You want the truth? Well, send me your car
The Truth About Cars (TTAC) wants, well... cars. Specifically, test cars
from the manufacturers. In what is one of the odder posts since Farago’s review of the Pontiac G6*, the writer of the General
Motors Death Watch series is trying to sell its special brand of tough love to the "keepers of the
keys".Farago’s spiel is simple. The Truth About Cars—its articles and reviews—is about honesty, no matter how much it hurts. The non-commercial site points out that the true nature of vehicles cannot be hidden from the public in this brave new world that's covered by a very wide web.
The Internet is rapidly reaching numero uno status among car buyers and enthusiasts who, Farago argues, aren't as easily duped by the latest “Three Thumbs Up!” advertising found in traditional marketing and magazines.
TTAC, as one of those online sources, is more than willing to hop behind the wheel of a press vehicle and tell it like it is. The problem seems to be that automakers aren't very fond of TTAC's caustic wit.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
SWAT LAX 4:21PM (2/17/2006)
The Truth About Cars has the best written reviews out there. I don't know if they necessarily provide the best reviews, but I love Farago's wit.
I also appreciated seeing his mostly positive review of the Chevy Tahoe, proving that TTAC isn't simply selling short GM's stock.
Did anyone else enjoy the mention of "depedification" in the Tahoe review?
Reply
Alexey 4:23PM (2/17/2006)
Truth is good. Highly opinionated reviews are not, even though Farago often mixes them. Look, for example, at his review of Subaru Tribeca.
My favorite "true" reviews online? "Car Talk" Funy and practical.
Reply
David 4:46PM (2/17/2006)
Whether it's truth or opinion, Farago will have to demonstrate he has influence over a significant number people that the automakers want to reach. Otherwise, they won't hand over cars just to have him tear them down in his publication. The same thing goes for Peter DeLorenzo at AutoExtremist.com, whose publication is great, but really only influences those in the industry.
On the other side of the coin, you have Top Gear, which reaches millions of people with each episode. Jeremey Clarkson can beat a car within an inch of it's life, call it absolute rubbish, and the automaker will still give them their next vehicle because they know that appearing on the show is basically a necessity for the important UK market.
Reply
Jeffrey 4:54PM (2/17/2006)
Farago is the Jerry Springer of auto reviewers, and without his outrageous, crude diatribes, he wouldn't get the publicity he craves. In fact, if he weren't crass, he wouldn't have "earned" this story in Autoblog, would he? To each his own, but I'll say "no thanks" to Mr. Farago and those who publish him.
Reply
Fred 4:57PM (2/17/2006)
The car talk guys certainly have their own biases. They hate the WRX apparently solely on the grounds that it's too much fun. And I have heard them recommend a New Beetle cabrio to a listener. Ouch.
I think TTAC's constant hatcheting of GM's management drags. I get the impression he is mostly miffed that GM has not imploded yet, and that its persistence has forced him to abandon the roman numerals after "GM Death Watch".
OTOH, the Tahoe article at least contains some figures. That's more than one can say for the usual speculation as to what GM should or should not do, which is invariably unimpeded by actual facts on the ground. Kill Pontiac! Don't kill Pontiac! Build this! Build that! Scrap the entire brand and build more of the other! Blah, blah, blah.
Reply
lalaland 5:03PM (2/17/2006)
I have a website! Can I have a car too?
www.timmylikeskarz.com
Timmy Voeckler
5th grade
Promontory Pointe Elementary School
Mission Viejo, Calif.
Reply
Lithous 5:18PM (2/17/2006)
"Our audience is also a select group of professionals and enthusiasts: automotive alphas who influence the wider car community."
Influence, like Nader and Moore. I mean, the death watch is the thing that keeps guys like Rastus cumming back again and again to TTAC. Ah, yes, I've said it before, learn from Nader and Moore, publicly humiliate GM and you have yourself some viewers (and eventually some payola).
