slapping his forehead because he's didn't get as many cupholders either.

That's a pretty condescending remark coming from someone who, what is it again? Oh yes, finds gas in rock pores or something like that. Look, I know you're younger and reading your posts in the forums you seem bright enough but although you may think you know a bit much more than everyone here, you know more than some and less than others.

For example. The fine folks who have been writing for Car and Driver for quite some time and also their newer staff. You would be absolutely wrong and arrogant to presume that these gents all yearn for their glory days. The plain fact is you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

Their readers, in fact think they are in the tank for BMW, Honda, Mercedes and some others. Their criticisms of domestics cars hasn't really changed over the years. They state the same niggles, some bits don't match up, materials could be better, but overall, far and away better than the dreadful seventies and eighties.

The test and review with various methods and categories, all kinds of cars. They study trends, the industry, materials, technology, and everything that relates to the car enthusiast. If they like the Camaro, they'll tell you. If the dash seems cheap, they'll tell you that, too.

Only someone who hasn't read C&D often or not at all would make such a baseless comment because it is not true. They love cars with gear boxes that snick snick. They love the BMW 3 series. It's their standard. The 5 gets too complicated with too much I drive and all that gadgetry. 3 series. Simple. Handles. Goes. Stops. It's tight. It's a drivers car.

So save the mid life crisis rubbish. They like cars. Always have.

Their writers have degreees from MIT and other institutions in engineering and other fields, amongst them journalism, many have certifications for track and racing in various divisions and classes. They have been around cars, have been driving cars, have been writing about cars, racing cars, repairing, modifying, designing and reviewing cars, some long before you were born. They've forgotton more about cars than you know.

I know it's hard for the younger set with a college degree and strong opinions that someone else may have a bit more knowledge than you. Some people call that experience, wisdom, a foundation of knowledge.

Those magazines haven't lost their bite. You've just lost your manners.

Best post ever. /thread

[Rockhound]

Then you can get that Toyota Camry of your dreams. It is available at a Toyota dealer near you. It has that cushy soft dash, too. Otherwise, you're going to spend a lot more than $32K for that kind of horsepower, handling, AND the aforementioned, so important dashboard materials.

Actually, my next vehicle purchase will likely be along the lines of a 370Z or G37. I won't be spending much more than that and both have far better than a rental car interior. Neither have the horsepower of the SS, but that doesn't bother me.

That's a pretty condescending remark coming from someone who, what is it again? Oh yes, finds gas in rock pores or something like that. Look, I know you're younger and reading your posts in the forums you seem bright enough but although you may think you know a bit much more than everyone here, you know more than some and less than others.

Why is that a condescending remark because I'm a petroleum geologist? What does my profession have to do with it? I can guarantee I know more than just about everyone here (save for fjwagner) regarding the industry in which I work - that's not idle boasting, it's just the truth.

Don't speak to me like I'm some punk kid. I'm not ashamed to admit that others know far more than me in myriad subjects. I've never done any work on my cars beyond oil changes/filters/spark plugs, so there's a topic for which I have no qualms admitting that I'm certainly no expert. There's not enough space or time to list all the things I don't know, and I'm not afraid to say that.

For example. The fine folks who have been writing for Car and Driver for quite some time and also their newer staff. You would be absolutely wrong and arrogant to presume that these gents all yearn for their glory days...Only someone who hasn't read C&D often or not at all would make such a baseless comment because it is not true...

Yikes! It appears I hit a nerve. In fact I used to be a subscriber to C/D. A family friend gave me a collection of old car mags as a child, so I grew up reading many different publications, some from well before I came into this world. I was making rash generalizations about the car mags today, but it's true - they've lost their bite. Sure, they pick on fit and finish now and then, but it's clear that there's a disconnect with many of the older writers - a CTS-V is not a representative of GM quality at large. This is also endemic to Detroit - they can't see the forest for the trees.

The general vibe I get from C/D today is that horsepower and/or accelerative thrust are two of the primary benchmarks. Which is fine (it is a car mag after all), but reading an economy car or family sedan comparo, you get the impression that the writer is pining for the Gallardo LP560-4 (who could blame him?) but as a result can't really wrap his head around the fact that us normal folks will never even touch such a machine and are quite content with our Versas (or whatever).

I'm also quite aware of the Honda/BMW bias claims. Like the comparo where the M3 beat the GT-R because the M3 was more 'livable' and had a bigger trunk. That opened the floodgates of comments!

The car mags also face another flaw of printed media - lead times. By the time my C/D would arrive in my mailbox, I already know most everything in it from the online car magazines I enjoy (thetruthaboutcars, Winding Road, etc).

