Hudson

In the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" when they mention production of the EV1, they show the Hamtramck plant.

Yes...the REO Speedwagon dates back almost 20 years before the vehicle pictured on that site. And REO itself lasted until modern times. Ever see a Diamond Reo truck?

I think if you read the full context of most (if not all) of those reviews, you'll see that the magazines are framing up how far GM come. Toyota doesn't have a bad Camry Corolla to over come...but GM has made some mistakes as they've tried to find their way in the competitive market. These mistakes only point out that GM was not ready for competition and took years to change their ways. I hope they've actually turned a corner, but you can't assume that because a magazine pointed out 23 years of relatively unchanged Cavaliers or bad starter Cadillacs the rest of the article will be negative.What's wrong with historical context? How boring would an article be if they discussed 20 years of successes with the Camry before going on to the new model? But stating that GM had faltered a few times before reaching Cadillac CTS lets the reader know that this is NOT a Cimarron or a Catera. I don't have a problem with it.

I agree. You could possibly convince yourself of anyone's win by looking at the raw numbers and individual places. But when it's "and the winner is," I don't buy it. I wasn't convinced that the 2002 Thunderbird was the best of that year and I'm not convinced of this one either.

The CTS isn't a "game changer" either. I'm not even sure if it would be placed highest among its peers (the focus of this award). Choosing the Sequoia accolade as a sign that there's media bias is just wrong. Just because the newest product out there is touted as being good (every new product should be the best in its market when it's launched) is no sign that there's a bias...again, doesn't anyone remember when the same things were said at the launch of the GMT900 SUVs? The Saturn Aura wasn't the best product when it won the North American Car of the Year. I'm not sure that the CX9 is the best SUV this year. And I'm fairly sure that the CTS is not the most deserving product out there this year for Motor Trend's COTY. I see something far worse than media bias going on...but I'm sure you guys don't.

Can we finally put to rest that the media hates GM? I think this award proves something else....but if you guys will stop with the incessant "media bias" chants, I won't go there.

ALL of you "GM Boyz" better take off your rose-colored glasses and realize what's really going on.I never noticed where GM has gotten grilled for the GMT900 SUVs looking like the pickup counterparts. And show me where more than ONE writer has done this...and I might see your point. And if you can show me where that same writer touted Toyota's styling, I'll definitely take your side. But you won't be able to. Pointing out that GM sells HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of oversized (yes, I said it) full-sized SUVs which waste far too much gas (a minivan would cover the needs of a very high percentage of SUV drivers' needs) is just taking the biggest seller of such vehicles as an example. Ford, Chrysler, Toyota and Nissan are all guilty of the same errors, but the others barely match GM's total market share in this segment. When you're the biggest, you need to be ready to take the shots. Also, find me a writer who hated a good GM product and loved a bad Toyota product....A SINGLE WRITER. THAT would be bias, but a magazine typically has a dozen or so writers which means that each one can have his or her own taste and style. And many of the better magazines allow for multiple opinions on vehicles to allow the reader to see multiple sides of the story. If I wanted nothing but statistics, I'll read Consumer Reports. Yes, there's bias. But it's called OPINION....I have one, you have one, everyone with a brain cell has one. I see NOTHING wrong with the Sequoia article since it raves about many of the same things that GM SUVs were touted for just two years ago. I would expect any newer product from ANY company (and Toyota is one of them) to improve upon its last product and compete well with anyone else's new products in the marketplace. You guys are really clutching at straws here.

Let's add in the 1971 Chevrolet Vega, 1988 Pontiac Grand Prix, and 2002 Ford Thunderbird while we're at it. Oh, and don't forget the Citroen SM (anyone even remember that car?).

Or the one that RAVED about the GMT900 SUVs? Now there's a newer kid on the block, which looks to be marginally better in many dimensions than the GMT900 trucks, and suddenly it's a media bias? You guys can't do better than that? Really? Then can I claim a GM-bias on the Malibu and previous GMT900 raves?

