OK, another example. Back in the early '80 my Dad had a Dodge 3/4 ton Passenger van he drove as a part of GE's van pooling and Gov't bailout of Chrysler. That thing (actually all three over 10 years because non of them lasted very far) was as big a POS as it could've been perceived to be. In addition to panels not coming close to lining up, one windshield 'whistled dixie' above 30 mph, one went thru 3 starters, one couldn't keep an alignment. The only thing I can remember about these vehicles is they screamed 'cheap' sitting and riding in them and they lived up to it. Same with my Granddad's Skylark, my Dad's Caprice wagon. It's not just panel gaps. After playing with a friend's Honda or Toyota's rotary *****, the sliders on my Dad's GM vehicles just seemed silly, and their backlit gauges put GM's old tech front illumination gauges to shame.

No, 20 years interior quality wasn't as important as it is today, but that's because someone showed us what it could be, and Detriot continued to think we'd blindly keep accepting yesterdays designs, engineering, and maunfacturing. Look where that got them.

Oh, yes they had synthetic oil back then and this was a brand new engine. From what I've been told, it wasn't uncommon for 'Detroit Iron' to leak something back in the days.

 

In the C&D comparison it's clear that the RSX wins on aesthetics such as quality of components, slicker transmission, and maneuverability in traffic. That's fine. But they seem to overlook the flaws of the Acura, that it's just a tarted-up European Honda Civic, that it's based on a platform first built in the 1980s, that it's noisy, etc.

Then bizzarely, there's very little discussion of just how spectacular the SS and SRT4 performance is and how they really give the Honda a kick in the ***. The conclusion seems all too convenient and obvious. This is a mag that in its 50th anniversary edition virtually bragged about it's anti-domestic bias describing it as a "love-hate" relationship with Detroit. In several anecdotes in the same issue they readily admit BSing about European cars and laugh about it.

In this particular comparison, they took an Acura, Honda's top-line brand and compared it with much cheaper (albeit loaded) cars and then pronounce the RSX a winner on componentry and items clearly related to the cost of the vehicle. It just doesn't seem too bright to have a comparison like that, and then downplay the dismal Acura performance.

Bias, bias, bias. Detroit cannot afford to have these kinds of articles printed about their cars anymore. It has damaged the domestic car's reputation, and that's sad because they really are good value for money. It's time these writers got a kick in the head. Pull the ads. Pull the test cars. Don't say anything until they ask why, then say we can't afford your point of view anymore.

There are plenty of publications willing to give fair reviews. GM should use them.