I know it's hard for the younger set with a college degree and strong opinions that someone else may have a bit more knowledge than you. Some people call that experience, wisdom, a foundation of knowledge.

Those magazines haven't lost their bite. You've just lost your manners.

I can't help it that I'm young and smart. I also can't help it that I intimidate the 'older set' with my intelligence and education.

I see this scenario everyday at work. The average petroleum geologist in the industry is around 50+. After the industry crash in the 80s, hiring was nil, and few folks majored in geology during the 90s. Now there's a huge generation gap across the board.

I've got so much to learn it isn't funny. And I need to learn all I can from the senior guys before they retire because within them is a wealth of knowledge that will help folks like me from making stupid, preventable mistakes.

But at the same time, I was thrown in the deep end out of necessity (no time to train) and I learn very quickly. I pay my coworkers the utmost respect and value their insight and wisdom - but one guy in particular is obviously intimidated by me. He tells me almost daily, in a not-so friendly tone, that he's been doing this longer than I've been alive, even when I come to him for advice. Is it my fault he's old? Is it my fault I'm young?

Anyway, go back and read an old C/D and you won't find any corporate kiss-up. Heck, even Brock Yates bashes the toothless mag he once worked for.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »...but it's clear that there's a disconnect with many of the older writers - a CTS-V is not a representative of GM quality at large. This is also endemic to Detroit - they can't see the forest for the trees.

The general vibe I get from C/D today is that horsepower and/or accelerative thrust are two of the primary benchmarks. Which is fine (it is a car mag after all), but reading an economy car or family sedan comparo, you get the impression that the writer is pining for the Gallardo LP560-4 (who could blame him?) but as a result can't really wrap his head around the fact that us normal folks will never even touch such a machine and are quite content with our Versas (or whatever).

I'm also quite aware of the Honda/BMW bias claims. Like the comparo where the M3 beat the GT-R because the M3 was more 'livable' and had a bigger trunk. That opened the floodgates of comments!

The car mags also face another flaw of printed media - lead times. By the time my C/D would arrive in my mailbox, I already know most everything in it from the online car magazines I enjoy (thetruthaboutcars, Winding Road, etc).[/quote]They still pick nits about the Detroit wood (plastic), exposed screws and the like as much as they ever did. The thing is, GM Ford and Chrysler build better cars now so there isn't as much to criticise anymore in that regard. They have jumped light years, for them, in fit and finish.

They like horsepower, sure, that's why they're testing a Veyron or some other supercar every other issue. Car enthusiasts usually like, um, going faster. 'Course, those three clever Brits on Top Gear will say the same thing. They love horsepower. They're power junkies as they give credit where credit is due. They bash American cars more than anyone but I love the show, different culture, different needs, different styles, that kind of thing. Seeing them test an F150 and the looks of "My God, why?" on their faces was priceless.

Back to C&D, ironically, lately Csere and some others have been on a mission to get as high mileage as they can with some of the long term testers, especially the hybrids and in fact, are obsessed with their mileage.

Quote »I can't help it that I'm young and smart. I also can't help it that I intimidate the 'older set' with my intelligence and education.

I see this scenario everyday at work. The average petroleum geologist in the industry is around 50+. After the industry crash in the 80s, hiring was nil, and few folks majored in geology during the 90s. Now there's a huge generation gap across the board.

I've got so much to learn it isn't funny. And I need to learn all I can from the senior guys before they retire because within them is a wealth of knowledge that will help folks like me from making stupid, preventable mistakes.

But at the same time, I was thrown in the deep end out of necessity (no time to train) and I learn very quickly. I pay my coworkers the utmost respect and value their insight and wisdom - but one guy in particular is obviously intimidated by me. He tells me almost daily, in a not-so friendly tone, that he's been doing this longer than I've been alive, even when I come to him for advice. Is it my fault he's old? Is it my fault I'm young?

Anyway, go back and read an old C/D and you won't find any corporate kiss-up. Heck, even Brock Yates bashes the toothless mag he once worked for.

[/quote]But you certainly don't intimidate me. I have an education as well as do the chaps at Car and Driver. And I've done plenty more than changed the oil over the years mind you. I keep up with the industry. I just don't understand the respect that you don't give them. With this thread, you're coming across as smug and arrogant, not young and smart.

So one guy's bustin' your chops at work. I know lots of guys like that. Work with them, too. I also work with young know it all types who believe the latest and greatest theories or practices are a one size fits all for every situation. Then reality hits them square in the chest.

Ol' Brock was my favorite. He went out without fanfare. Without a last article, without a warning. Which tells me it wasn't a pretty ending at C&D for him. But I see pretty much eye to eye with Brock on most issues.