They're working on the 2008 Car of the Year currently, but model year doesn't matter...on sale date does. Any press is good press. Past track record doesn't matter to the average person...awards do for some reason. And it cost the manufacturer virtually nothing (nothing more than they were already spending) to enter a car....all they have to do is accept the magazine's invitation.Getting a COTY award means much more than being Indy Pace Car, for example, and GM spends quite a bit of money to do that one.

The Confederate flag is typically used, here in the North, by (uninformed) people who think it's "cool" to be controversial or by blatant racists. It has taken a meaning beyond the original Southern Unity idea. It irritates me to see it because of the meaning is has gained. I won't deny anyone their heritage, but any truly color-blind Southerner should be able to see what the flag represents to the public in general. As for the Nazi flag, a similar thing has followed it. The swastika dates back many centuries and was a symbol of luck to groups like the ancient Egyptians as well as being associated with Hinduism and Buddhism. The unfortunate connection of this symbol with the Nazi party has tarnished, perhaps forever, the history of it. And the same comes with the Confederate flag. While the Confederacy may have been founded to make a stand on state rights, among those "rights" being defended was the South's laws which discriminated against people of color. Laws and attitudes that still exist in some forms today. And the stand that the Confederate flag is not about racism overlooks that the overwhelming public opinion, especially among non-whites, is that it represents the things that were WRONG with the South. It may be overlooking many good points, but like the swastika, a subset of the full history of the image has tarnished the legacy.

The main difference, as I see it, between Mr DeLorenzo and just about every writer in a traditional buff book or industry publication is that Mr DeLorenzo thinks the world of himself and most other writers aren't quite that arrogant. I haven't found anything of use in Mr DeLorenzo's writings in many years. On the other hand, Jerry Flint has the same arrogance, but somehow I enjoy reading his ramblings even though I find errors in them almost every time. I read to be entertained as well as educated. Mr DeLorenzo does neither. Mr Flint entertains me. I find that too few vehicle reviews actually are critical. Sure, they find a fault or two but because modern cars are almost too perfect (compared to cars of 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago) in quality and reliability that the writers need to nit-pick. I find myself doing it when I'm comparing cars. But buff books can't truly be critical or they might offend the manufacturer who will remove them from loan lists. Why would you risk losing the next sports car to test because you found something you didn't like about a lesser product from that same company? Or worse, would you risk losing that company's ad dollars just to be objective when reviewing a vehicle? My bigger problem with car magazines comes from the entertainment value. I remember when I used to buy Car or Car and Driver just for their writing (critical or not) and photography. I can name you great articles I've read and great photographic layouts I've looked over, but unfortunately none of them have been published in the last decade. Read Car and Driver's article about their attempted cross-country, non-stop trip in a Volkswagen Jetta Diesel (published in 1997 or 1998). If you don't laugh out loud, you should have yourself checked for an ailing sense of humor. But C&D has lost something since then.

As I recall, an outside company was contracted to build them for Ford. But the project was cancelled after only about 125 trucks were built.

