Car Whisperer

[Lance_Castro]

It depends upon what you're looking for...
marque history, humor, road tests, general interest history....too many to list. And since much of the good work was for now defunct magazines, a lot of it is lost unless you know where to look.

Ha, okay…. Sure, you’re an auto writer. ;-)… you just cant name any. Lol.

For me it was always LJK Setright, hands down.

(David E Davis Jr copied him and was nearly as capable.)

https://www.the-intercooler.com/library/features/the-life-and-work-of-ljk-setright/

 

[PaxNurgle]

I used to read "Car and Driver" (Actually, still do!) and I remember liking David E. Davis's writing for that magazine when I was a kid.

 

[Niceguy2000]

Lance, I can name dozens, I just didn't know how technical you wanted to get, after all this is an amateur dirty writing forum.

And you did ask for the BEST AUTO WRITER OF ALL TIME.
Like all "best" questions...it's impossible to say because it depends on the subject matter. As I pointed out, there are a lot of sub-categories...history, humor, serious scholarship, popular history, road tests...So, a question like that is unanswerable, and better suited for fanboy arguments on forums than serious discussions.

I always thought D.E. Davis Jr was a pompous poseur. He basically invented his snobby persona after growing up poor in Kentucky.

Setright wrote for R&T, often about pretty obscure stuff I didn't appreciate at the time...like I was 10! R&T also had a European based writer who wrote the F1 reports for years. He was highly lauded, but I can't recall his name right now.
Peter Egan did a fun column, usually about breaking down in old English stuff while in college.

For general interest antique car books with great photos and well written history, try the 3 books by Ralph Stein...Jay Leno even quotes him.

For scholarship on Bugattis, try the various editions of Conway's books.

Anything by Beverly Rae Kimes...the leading Americsn Automotive historian...of either gender.

For a great history on Cords, get "Cord Complete" by the late Josh Malks...beautifully presented with great photos and a slip case patterned like the marble floor at the Duesenberg HQ/museum. If you can't find or afford one, get his earlier, smaller book.
I backed it up with a reproduction Cord sales brochure.

For Military vehicles, go to David Doyle's two two-volume sets on the White Half Track and the Dodge WC & M37 series. You'll need to take out a loan for those since they're hard to find.
Great fun even if you're not into military vehicles. And of real interest to any WWII historian. It will tell you a lot about wartime contracting, production and logistics.

For MY favorite car book, get the award winning "The Splendid Stutz"... published by the Stutz Club.
What makes it unusual is it was written by club members, each containing chapters on their areas of expertise. Written by people who have a longtime interest in the subject (not "guns for hire") as well as ownership and restoration experience, it is the definitive history on the marque.
Beautiful layout and production, too.

Finally for fun, get the compilations of Gordon Batter's columns for Car and Driver. And if you like aircraft, his " Bax Seat" compilations from Flying magazine, the one time sister publication of C and D.

And I've even written some great stuff...

 

[Lance_Castro]

I wasn’t looking for recommendations or a dick shake of the vast array of things you’ve read, just your fave, which you can’t won’t name. ( shrug, guess you’re a writer, like you said, not a critic )

Pax, yes DED was pretty good though yes as whatshisname says he was a bit artificially stuffy. He’d been an agency copywriter first, which makes sense.

Edited to add: most auto writers are really just ad copy writers for the marketing depts of the hands that feed them; it’s a synchophatic parasitic relationship at best, which is why you rarely see an auto writer really criticize anything. MT Coty being just one example of the shameless whores at work. Most car reviewers never tested a car without wiping corporate jizz off their face. Auto critics or automotive writers proper are actually few and far between.

 

[Niceguy2000]

While I agree that auto writers and companies keep each other fed, you also have to look at it this way....when a new car comes out, it is usually better than the generation before it, so some of the enthusiasm is certainly legitimate.

In the 1980s when I was reading C and D, R&T, Automobile, (plus a couple of UK magazines when I lived there)....it seemed the writers, especially at C and D, loved only BMWs and Porsches.
If you couldn't afford either of those, sorry...you can't be a REAL car guy.

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[PaxNurgle]

While I agree that auto writers and companies keep each other fed, you also have to look at it this way....when a new car comes out, it is usually better than the generation before it, so some of the enthusiasm is certainly legitimate.

In the 1980s when I was reading C and D, R&T, Automobile, (plus a couple of UK magazines when I lived there)....it seemed the writers, especially at C and D, loved only BMWs and Porsches.
If you couldn't afford either of those, sorry...you can't be a REAL car guy.

Usually, though not always. The Ford Mustang has had many highs and lows, ups and downs, over it's 50 year history. The 2010-generation Mustang is probably the best ever, but I could certainly live without the "Gleaming Alloy Air Car" Mach E that bears the Mustang tag today, and the 70's and 80's models were pretty forgettable compared to the previous 60's muscle car era or the far superior 90s and millennial versions.

