Motor Trend Classic

[ocnblu]

While I haven't been much of a fan of Motor Trend lately, I picked up the Sept/Oct issue of Motor Trend Classic for an article on the Corvair, and an interesting piece on the '59 Chevy's fins.

This morning I'm going through, page by page, checking out the mag, and I find an editorial by Angus Mackenzie, entitled "History Lesson", and I swear, this man somehow got inside my mind and published what I (and others) have been thinking and posting here for years. Here are some excerpts:

"...Henry Ford: 'History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition...' The irony is Ford Motor Company might be in a whole lot less trouble right now if the folks who run it ignored Henry's advice and read a little history once in a while."

"After decades of thrashing about, GM is only now beginning to coalesce into an automaker with a strong, centralized engineering, design, and product-development core supporting brands with a clearly defined place and purpose in the market."

"GM is rediscovering the basics. But, ironically, this is stuff it had already figured out 50 years ago."

"For far too long, Detroit has been preoccupied with building cheap clones of Japanese and European automobiles..."

"The truth is, for the best part of two decades, a truck was about the only thing you could buy from Detroit that had a muscular V8 under the hood and didn't look like a jellybean. The 300C has proven that if you give Americans a real American car, they will buy it."

"Camaros, Challengers, Galaxies, Bonnevilles, Caprices, Torinos, Gran Sports, Catalinas, Trans Ams. They're all history. But they ain't bunk."

Bravo! This had to be said in a major publication!

(And I really like how he mentions 3 proud Pontiac names in that last paragraph.)

Edited September 17, 2006 by ocnblu

[american_revolution_2005]

I'll have to pick that up. The 2nd last and 3rd last phrases say exactly how I feel.

[Sixty8panther]

"GM is rediscovering the basics.  But, ironically, this is stuff it had already figured out 50 years ago."

"For far too long, Detroit has been preoccupied with building cheap clones of Japanese and European automobiles..."

194180[/snapback]

Put that in your pipe & smoke it!

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Classic is probably one of the best classic car mags out there. They feature cars that are restored to the way they once were from the showroom floor and not a bunch of trailer-queens.

* * *

Looking at the big picture here, it seems DCX and GM are getting it -- what an American automaker should be and what an American automaker should build -- but not Ford. I think Angus should have maybe touched on that more. More or less, we know what GM's up to (rear-drive and bolder styling). And you don't need a degree in rocket science to see that the next wave of DCX cars will build on what's out on dealer lots now. But when it comes to Ford, you can't help but feel disappointed. Where's the next-generation Crown Vic? Why is the old one still here? Why hasn't it been improved by now? Why didn't they build the 427 concept, which most certainly looked and sounded like it could steal a bit of the 300C's spotlight? Why did they have to make the 500 so bland and an Audi rip-off? A real American automaker doesn't build Audi wannabes. The Fusion is close, but it could've went farther. Instead of making "bold moves," something that the company claims they do make, they just make "old moves."

I'll just be brutally honest here: if Ford goes bankrupt without changing what they're doing now in some form, I won't be upset.

Edited September 17, 2006 by YellowJacket894

[HarleyEarl]

It is a good magazine. And what he says is absolutely true. It's exactly what has gone wrong, Amercian manufacturers 'building cheap clones of Japanese and European auotmobiles'.

[razoredge]

While I think I understand somewhat, Im not sold. I dont see alot of bold GM, I dont see much change. I dont see what styling GM has changed that Ford has not. The newer stuff from across both ponds is still far bolder stylistically and efficient economically. Yea "Chryslers" bold but does everyone go goo goo over it, I dont, its not to my tastes. If I want a car that looks like a truck and gets horrible gas milage I suppose a Kenworth grilled Hemi is the way to go..............

GM has 2 bold interesting nitch cars, one of which is going to destroy the sales for the other........theres something to be proud off. A concept that they apparently are going to commit to for a change, but we have yet to see it sterilized, even then, that too, is still a nitch car.

I also dont understand Henrys qoute. Ford was known for beng a control freek, ignoring or destroying new ideas from his engineers and ran models for very long periods of time. Im not downing him, highly respected around here but the statement seems somewhat hypocritical.

""The truth is, for the best part of two decades, a truck was about the only thing you could buy from Detroit that had a muscular V8 under the hood and didn't look like a jellybean. The 300C has proven that if you give Americans a real American car, they will buy it."

No the truth is the 300 C is not some big sales success

The truth is GM's V6 cars will out muscle their gas chuggin V8 trucks.

The "jellybean" was a styling trend of the 90's, we could look back on the early 60's and call them all cardboard boxs if using the same mentality. As far as that goes I still do and always will feel GM had the most number of great looking "jellybeans" and I do not feel any of the cars Im talking about were any form of European or Asain copycats.

Nothing more pathatic than people that look back on themselves in the past and have some kind of identity crisis over it. Every era has had its strong and weak points and each and everyone of them has a legitimate explaination.

I do understand your point and meaning of your post, Blu. I'm just not ready to wave a victory flag, nor bury my head in the sand out of shame.

[mrmonte]

Angus is right . I couldnt have said it better myself.