The Trails Of Blood
With regard to the Revolver editorial in the November 2009 issue-how did Funke's piece make it to the printed page? Grade-school attempt at best, linking the buying of "gigantic trucks" on HIS freeways (?!) to the failure at GM. He could have performed some actual research and found the problems lie mostly with building cars people don't want, and their overall cost of business, i.e., unions, employee healthcare costs, and plenty more issues.
I wish you'd keep the political commentary pieces out of the mix. Cars and left-wing politics seem an impossible mix. So he hates Hummers, Suburbans, et al, and argues that because GM sells those overwhelmingly and most likely at a profit, that is a bad thing? People buy them, like me, in addition to our sports cars and/or sedans, because we like them and need the room or utility. Car companies should be free to make what sells. We should be free to buy what we want. No one wants to ruin the environment, so get over that stupid comment. SUVs and the U.S. in general are hardly ruining the Earth. In short, GM makes these trucks because they sell. We do not need people like Flunke or the government telling GM what to build, or me what to buy.
I read "Follow the Trail of Blood" with interest.
I believe the blood to be all over the hands of excessive government regulation and the albatross that is the UAW. Granted GM, and others, have made non-descript people movers like the Grand-Am and Buick Century for years, but there were non-car enthusiasts lining up to buy them. If you want to ridicule the big three, use those vehicles to do it. Not the venerable Chevy Suburban. I own a 911, my daughter drives a 5 Series, and my wife has a 300C. We love them. But my daily driver is a Z-71 Suburban and it does everything I require of it: hauling people, gear, boats, ATVs and anything else I hook to it. It trudges through mud, snow, sand, forest and field. I wouldn't trade it for anything, except another one. That is, unless the current administration doesn't see it fit to produce, in which case I hope they fail, also in which case I'll just keep the one I've got.
If you really read the column, I think you'll realize I'm trying to defend GM. I agree with you both on the utility of big trucks and SUVs and understand why they're sold in large numbers. Here's a quote: "Auto manufacturers build vehicles [to] sell... [not] to destroy the Earth." But I did write that one of GM's problems seems to be one of image, and big, less efficient vehicles might contribute to a perception of wastefulness in the eyes of the "Green Movement," Congress, the administration, whoever-whether we deem it fair or not.
I write about cars for a living, and my favorite cars to drive are of the high-horsepower variety, the types likely less efficient than your Suburban. Do you really think I want to see stuff like that go away? Check out the Revolver column from October '09, titled "Don't Tell Me What to Drive." And yes, they are my freeways. Just like they're your freeways. We paid for them. -KF
Carolina Shot Callers
I've been reading your mag for many years and have enjoyed it completely. Just got the November issue and reveled in the Money Shot, except for one minor detail-the picture is of an S4. It has different bumpers, side mirrors, hood and headlights, and very few S6s had open headrests. Great mag just the same.
Black Mountain, NC
After reading the first comment in the Incoming...
section of the November '09 issue, I'd like to echo the idea of having a rip-out Money Shot. It would really add to my anticipation of every issue. I hope your accountants are more than just that and appreciate high-quality automotive photography.