(UPDATED 6/26/2024)
If you subscribed to car buff magazines back when you were a kid, do you do so anymore? As a young lad I subscribed to up to five different magazines, but I wouldn’t think of doing so now. I find most of today’s buff magazines and their web-based siblings to be polished but bland. They are rarely renegades.
That’s not how it used to be. During the 1960s and 1970s some buff magazines took the risk of challenging key elements of auto industry groupthink. For example, Car and Driver and Road & Track championed more efficient, roadworthy and well-built cars than Detroit’s standard fare.
Auto journalists denounced Detroit’s ‘land arks’
Car and Driver writer Brock Yates summed up the critique of U.S. cars as well as anyone:
“For as long as I have been writing about automobiles, I have belonged to a small coterie of writers who have been convinced that Detroit was building the wrong cars. Too often we were dismissed as obsessive ‘buffs’ who seemed to have a fixation with tiny, overpowered European sports cars. While it was true that many imported automobiles seemed to represent a shift toward efficiency and high technology and away from the chromed land arks of Detroit, we were far from the prejudiced ingrates that industry leaders described us to be. We simply believed that most American cars were too large, too heavy, too clumsy and too inefficient to meet the needs of the modern driver.” (1983, preface)
Magazines that printed such views put at risk ad revenue from U.S. automakers. For example, after Yates wrote a critical essay in 1968, an auto executive argued that he “was worse for the industry than Ralph Nader” (1983, preface). What did he say that was so unforgivable?
Yates predicted a dire future for U.S. automakers
Yates described a corporate management culture that failed to understand why import sales were soaring. He pointed to data that suggested that the automobile had shifted from being a status symbol to a “pain in the neck.” Despite warning lights flashing, “Detroit bustles onward in its Ike and Mamie good-life syndrome, convinced of its perpetual position of preeminence” (1968).
U.S. automakers didn’t listen to Yates and his ilk — and experienced one of the biggest industrial collapses of the last century. But once the dust settled, the average family car (as opposed to a truck or sport utility vehicle) did get a lot smaller and more sporting than the family sedans of yore.
The auto media critics were proven right. You would think that would have emboldened them to continue producing robust journalism. Alas, the buff media instead began their long slide into irrelevance.
Where are today’s automotive renegades?
That raises the question: What do the buff magazines and their web-based siblings stand for today? That the world needs more 700-horsepower engines and soft-plastic interior surfaces?
Are there any spiritual heirs to Yates in his reformist prime? Or have the buff media become a vast wasteland of industry groupthink?
My sense is that over the last two decades we’ve seen glimmers of hope. The early Jalopnik and The Truth About Cars showed a refreshing level of spunk compared to the legacy magazines. Auto Extremist, The Autopian and Electrek have had their moments. And, at their best, Curbside Classic and Ate Up With Motor have helped us see the past — and thus the present — in more accurate ways.
I would nevertheless suggest that the auto buff media have become rather stale. The Internet is overflowing with splashy infotainment — particularly of the “boys-with-toys” variety — but not a whole lot of hard-nosed journalism.
That may partly reflect media consolidation that has been exacerbated by increasingly shaky advertising revenue in recent years. We have also seen major figures pass from the scene. All of these factors have arguably resulted in less editorial risk taking.
Whatever the causes, the auto buff media could use an infusion of new energy. I suspect that the greatest potential could come from reader-supported newsletters. This is why I think it is a good thing that Aaron Severson is trying to monetize his work through Patreon. I’m just surprised that there aren’t more new entries given the boom in newsletters in other subject areas.
NOTES:
This essay was originally posted June 24, 2014, expanded on Oct. 2, 2020 and updated on June 26, 2024.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Yates, Brock; 1983. The Decline and Fall of the American Automobile Industry. Empire Books, New York, NY.
- ——; 1968. “The Grosse Pointe Myopians.” Car and Driver. Republished May 2, 2018; June 1, 2018.