"Roughly half of our 3500+ subscribers (which doesn't include people who've signed-up for RSS) are directly affiliated with the automobile industry: manufacturers, PR, suppliers, the media, etc. The rest are equally rabid-- though amateur-- pistonheads."
So the "truth" is that all the subscribers are either industry affiliates or hardcore car people. Is this a fact because it is thought that anyone willing to take the time to subscribe must be a pistonhead? Or was there a questionaire to suggest this? Interesting, no car slackers in their group. All know production numbers, including retail and fleet for all the companies and they know what platform every car comes from and is shared with, without using a wiki. Anyway, just a bloated statement and not very meaningful.
"We are currently working on a non-advertiser-based revenue channel that will guarantee the sites independence and provide for its maintenance and expansion."
Translation: We are fluffing you (see previous quote), the subscriber (or potential subscriber since you are reading our site), up to be someone important in the world of automobiles (or just please feel that way in general) and so you should want to pay us for the way too overly analogized commentary, which, in our minds, flows like a Russian skater (but to you, the reader, is like the French skater dude who falls all the time while waving around a lot).
"Rest assured were always open to debate,"
But not with open comments (to non-subscribers and possibly subscribers? not, sure since I don't subscribe) allowed, to follow any of the blog posts.
"and stand ready to make corrections and amendments."
But since much of the auto industry is just opinion (like: "more horsepower at lower RPM's is better" - "no it's not" OR "every car should have ABS brakes" - "I can't stand ABS" OR "OnStar saved my family" - "They can use it to spy on me", you get the point) so really that statement will hardly get tested. What will actually happen is like with Consumer Reports, the people that agree with them will just let them state whatever and the people who don't, just won't subscribe.
"But we need you to understand that the advent of the world wide web (chat rooms, forums, email and websites) means that the truth can no longer be denied."
Ha Ha Ha, the World Wide Web is all truth. No getting around that. I mean, I hear it all the time, "You CAN believe everything you hear on the Internet".
"So please, let us test your products and share the results with the public, warts and all. Strange as it sounds, we're here to help. Meanwhile, never forget: there's no such thing as bad publicity."
Yes, a death watch is such a wonderful thing geared to "help" companies out. I mean, most people who start a death watch are really doing so out of helpfulness and would love for the company being watched, to shake it. Surely it isn't bad publicity for people to read about a company's death watch. If YOU (TTAC) say so, it must be true (the helpful, no bad publicity thing you promote).
Reply
rw 5:18PM (2/17/2006)
I am supposed to read this "expert" opinions and drink the kool aid? I don't think so. Until he has the death watch on every other auto company his opinion is tainted.
Reply
Alexey 5:36PM (2/17/2006)
To #5. The Car Talk guys did not like WRX for a good reason - its early version was very slow off the line. I tested it - it sucked. They basically said that to have fun, you have to go like crazy in this car, but as a daily driver it is (expensive) "nothing special." Which is true.
Reply
Victor 6:22PM (2/17/2006)
What suprises me is that nobody here understand that car reviews and opinions are exactly that: opinions. Subjective in nature. What feels right for one person isn't right for the other.
Market and business competitiveness can be a bit more objectively reported because of the dearth of numbers that can back up an argument. But, it's usually still
But, how much someone likes or dislikes a car is purely subjective. There is no such thing as an objective car review. Live with it.
Reply
Jay 6:50PM (2/17/2006)
>What suprises me is that nobody here understand that
>car reviews and opinions are exactly that: opinions.
>Subjective in nature. What feels right for one person
>isn't right for the other.
>But, how much someone likes or dislikes a car is
>purely subjective. There is no such thing as an
>objective car review. Live with it.
