Drew Dowdell

Congrats Cory! I know you've wanted this for a while.

The XT5 was likely a scheduling conflict. They happen from time to time. Both William and I have had cars swapped out on us last minute.

You guys don't want me to have the last word...

Not touching the political points of what you posted, but your technical points on E85 are incorrect or missing the point. If you tried to run peanut oil fuel through your gasoline engine you'd get less than ideal fuel economy also. E85 is a great fuel when it is put in engines it is designed for as the primary fuel. In Brazil they use sugar alcohol, essentially E100, in their cars. I don't know what the octane is, but it's gotta be over the 110 that E85 is here. The little 1.0 liter Chevy compacts run around with compression ratios equal to that in the V10 in the old M5 (basically, pretty darn high by industry standards).

Flush early, flush often.

E85 was just poorly implemented by the manufacturers. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. There just isn't a huge advantage in putting 110 octane fuel in a low compression 220 HP V6 pushrod. Put the same fuel in a 220 HP 1.6t with the boost turned way up and see some real fuel savings.

But why do they have to give them a car at all? That's my only issue with the whole thing. they don't. Tesla is far far worse about this than Ford, but they can get away with it (for now) because they're Tesla. If it was a one or two time thing due to scheduling obligations, that would be one thing... but refusing to participate is another. I also get the impression that there is some misunderstanding about how cars are reviewed in the press. If I were writing lately, I could call *any* of the major manufacturers and most of the small ones (not exotics... the Subarus, Mazdas, etc) and request a loan of any of their vehicles for a week. They know who CheersandGears.com is, and I would guess we have a reputation (even if I'm not aware of what that rep is). In about a month's time as scheduling allows, the car would be delivered to our home or office and we would test the car for a week. After a week, the company picks the car up. That's how 99.975% of the car reviews you read are created. None of the manufacturers are obligated to loan out a car, but nearly all of them do for the publicity of it. As a smaller publication, we are sometimes pushed aside for the likes of MT or C&D and I understand that... we're not big fish. But even as small as we are, it is very easy for myself or William to get a car. So why are other publications, ones that are much larger and with a much longer pedigree than us, having such difficulty with Ford? Quoting myself here, but I wanted to add to my comments. 2010 was the first time we attended one of the major auto shows as Press. GM actually offered to sponsor the trip for me, but I declined due to what I saw as an ethical boundary. However, I did participate in a number of the meetings. GM took a bunch of heat that year for sponsoring "small time" bloggers and twitter people to attend. Remember, in 2008 and 2009, blogging was still considered a relatively amatuer sport. I still remember the glaring looks from the "real" automotive press. The only other thing I had accepted from GM that year was a press loaner. Handing out press cars to us "small time" bloggers was virtually unheard of at the time... press cars went to MT or C&D...you know, "real publications with real editors". Only a few of the smaller websites would get cars back then, and even then, it was just the scraps. Over the years GM has provided many many press cars to both William and myself. The other manufactures aside from Ford have largely been similarly accommodating, one only has to look at the variety of cars that William has written reviews on to see that.. . I've only ever had 4 from Ford. Ford Fusion Hybrid (last gen), Ford F-350 SD (last gen), Ford Fiesta (original gen), and Ford Escape (last gen). I realize I haven't written in a while, but the total from GM for me has to be over 40 edit: This was the car I drove to Detroit. 2010 Cadillac Sportwagon Interactive Review We had a different format for reviews back then because we didn't have the article management system we have today.

But why do they have to give them a car at all? That's my only issue with the whole thing. they don't. Tesla is far far worse about this than Ford, but they can get away with it (for now) because they're Tesla. If it was a one or two time thing due to scheduling obligations, that would be one thing... but refusing to participate is another. I also get the impression that there is some misunderstanding about how cars are reviewed in the press. If I were writing lately, I could call *any* of the major manufacturers and most of the small ones (not exotics... the Subarus, Mazdas, etc) and request a loan of any of their vehicles for a week. They know who CheersandGears.com is, and I would guess we have a reputation (even if I'm not aware of what that rep is). In about a month's time as scheduling allows, the car would be delivered to our home or office and we would test the car for a week. After a week, the company picks the car up. That's how 99.975% of the car reviews you read are created. None of the manufacturers are obligated to loan out a car, but nearly all of them do for the publicity of it. As a smaller publication, we are sometimes pushed aside for the likes of MT or C&D and I understand that... we're not big fish. But even as small as we are, it is very easy for myself or William to get a car. So why are other publications, ones that are much larger and with a much longer pedigree than us, having such difficulty with Ford?

Probably because they are tired of dealing it. I won't name the other publication that I know has experienced this with Ford because they chose not to make it public, but I know the journalist and I respect his integrity. And it's a fairly major publication.

I will be the first to admit that there is a sense of entitlement in the automotive press, (But not here at CheersandGears.com of course). But Olds, this isn't the first time Ford has refused to play in comparison tests.... not just at MT, but at other publications too. They are notoriously difficult about it. The only thing that MT did differently this time was call them out publically.

Seems kind of silly to blame MT for the fact that Ford won't give them a real test car. Seems kind of silly to try to belittle and to threaten a car company to comply... Sorry, but from the side I'm on, there was no belittling, and telling it like it is should be the norm for the press. Saying "we wanted to test a Focus, but Ford wouldn't give us one, so we got it from Hertz instead" is still good journalism. Telling Ford ahead of time that they intend to do it is good journalism as long as MT doesn't deliberately sabotage the rental car to make Ford look bad, I have no problem with it. I have reviewed and will continue to review rental cars as I get them. It also is a very different scenario than the hockey one you describe. Making up stuff and innuendo is not journalism. I don't see where MT did any of that here if the facts are taken at face value (and I have no reason to doubt them). MT explained why certain other cars were left out of the comparison, and they were valid reasons. Ford not showing up isn't a valid reason.