I used to subscribe to the big 3 many years ago, when I was still a “believer”, lol. I also used to read Automotive News regularly. Now, I read Indie Auto online plus a few magazines about vintage and classic cars. I get new car news from various sources but none that I visit routinely. I’m more than happy with my current choices. I especially enjoy the content and reader comments/input on here.
WRT current US motoring media, I have lost all interest. I lost it several years ago, as there is virtually no content in print that is useful to the average enthusiast. Every issue now is dedicated to some updated unobtanium super car that was once the province of young teen boys’ bedroom posters 40 years ago.
At the turn of the century there was a tabloid style magazine called AMI Auto World Weekly. I liked the Consumer Guide-like feel of the magazine without the overbearing “authoritative opinion” of Consumer Reports. It was like the Entertainment Tonight of automotive magazines, but there were actual reviews of current model vehicles in all price ranges. It also had advice on all kinds of automotive issues, aimed at a wide audience. In particular, I remember an article regarding recommendations on child seats for young parents.
But, in the intervening 20 years since the magazine folded (not many men look at the checkout counter magazine racks for their bathroom reading and few women want to do that deep of a dive on automotive subjects), the major magazines have retreated to discussing the finer points of the latest Porsche 911 variation and declaring the latest whatever type of car/truck/SUV from Toyota to be the Second Coming.
To an extent, I can understand the rags’ reluctance to critically review the latest CRFlexCross-4 SUV. It would be a waste of paper and ink to do so; many reviews available either in print or in other formats are essentially regurgitated press releases. Print what sells, which ain’t the latest CUV. You can get that propaganda anywhere.
At TTAC, Jack Baruth used to rail on about Mommy Bloggers and influencers, i.e., folks who have little or no understanding in what makes a vehicle unique and why this is good or not. Not all reviewers need to be Consumer Reports analytical or Dan Neil critical, but we need folks who can do more than parrot the company line.
That was well put, George. My biggest beef with current automotive media content is that it reads too much like public relations . . . repeated over and over. As I discussed here, during a typical week one can find literally dozens of buff magazines and trade journals running virtually the same stories about new-product announcements and industry personnel changes.
I come out of the public policy realm so have a keen interest in issues such as how transportation impacts climate change. However, I can see from Indie Auto’s readership statistics that so few share that interest that these kind of stories arguably aren’t worth taking the time to write. All which raises the question of whether I’m in the wrong media niche.
I don’t recall AMI Auto World; that was during a stretch of time when I was so busy that my auto reading diet had largely contracted to Automotive News.
AMI Auto World existed during the late ’90s. Former C/D editor William Jeanes was the Editor, and it was published by one of the ‘supermarket tabloid publishers’ on a bi-weekly schedule. The mag died shortly after Jeanes left.
I think IndieAuto is much more rigorous in its analysis than other automotive media. It really is quite incredible!
Alas, we must all give ourselves the Yates Sanity Check now and then. The quoted statement below is largely but not fully aligned with the actual history.
“…once the dust settled, the average family car (as opposed to a truck or sport utility vehicle) did get a lot smaller and more sporting than the family sedans of yore.
The auto media critics were proven right.”
It is plainly true that Detroit took an incredible fall, and for many reasons. Yates was right.
It is also true that cars got smaller and sportier. And yet, the history shows that no sooner did this happen, cars began being replaced by crossovers. Ironically, the shift was fueled by one of the masters of quality small cars: Toyota. Not only the ’95 RAV4 but the ’99 Lexus RX300, a breakthrough car that proved the potential advantage of being first-to-market, by owning the segment for the next two decades.
In 2019 all cars – from small to large – represented only 30% of the U.S. market while SUVs/MPVs represented 50%.
https://www.jato.com/american-customers-tastes-continue-to-shift-as-sales-plateau-again-in-2019/
Could it be that the U.S. auto industry prior to the move to small cars was in fact responding to customer feedback that suggested lots of people wanted something larger than small? And as it turned out, not only in length and width but in height. And they wanted more utility and all-weather capability. And yes, most also wanted responsive, nimble handling and a good ride, which well-designed small cars provided.
