Before the firing squad locks and loads, allow me to state in my defense that I personally think Rush Limbaugh, along with his televised doppelgangers, O'Reilly and Beck, all embody the integrity and potential for disaster personified most closely in history by Joseph Goebbels. Ideally, Rush and his cohorts will likewise emulate Herr Goebbels' choice of departure from this world, preferably sooner rather than later, but while opting out of the family plan. We're clear on this, yeah? Good.
I enjoyed xxdr zombiexx's previously posted diary regarding the Motor Trend publisher's snappy retort to Rush. The response was eloquent, and I enjoyed it immensely. I also scanned through the comments to see if anyone pointed out that a few seeds of legitimate criticism could be laid at the rain-soaked doorstep of the Motor Trend offices. If anyone did, I missed it. So here I am, obligated to speak out, because - for hopefully the only time ever - Limbaugh's reaction, at least in terms of utter disbelief, matched mine exactly:
"They haven't even sold one."
The rest of Limbaugh's insane rant is very well-dissected elsewhere. It's Motor Trend with which I have a bone to pick.
Now, admittedly, lackluster (or even no) sales shouldn't necessarily disqualify a car from consideration for COTY. It's not like the buying public always recognizes a gem as such when it's laid out before them. And this is Motor Trend, after all, its very name implying almost oracle-like powers. But even if their staff includes the most informed and future-savvy critics in the business, this accolade goes beyond my admittedly archaic and piston-driven comprehension.
I'm sure Motor Trend knew this would be controversial and wanted to poke a stick into the hornets nest of public (automotive) opinion. Does it discredit them? They didn't have much in their account with me, anyway. And it will certainly make people think about the Volt. But.. anointing it as Car of the Year is just setting it up for failure.. and even more importantly, essentially precluding it for future consideration.
Because it is clearly in the future when it will actually turn its wheels on a public road in the hands of real consumers and either impresses the h*ll out of, or is revealed to be a fraud by.. drivers, passengers, pedestrians and on-lookers. I understand that automotive journalists are obligated to be at the forefront of the next wave. In this case, though, I sincerely believe their judgment to be a disservice.
So, having prematurely shot their load of COTY all over the Volt, and currently enjoying a relaxing smoke at their desks while the blog-wielding motorized masses debate the wisdom of their "bold" choice, where exactly did Motor Trend leave us voyeurs? Certainly not with unrealistically high expectations, ay?
I realize I'm talking about a car magazine, here. But I enjoy cars, a lot. Do I read this particular magazine? No. I just looked at their website for the first time. It struck me as the online equivalent of the "Carfinder" commercial on TV. I stopped reading Road & Track decades ago, when their editorial content finally coasted to a halt at 180 degrees from insightful. And Car & Driver was not only consistently too impressed with itself, but their advertising defined schlock to me. Motor Trend? Too US-centric for my Euro-sensibilities. Ooops. I just gave the game away. As much as I would love to say I buy and drive US-manufactured cars, I can't - and never have. I suddenly feel a deeply rooted need to share coming on..
Had I grown up in another generation, and in a different family, it may have been otherwise. But MY first ride, as a 16 year-old aspirant to Andretti, was ..wait for it, now.. Mom's Pinto. Talk about destiny. The stunning revelations of the four recall notices received during our family's stewardship of Detroit's finest scarred my psyche far beyond the wildest dreams of any slasher movie director:
1.) Only utilize motor oil listed in a protection classification typically reserved for the Space Shuttle to keep the warranty valid - sorry, we should have drilled more oil passages into the block and/or head but we didn't, so aircraft quality oil is required to make up the difference.
2.) Many owners claim the automatic transmission in your car may silently slip into Drive and catch you unawares - consider this your only warning.
3.) On occasion the gas tank and differential make contact, resulting in a spectacular display of pyrotechnics - but we'll install a very thick plastic shield next time you have a free day to leave your car with us.
4.) The wrong pistons were installed in some motors - and if you suspect you've got one of those in your car, you'll have to prove it.