Which brings us back to square 1... From Motor Trend: That little tantrum statement sounds just as desperate as Ford's PR department not wanting to play... To which Ill repeat my original opinion on it.... The magazines exist for people to dream a little dream. The magazines exist for internet bravado and arm chair racing. The magazines exist for fanboys to cheer when the magazines say good things about their favorites. The magazines exist for fanboys to cry home to mommy when the magazines say bad things about their favorites. The magazines exist and are biased as hell. The magazines exist and forget their biases whenever it suits their agenda for that particular purpose. Magazines are full of shyte in other words... Especially when this statement: "Next time we’re taking whatever beater Hertz has to offer" sounds like a threat rather than an honest to goodness true journalism... A threat like that seems like the article will be a scathingly negative review... I think a threat like that makes Motor Trend even LESS credible than they already are... Motor Trend's words sometimes are worthless... And there is a reason for it. Ford is not Tesla. Tesla only gives out press cars in very specific instances. A Focus is not a Tesla... a Focus has a LOT of direct competition. If Ford no longer wants to be included in these comparisons, that's fine, but then don't complain when someone DOES go to Hertz to get their hands on the product to review. Edit: After my incident with the MKC, I simply chose not to write the review on it. I felt there was no way I could do that review in an unbiased manner. Not only had Lincoln PR made that rude insinuation, but it was on the same day and at the same time that I had received some bad news. The bad news has passed and I'm cooler of head now, but I have to be extra careful with myself when doing Lincoln reviews.

Approximately zero of that is any issue with the Avalanche. The buttresses at the rear of the cab on the Avalanche weren't just a styling detail, they were structural. Also, the bed and cab are a single piece, there is no separation like there is on all other trucks besides the Ridgeline. It would have to be a very specific and very extreme roll-over situation to crush the roof on one of these. Like landing upside down on a fallen tree after rolling down a cliff. The Ridgeline is unibody, so without the frame there, it probably wouldn't be stiff enough. In my years with the Avalanche, rattle from the mid-gate was never a problem... if it was, it was operator error. If I heard a rattle, I would get out and check because it meant that I didn't close a latch properly. Where I did have a rattle was in my sunroof. My guess is that the Avalanche's demise had to do with cost. The Suburban jumped from $43k base price to $49k base price, and the Avalanche would have needed to move with it. They probably couldn't justify the price of the Avalanche at that range.

Back to your corners everyone

A few of the new Camaro are in the rental fleets, but not many. I've already had 3 Mustang EB convertibles, and had a selection of colors to choose from.

Serg is the biggest detriment to FCA

This is my second favorite W body. I like the last Cutlass coupe more.

No need... They come to me

I've always been able to do that conversion in my head because of those urinals....

What makes you think it isn't? Margins on Cadillac are, by far, the highest in the organization per car. Trucks are a close second. I'd be surprised if there is much margin on a Cruze at all, but selling Cruzes allows the selling of high margin Acadias and Traverses.

That 5.3 thooo.... As long as you weren't trying to race it and just wanted the feel of a V8, I'm sure it was just the ticket. FWIW, even my 3.4 DOHC with 215 lb-ft of torque would torque steer, but even that car was fun and went like snot.

Cayenne is a VW platform Caymen is built on a VW platform Panamera is built on a VW platform Saying Porsche did it on its own is dishonest.

To go with this..kind of.. Personally, I would rather have a loaded up smaller vehicle than a stripped down larger vehicle. I could have bought an Edge when I bought my escape but it would have been a lesser trim, 2wd(not like I NEED AWD), and it would have literally only been a larger vehicle. This trend is exactly what is fueling the sub-compact crossover market. When the Encore first came out it was really the first of its kind. The Nissan Juke was there, but it doesn't really have any usable space or rear seat room. Buick was very specifically targeting people coming out of Explorers, Volvo XC90s, Highlanders, etc, who no longer wanted to wheel around such large vehicles and no longer needed that sort of room. People trading down is exactly why the GLA, CLA, A3, Q3, X1, 1/2-series, Encore, Trax, etc exist. Or are they trading up from a CR-V or Rav4 into X1, GLA, etc? People want luxury brand names, and compact SUVs like Escape, Rav4 and CRV together can sell nearly a million units a year. Even if 5% of those people go to a luxury compact crossover, that is 50,000 new buyers. Size creep plays a role here too, a CLA is larger than a 2007 C-class, look at a 90s 3-series compared to today's 3-series. Look at a 90s Accord compared to the near full size Accord they sell now. If you had a 2005 Malibu and liked that size car and walk into a Chevy dealer, the Cruze is closer to that size than the current Malibu is, so maybe you just buy the Cruze that has enough room and a lower payment. You're describing a trade up in class combined with a trade down in size. My point stands. People are willing to downsize to get the features they want... even if the only feature they are gaining is a 3-pointed star.

But a car like the Fusion has gone up in price to where the Taurus was. And people are turning away from larger cars. I do agree that car prices are rising faster than salaries, which really puts a boom on cars like Escape, Soul, Elantra, Rogue, Fusion, etc. A lot of those used to be bare bones model cars, but now have the power heated seats, nav-system, apple car play, and upgraded stereo that used to be on the luxury cars. I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. People want those features you listed and are willing to downsize to get it. Just like someone who bought a C-class in 2006 probably is going for a CLA today because the C-Class is out of their range, and clearly coming from an '06 C-Class interior quality isn't a deciding factor.

Welcome back. Nice write-up and time does fly. Next month C&G will be 15 years old!