I bring this up to not only point out that critics sometimes get it… let’s just say, not quite right… but because here we go again. Regulators and the industry are moving headlong into EVs, which some industry observers have long championed. I champion them too.
The problem is that the industry is specifically electrifying the existing vehicle segments that they and their customers know. There is no push to connect new dots, no reach to more fully realize the historic opportunity at hand. Let the 9,000 lb Hummer EV be the poster child for their ill-honed strategic mindset.
And where is the hue and cry from the industry critics? Not about electrification per se, but of the specific segments being electrified. As I have expressed before, the average vehicle occupancy in the U.S. is only 1.5 passengers, and the industry/regulator collective Groupthink is about to add hundreds and even thousands of pounds to vehicles that will continue to punch huge holes in the air, with tremendous energy expenditure, to propel vehicles that have only one in four seats occupied.
Count me as not only a critic of the industry and its regulators and investors, but of Groupthink industry critics!
I’m finding Indieauto to be such a breath of fresh air and just discovered this article at, let’s see…it’s 4:30 a.m. Probably should sleep a bit longer, but this is too much fun. Keep up the great work, Steve!
But back to the topic. I religiously (can I say that?) followed all those risky writers with a certain reverence. As writer who studied the New Journalism of the late 60s, early 70s (Hunter Thompson, Tom Wolfe, Studs Terkel…you get the idea), as an enthusiast I couldn’t get enough of Brock, David E. or Tom McCahill. LJK Setright, Jean Jennings Lindamond, Denise McCLuggage, and old school hot rodders Yer Ol’ Dad Gray Baskerville and LeRoi “Tex” Smith provided honest views of the world for this budding gearhead.
Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio?
First of all, Steve, I eagerly await your weekly posts. I owe you contributions to the cause for honesty and independence of thought, as soon as I get my affairs settled. The free exchange of ideas among those of us who love our motorized conveyances is important and crucial, at least to us.
Hearst has taken “Car & Driver” back to its snarky David E. Davis / Leon Mandel roots with the editing by Tony Quiroga. “Road & Track” is a shadow of its John R. Bond / James T. Crow / Tony Hogg days. I miss the observations of Henry N. Manney III.
The USA version of C&D for July 2024 has yet another Toyota SUV on the cover. The Japanese C&D? A Honda Civic from the 70s is on the cover. Probably a 50th anniversary feature. I know I’d rather read about how the Civic became great than yet another SUV. R&T has become so hoity toity that I don’t read it like I used to (the last issue has a bunch of 911s on the cover and the one before was ‘the 20 greatest cars we’ve driven’) and MT is well, available to the highest bidder as always. The only car review mag that still seems to have the plot is CR
Over the years the car buff world has complained about Consumer Reports treating cars as merely appliances, but I think they’ve gotten better on that front. Its testing process also has much more integrity due to its status as a nonprofit organization that accepts no advertising and buys its test cars off of dealer lots. I wish that the magazine hadn’t adopted such a glitzy format that replaces text with terse ranking systems. They also seem to have increasingly focused on vehicles for the affluent. However, I would generally take more seriously their tests than anything from a buff magazine (although it still makes sense to read widely when researching a given vehicle).
I begin to wonder if car magazines in others markets like Wheels magazine in Australia and Autocar in the UK is now in the same position as C&D, R&T and MT are currently?
That’s a good point; I haven’t paid all that much attention to the legacy magazines in other countries. Every once in a while I will check in with Car and Petrolicious and at least on the surface they seem to have a generic quality. The level of conformity among the car buff media seems to be so complete that one could do a hilarious caricature.
I’d say Wheels has lost its way, becoming increasingly bland and some recent Car of the Year decisions being inexplicable with regard to the stated judging criteria. I no longer subscribe but will pounce on any editions from the 70s and 80s that I find in second-hand book stores. I suspect that the end of volume car manufacturing in Australia and changing market tastes haven’t helped Wheels’ fortunes either: fans of Aussie iron typically don’t like the EV articles and other readers aren’t interested in SUVs.