Exactly. If you want objective, go to Edmunds and look up horsepower numbers, fuel economy numbers, interior volume numbers, etc. If you want to know what a flesh-and-blood person thinks about a car, you're going to get their opinion. Simple as that. Otherwise, you get completely sanitized reviews where every car gets a gold star because the reviewers find something they like about it (such as The Car Connection...I like the site overall but can't stand their reviews...I don't think I've ever seen them give any car a negative review or even more than a few less-than-positive sentences). I enjoy reading TTAC and while I disagree with some things here and there from time to time with the site, I find plenty of common ground with the site and reviews compared with what I look for. At the very least, the reviews are far more entertaining that what passes for a review in mainstream print mags and websites.
Reply
Dave M. 10:24PM (2/17/2006)
I think Farago is a scream and one of the best out there today. I love his wit, and I find his reviews to be truly representative of the interests of the common man.
I don't think, however, he WANTS GM to do the death dance....I think he is savvy enough to predict that it is nearly inevitable. And as we are seeing, I think it is. A perfect storm of events if you will. What, exactly, is he saying that is so negative? Rick has to go (he truly does), Jerry is not a miracle man, divisions have to be cut (I don't agree, but they do have to be whittled down), the UAW is clueless (they are, or at least the management is...), and quality, value, reliability and attractiveness will seel GM cars. He is calling it as he sees it.
I've also seen him write very positive reviews of vehicles, but yes, as noted, not perhaps about a lot of 'domestic' vehicles (although he was far kinder to the Pontiac Torrent then James Healey was in today's USA Today review).
Overall, Farago, Healey, and DeLorenzo are by far my favorites 'insiders', but they just help in my elimination process. Ultimately seat time for driving feel and quality reputations are going to persuade me the most in my vehicle selection....
Reply
Jeffrey 10:25PM (2/17/2006)
victor and jay - I agree it's great to have a variety of opinions. The name "The Truth About Cars" doesn't imply opinion, it implies truth uncovered. If the website was "A Shock-Journalist's Opinion About Cars", well that's a different story. Farago can write whatever he wants to, but I have little desire to read it, and obviously the automakers are under no obligation to provide him with cars to "review". Jay, you said it best when you said the reviews are "far more entertaining" than typical reviews. Farago's stuff is low-brow entertainment, not journalism. And again, I emphasize that I'm not saying there's no place for that, just recognize it for what it is. Does Jerry Springer help people with their relationships? No, he helps folks beat each other and publicly humiliate themselves for the entertainment of others. Why would an automaker choose to go on the journalistic equivalent of the Jerry Springer show?
They're promoting a market of 3500 car enthusiasts? That's a pretty dismal number.
Reply
Jay 12:44AM (2/18/2006)
>Does Jerry Springer help people with their
>relationships? No, he helps folks beat each other and
>publicly humiliate themselves for the entertainment of
>others. Why would an automaker choose to go on the
journalistic equivalent of the Jerry Springer show?
Be fair. Comparing TTAC to Jerry Springer is such a huge stretch that I fail to see how they compare at all. Just because a review isn't a banal wordy overview of the car's specification list in comparison to another car's specification list it's automatically trash? Someone tries to throw in a bit of humor and takes a tough stance in their words and it's suddenly garbage? Explain to me why it's lowbrow to do that...the point is going over my head. It's not like Jerry Springer goes out in search of the highest upstanding moral citizens in the hopes of bringing them together and learning lessons and having a good cry. He purposely rigs together people and situations where trashy people get into fights without any hope or aim of getting anything more than that. TTAC simply reviews cars as the reviewers see them and has some fun along the way. If they see the car as bad, it's going to get a bad review. The best way for the manufacturer to avoid a bad review, is to not build a bad car. The best way for a manufacturer to not get chided for making stupid decisions is to not make stupid decisions. Simple as that.
I agree that the manufacturers are certainly under no obligation to provide them with vehicles. I also agree that some auto manufacturers probably wouldn't want to be reviewed in a publication like TTAC, but not because it's trash. But because the reviewers don't pull any punches or sugarcoat anything. If something sucks, they say it sucks. If something's worthy of praise, they praise it. Cars that don't bring their A-game are not going to fare well under the TTAC microscope. And that's fine. They shouldn't.
