Last months issue had a huge section recounting Car and Driver's history. As I read through it I became very disgusted, the whole thing seemed like a big GM bashing writing essay. Yeah GM has made some lame cars over the years, but so has everyone else. Lots of cars from the 70s and 80s seem lame now, but at the time most were decent cars for that time period. I don't know how many times Camaro was bashed but it was a lot.
The section reminded me why I cancelled my subscription a couple of years ago.

GM should get a refund on the 2 page ad congratulating Car and Driver for 50 years.

 

Didn't read the whole magazine, but you have to admit GM of the 1980s deserved alot of any bashing they get. Let's face it, GM made some pretty bad cars as a whole. GM of the late 90s was no great picnic either.

Don't confuse GM of today and GM of the 70s with GM of those dark years.

 

Yeah, but so did everyone else. Actually GM was a lot more reliable back then than Ford or Chrysler. As personal experiences go, my parents were big fans of Caprice Wagons in the 80s. They bought several over the years and put well over 100k on them, using them as daily drivers and using them going to Florida and other trips and didn't have a minutes worth of trouble out of them. My sister bought a T-bird in the 80s with a 5.0 V8, the car was nice and was pretty fast for the day, but it had more problems than any car I've ever seen.

Not everyting was bad back then, and yes we have come a long way since then.

 

I've been getting that magazine for years.

I didn't really care for that issue, it bored me to tears.

 

They had the nerve to bash GM back in the 50's and 60's, back when GM was without a single doubt the best car comapny in the world. You know they have always been a bunch of idiots when back in the 50's they heaped ceaseless amounts of praise onto an MG. They even had the audacity to call it a finely constructed and durable automobile.

 

I think they took equal shots at both Ford and Chrysler, not only GM. I was most surprised about the blurb about the '67 Camaro, something like "...not the success we were hoping for but definately a success for Chevrolet."

I didn't get it then or a month later.

 

Agreed! I thought it was one whole issue devoted to patting themselves on the back.

 

I also got that feeling when reading that article. The article was amusing at times, but it seemed like every time they mentioned some "hot" car for the day (like the GTi, the Audi coupe Quattro, etc.), they had to throw a shot at GM or the Camaro. Lame.

I was appalled when I saw the congratulatory advertisement from GM. Talk about swallowing your pride and turning the other cheek...

The Honda ad was cool, though.

 

I thought the same thing! It was a import love fest and like someone said, when they would say something good about one of the imports, they just couldn't resist taking a shot at GM. Car and driver is the absolute worst with that so it doesn't surprise me at all. The only good words thay had were for the C5 ZO6.

 

I used to read it all through the 80's. I think someone got me a subscription, when I was a kid. It just seems to me they don't like us over there. To hell with em', weak a** Cars they praise, and They are weak a** drivers. I pick it up, and read a little on the stands once in a while, but I surely wouldn't buy that crap, its always the same garbage. I hope they are forced out of business, with their lame antics. I guess they needed a little self praise, like phonywood always does!

 

About the only thing I found interesting in that issue was the best and worst 0-60 times. However I find it hard to believe a 1965 pontiac catalina 2+2 can go 0-60 in 3.x seconds.

 

I'm with you, but I'm thinking of my Dad's '74 Catalina, which would do it in about 15 seconds.

I guess a '65 was that much different?