I've written about this before, but I'll try to refresh it.Prior to World War II, most car brands built one basic car. There may have been trim levels, but for the most part, they made one type of vehicle. If they needed to extend their reach, they would add another brand. Ford purchased Lincoln and added Mercury. Chrysler purchased Dodge and added DeSoto and Plymouth (not to mention Imperial). GM was created on this idea and other manufacturers did much the same by introducing brands such as Essex, Star, Auburn-Cord-Dusenberg, Terraplane, and many more. After World War II, some brands started introducing companion models instead of brands. And if you look back to information published at the time, you'll see that the manufacturers and publications had a difficult time convincing themselves that they were just new models under one brand name. The Corvette and Thunderbird stood alone in their brands for quite a while. Plymouth introduced the Valiant and labeled dealers as Plymouth-Valiant dealers for a time. By the 1960s, most manufacturers seemed to fully understand the idea of selling various models under one brand name umbrella. When GM executives in the 1990s explained that "Bonneville" and "Grand Prix" were "brands," it confused many people. But while they can be considered to be brands in the sense that Crest and Gleem are toothpaste brands under the Procter & Gamble name, they seem to fall more in line with the pre-WWII definition of car brands. The "brand" name was used as the senior model even up into the early 1980s with the Caprice, Impala, Biscayne, and Bel Air being "Chevrolets" while the other products were the Chevelle, Malibu, Nova, Camaro, and Corvette. In this use, today's trim levels (SE, GT, etc) would be considered the "models" of yesterday. I, being a modern automotive person, prefer the current scheme where one manufacturer can have multiple brands and each brand can have multiple models with various trim levels. So spinning off a "companion" model would be like Pontiac introducing the G5 or G8 and would not require new signage for a modern "Oakland" brand. But we all remember when Chevrolet introduced it's companion Geo, right?

I was thinking Marmon, but Marmon stopped making trucks in 1997. I can't think of a Durango (but I'm sure one exists) before the 1981 Ford Durango. The AWD concept Jaguar XJ220 had a V12 but the RWD production car had a V6 based on the MG 6R4 rally car's engine. And the F40 had a 2.9L twin-turbocharged V8. I've got to assume that this has happened more than twice since more than half of the Nissan vehicles currently sold in the US are built in North America with more than 50% North American sourced parts including engines, transmissions, and the like. Heck, Ford even produced the first and second generations of Nissan Quest.

Now THERE's a man confindent about his masculinity.

Automatic....and pink...with a Hello Kitty bumper sticker? THAT would try your masculinity.

I couldn't have said it better myself. And people such as this should beware of standing too close to Volkswagen Cabrios.

No...not unless it's deserved. I've defended GM when it was deserved and taken shots at them when it was deserved. I'm not drinking anyone's "kool-aid."

Finally...a voice of reason!

So, you run the gamut from A to B?

I think that was kind of the point. GM and Ford have ABANDON the minivan segment where EACH of them were selling 150,000+ minivans at one time. Both have moved away from this segment, leaving it for Honda and Toyota and Hyundai/Kia and Chrysler and instead moving toward crossovers (which the other manufacturers ALSO have). If GM and Ford are full-line manufacturers, shouldn't they also play in this field with competitive offerings instead of the dated and misdirected products they had? If there was a million+ segment that Honda or Toyota walked away from and C&D wrote about that, you (people on this site, not necessarily Plane in particular) would talk about the "pro GM" direction that Car & Driver was "suddenly" taking.

What kind of stretch was it to stereotype people on a GM fan site as being GM fans?

I'm not buying your argument. Did you miss the earlier articles arguing that the minivan was dead? Couldn't this simply be a response to THAT topic? And couldn't the use of a GM Lambda "as the poster child" just go back to your point that they're popular AND GM has called them their minivan replacements?By the way, the cover vehicle when I pulled up the site shows a Hyundai Veracruz. Also, when I looked up the sales to see just "how hot the Lambdas are right now," the THREE Lambda vehicles combined didn't come close to the sales of the Dodge Caravan or the Honda Odyssey and it took two of them to top the sales of the Toyota Sienna in September. What "top 10" list are you talking about since the sales of all three wouldn't put them near the top 10 in sales. I think that you folks are just LOOKING for bias, when it's just not there. Sure, writers have preferences and like reading movie reviews or political publications, you need to know who agrees with your opinions for you to enjoy reading. But I don't see Car and Driver as this "anti-GM" or "anti-Big3" magazine. But, then again, I have the audacity to read publications, drive vehicles, and write articles with an open mind.

Light-vehicle automakers, as you've described, in 2006CY: 1. GM 2. Ford 3. Toyota 4. DaimlerChrysler 5. Honda 6. Nissan 7. Hyundai-Kia 8. Volkswagen 9. Mazda 10. BMW