>The name "The Truth About Cars" doesn't imply opinion,
>it implies truth uncovered.
I once bought a book by George Carlin called "Napalm and Silly Putty," and I was incensed to find that there was no large-scale discussion of either napalm or silly putty included in it or any dissertation of what might happen if the two substances combined...just a mere mention of how he arrived at the title and nothing more. I was ripped. And a buddy of mine once had a Chrysler Laser and I didn't see a single laser anywhere in that car.
It's just a name. And given the no-nonsense theme of the articles within, the site needs a punchy no-nonsense title. I suppose it could have been called "The Personal Opinions of a Collection of Writers That May or May Not Necessarily Apply to Everyone Who Reads Them About Cars," but somehow that doesn't quite have the same panache.
Reply
tbyron 1:41AM (2/18/2006)
Oh man, what an ego. Honest opinions do not necessarily equal the truth. Yes, he's very good writer. But, sometimes, the things he says are wrong, dumb and/or just gratuitously mean. They often remind me of Macbeth's bit on life...
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing...
Reply
AutoFan 2:45AM (2/18/2006)
Farago is generally an entertaining writer, but he has mistaken crushing cynicism for objectivity and "truth." They're not the same thing, not by a long shot. I remember reading his Miata review, and I was about two-thirds of the way through before I figured out that, yes, he did in fact like the car. It was entertaining to read, but it seemed like he was so busy trying to be clever that he lost sight of the fact that he's supposed to be informing the reader of something.
Reply
NEBTEK2002 10:41AM (2/18/2006)
People like Farrago and his buddy Rob Schweitzer at TTAC piss me off.
"The Aztek is ugly. It doesn't look just like every other boxy station wagon."
"The Torrent is too plain. It looks like everything else on the road."
Gimme a break! These guys hate everything GM and calls their twisted illogic the truth!
Has either ever ever actually drive an Aztek?
Did either notice notice anything about the Torrent's interior that was more useful to the buyer than that the decor lokked "funereal", in Scweitzer's unhumble opinion. I noticed that the interior doesn't have the overall volume of the Aztek's and that the smaller interior comes in a package that's just as heavy as the Aztek's. Could he have thrown the Aztek's designer a bone for creating space efficiency, even though he hated the exterior styling?
My opinion-- the Torrent isn't a bad vehicle, but the Aztek was better. More space for the weight; better EPA mileage for the weight; more-distinctive styling.
Reply
Lee 11:27AM (2/18/2006)
#16 hits it square on the head
Reply
Jeffrey 1:19PM (2/18/2006)
Jay - all good points. My dislike is more with Farago than TTAC as a whole, but they publish him. Comparing the Subaru B9 Tribeca's nose to female anatomy is what really put Farago over the edge for me. Not only is it inaccurate, it was clearly an inflamatory remark designed to create a buzz about his review at the expense of Subaru. He not only jumped on the "ugly" bandwagon, but had to "one-up" the other writers who merely disliked it.
Reply
Jay 2:14PM (2/18/2006)
>People like Farrago and his buddy Rob Schweitzer at
>TTAC piss me off.
>"The Aztek is ugly. It doesn't look just like every
>other boxy station wagon."
>"The Torrent is too plain. It looks like everything
>else on the road."
>Gimme a break! These guys hate everything GM and calls >their twisted illogic the truth!
If you like, you can go and actually read through some of the articles and see that he in fact DOESN'T hate everything GM. Read the articles for the CTS, CTS-V, Sierra, Corvette, SSR, and G6 GT, and you'll see that he does give some GM vehicles positive reviews.
And if I recall correctly, TTAC is by far not the only car mag reviewer to call the Aztek ugly. Much of the buying public did also. Aztek was certainly a very useful vehicle, but it was fairly expensive and never won any style points. And while the Torrent is a much better-looking vehicle, it really isn't terribly distinctive. It is possible to make a vehicle distinctive without making it hideous.
Reply