(The above is an accurate recollection, though the sequence of notices is probably off.)
That last one really got me. OK, the design engineers botched up some lubrication basics on a new engine blueprint, and arranged the physical layout of two major components to potentially create a Molotov cocktail. Fair enough. And who knows what ghosts really lurked inside that transmission? - I never got a good explanation of that one. But an inventory manager couldn't be bothered to ensure the parts bin next to the engine assembler contained the correct pistons? Hey, I definitely want all of MY cars built in THAT factory.
I purchased a very used MGB as my first car, and never looked back.
The "other" domestic attempt at an efficient car, Chevy's Vega, and Motor Trend's 1971 Car of the Year, was cited by a commenter in the other diary. Now there's a treasure trove of juicy historical perspective.
Take its sleeveless aluminum block, a technology brought reliably to production 7 years later, by Porsche in the 928 and then the 944 models. Unfortunately, GM's pioneering efforts were sunk by legitimate complaints of scuffed piston bores and accompanying oil burning. Ironically, this fatal issue's root cause was eventually traced to faulty valve stem seals, exonerating the advanced engine design and manufacturing methods that GM employed. They couldn't get the easy stuff right, and watched helplessly as their legitimate technical leap forward in engine design was perceived by the car buying public as a pratfall into a muddy ditch.
A car is more than its motor, of course, and in the Vega's case, it was mostly composed of rapidly oxidizing sheet metal that fell quickly to the ground, rust-red particulate by rust-red particulate. The plastic fender replacements were a stroke of genius, if only they had come a bit sooner in the the model's life span, since, by the time GM figured all this out, consumers had already issued the Vega a verdict of "Embarrassing". They were also beginning to be distracted by rumblings about surreal levels of reliability, frugality and practicality displayed by something called a Honda Civic parked in a driveway somewhere down the street.
It's easy to bruise up the domestic punching bag twins in hindsight. The Pinto and Vega were a stab at making small and efficient cars by companies that had never produced an example of either. But my point is this: you have to get ALL the pieces right, TOGETHER. And that almost never happens when you are trying to build something that is truly NEW. Besides making sure the basic and the advanced technology delivers, you need to anticipate what the consumer wants, needs and will be able to live with, especially when you're asking them to be adaptable with your new take on something as all-encompassing as the whole future direction of the car.
And that, if you'll allow me one one more tug on the teat of the Vega saga, is commented on very eloquently by a GM engineer (quoted from and cited in the "Vega" wiki). He is specifically discussing a pre-production cylinder wear issue with the Vega motor which was resolved. But his description of that project is applicable here:
"...We were trying to put a product into production and learning the technology simultaneously. And the pressure becomes very, very great when that happens.
I have toiled alongside and come to know people who work(ed) at GM, Ford and Chrysler. Some were line workers and a couple are currently engineers doing work that impresses the hell out of me.
I truly hope GM beats the odds and gets everything right with the Volt. And that it catches on, and becomes the first chapter of the non-fiction odyssey taking the country toward more efficient use of resources and away from the oil-dependency we (yes, even the motorheads) despise.
And I just don't think Motor Trend used its editorial capital wisely to assist this end.
I will close the automotive trajectory here with three things which stand out in my mind regarding the actual Volt, independent of any recent praise or criticism:
1.) The first time I was aware that someone from the press drove it, it broke and returned home in a trailer. This can happen with anything claiming to be even partly revolutionary. It says more about the judgment of GM's QA group than anything else.
2.) It's been the promised savior for several years - though none are for sale (see People's Car reference in previous diary here)
3.) At the SF International Car Show this week, you can sign up to test drive a Leaf, but not a Volt.
Finally, I enjoy a smackdown of Limbaugh every bit as much as the next person on this site. However, I feel that both a lack of restraint regarding the promotion of a not-even-out-of-the-box product AND the single thread of sensibility in a quilt-work of crazy on which Limbaugh relies, can be acknowledged without threatening the future of society.
The comments could prove me wrong. Oh, and apologies about the hastily assembled Poll - I spent all of my capital on the last one.