I'm just disagreeing with your assessment of how insightful and relevant C&D and their writers are. They are as insightful as they ever were. Is it better without Brock? In my opinion, no. But a dinosaur? No. I agree about lead times and what not but the magazine industry as a whole is dealing with that issue.

Look, I believe BMW makes a great car. I think the new Camaro is going to be a good car. When people compare them it's silly to me. The BMW is more refined in a lot of ways and you have to pay for that refinement. That roundel will cost you but you get what you pay for. In spades.

With the Camaro SS, you'll get a whole lotta yeehaw with the loud pedal. I don't know if GM will ever get the details right. Perhaps some day. I see 426 bhp in a good looking wrapper and my eyes get misty.

I like what I read from you here in this forum, Rockhound. I just think your commentary on the boys at C&D was off base. They still provide, in my opinion, some of the best automobile journalism out there.


Modified by Bubs daddy at 2:58 PM 4/17/2009

[Rockhound]

^^ Points taken. I'm sorry if I come across smug and/or arrogant, I try not to, but sometimes it's tough not to have a chip on your shoulder. I don't like being thrown in with most of 'my generation' (the 'younger set'), as they tend to be as you described, and I dislike those characteristics (hence my work story, as I try to pay utmost respect to those that I can learn from...even if it doesn't pay off). Also, reading posts on here results in a loss of some of the writer's original intent, as some of what I say is definitely tongue in cheek, or snarky for snarkiness' sake.

I am hard on C/D, and I guess to an extent I've been brainwashed by some of the biting automotive blogs that I read. I like the no holds barred approach of some of these online publications, nothing's sacred. Recently an automotive journalist at Edmunds (or somesuch place) didn't have nice things to say about the new Camaro, and GM replied saying that he wasn't going to get any more test vehicles from them. It's that dangerous balance that larger publications must maintain, and that aspect of the business bothers me, although I guess it's nothing new and certainly not limited to the auto industry.

I'm also pretty harsh on GM (and Chrysler) because I despise their inability to take any blame for their downfall. I find myself being very critical of their every move, like the hail-mary Volt, or the massive delays on the Camaro. Their execs (current and former) can come up with external excuses all day long, and external forces have not been kind to them in the last couple years, but not one of those guys (Lutz, Wagoner, Nardelli) has/had the stones to step up and say something to the effect of "we failed you, America" and then promote their 'new deal' with the car buying public. I think that kind of tactic might have helped smooth over much of the bailout animosity.

[Bubs daddy]

No one was angrier at GM than me for a period of time in the 80's. They had to buy back from me, a car that I had purchased because it had so many problems. This was before there were lemon laws for the state in which I was residing. At that time I vowed never to EVER buy a GM product again.

And I didn't, for a long time. Time passes, things change.

Trust me. I'm not defending GM for what lost them their market share. I still believe they are way too bloated and have far too many cars, divisions, interests and platforms for far too long. This is before the guys you mentioned. This was still happening with Stempel and Smith. Time to pay the piper now. I don't believe in any of this bailout bullcrap. You succeed. You fail. File bankruptcy. Reorganize.

I've wanted them to pare divisions years ago and was always puzzled why they built four cars on the same platform.

Having said that, it's a b**** with new regulations and changing mandates in the middle of a product development or cycle. In my opinion, the govt has way too much involvement now and has added far more complexity, weight, and cost to vehicles than necessary.

[audtatious]

Having said that, it's a b**** with new regulations and changing mandates in the middle of a product development or cycle. In my opinion, the govt has way too much involvement now and has added far more complexity, weight, and cost to vehicles than necessary.

With more coming over the next 4-8 years I'm sure. The environmental lobby will see to it.

[grogman]

hey moderator, when i polled which divisions gm will get rid of, you moved my post. this camaro post falls in the same category...............move this post please. american cars sukk or they are too expensive for most of us. if i had 30 g to spend on a car i can promise you it won't be on an american piece of crap. hey folks, if you had 30 g for a new or used car what would you get? too funny.

[marlin29311]

hey moderator, when i polled which divisions gm will get rid of, you moved my post. this camaro post falls in the same category...............move this post please. american cars sukk or they are too expensive for most of us. if i had 30 g to spend on a car i can promise you it won't be on an american piece of crap. hey folks, if you had 30 g for a new or used car what would you get? too funny.

just stop posting already.

30k for a Car? CTS sounds nice to me...maybe even a NEW CAMARO. It'll fly right buy your VERSA.

[grogman]

just stop posting already.

30k for a Car? CTS sounds nice to me...maybe even a NEW CAMARO. It'll fly right buy your VERSA.

hey marlin, i know the cts and camaro can fly by my car. it should for the price of 2 loaded versas duh.