And, there was a period from about 1973 to 1987 where cars took a dip for the worst, coinciding with an oil crisis and new regulations which impacted both performance and style. This was where you started seeing big luxury cars start to shrink, engines getting smaller, performance start to ebb (I remember some early 80's V-8 engines cranking out only around 155 horsepower!) and styling start to go bland. The 80's Corvette, for instance, being a case in point.

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Niceguy2000]

Usually, though not always. The Ford Mustang has had many highs and lows, ups and downs, over it's 50 year history. The 2010-generation Mustang is probably the best ever, but I could certainly live without the "Gleaming Alloy Air Car" Mach E that bears the Mustang tag today, and the 70's and 80's models were pretty forgettable compared to the previous 60's muscle car era or the far superior 90s and millennial versions.

And, there was a period from about 1973 to 1987 where cars took a dip for the worst, coinciding with an oil crisis and new regulations which impacted both performance and style. This was where you started seeing big luxury cars start to shrink, engines getting smaller, performance start to ebb (I remember some early 80's V-8 engines cranking out only around 155 horsepower!) and styling start to go bland. The 80's Corvette, for instance, being a case in point.

The mid-70s to mid '80s period of cars do have bad reputations for the reasons you describe... a push for economy led carmakers into unknown territory with new or untried tech, often with bad results.

I will correct your statements about Mustang of the era...
For the 1974-78 Model years Ford produced the "Mustang II', a compact Mustang along the lines of the European Capri. It was well built, well designed (with s front suspension still used today on American " Rods", and well equipped.
What it didn't have is performance...there was no V+8 offered the first year. While the car !magazines
Over it, it was named "Car of the year' by one, and the public loved ot...it nearly match the sales of the original Mustang in '64-65, the 'car guy" crowd hated it because it wasn't a V-8 performance car. I would suggest it was a good car with the wrong name.
I bought a new one in 1974...that makes me sound old...and it was great. I used it throughout my university years. Simply, in the era of the gas shortage, I needed a 427 powered muscle car like I needed a hole in the head. I did want a sporty, stylish car that was economical (for the day).
In 1979 it was replaced by a modern design, the "Fox body" car. It was to remain in production until 1993. It has a good reputation as automakers gradually learned to build performance cars in the current regulatory climate. A number of engines were used...4-6-8 cylinders and Turbo and supercharging were available.
I bought one of those new as well. While as we agree, the '80s.weren't a great period for cars, the 79-93 Mustang did its job in keeping Ford's performance image alive.

 

[PaxNurgle]

I had a 1979 Fox-body Mercury Capri RS turbo when I was a kid, with the 2.3 liter, overhead cam four cylendar turbo engine. Four speed transmission. It was fun to drive and fast off the line, though not the best handling car out there. And, it only gave you about 16-18 Miles per gallon around town. It was not the most reliable of cars either, nor particularly easy to drive. With mine, if you pulled up to a stop, once you put it in neutral, you had to give it a little gas or the engine would stall. I had this car for a couple years until, in a display of youthful exuberance (i.e. reckless stupidity) I blew the engine while racing a 5.0 Fox-body Mustang.

 

[Lance_Castro]

The mid-70s to mid '80s period of cars do have bad reputations for the reasons you describe... a push for economy led carmakers into unknown territory with new or untried tech, often with bad results.

I will correct your statements about Mustang of the era...
For the 1974-78 Model years Ford produced the "Mustang II', a compact Mustang along the lines of the European Capri. It was well built, well designed (with s front suspension still used today on American " Rods", and well equipped.
What it didn't have is performance...there was no V+8 offered the first year. While the car !magazines
Over it, it was named "Car of the year' by one, and the public loved ot...it nearly match the sales of the original Mustang in '64-65, the 'car guy" crowd hated it because it wasn't a V-8 performance car. I would suggest it was a good car with the wrong name.
I bought a new one in 1974...that makes me sound old...and it was great. I used it throughout my university years. Simply, in the era of the gas shortage, I needed a 427 powered muscle car like I needed a hole in the head. I did want a sporty, stylish car that was economical (for the day).
In 1979 it was replaced by a modern design, the "Fox body" car. It was to remain in production until 1993. It has a good reputation as automakers gradually learned to build performance cars in the current regulatory climate. A number of engines were used...4-6-8 cylinders and Turbo and supercharging were available.
I bought one of those new as well. While as we agree, the '80s.weren't a great period for cars, the 79-93 Mustang did its job in keeping Ford's performance image alive.

I liked the part where you said “ i will now correct your statements” before proceeding to spout a bunch of crap.

The first gen mustang was a ford falcon and underneath was just as mundane.

Only Shelby and Gurney’s racing team tweaked first gens for racing use and sure, some could go fast in a straight line and yes they were very popular.

The second gen II was a Pinto underneath. A shitty little car. It DID get a V8 later btw and was a real turd the King Cobra II… it’s best engine was probably the 1.6 Brit Ford 4 banger.

The Capri was a Cortina underneath and was a far superior car to the Mustang II… anyone would prefer having a brit cortina gt to a pinto!

The Fox body was what… 10 different models? Arguably, a Ford Granada with manual transmission was superior to its Mustang sister.

And they made what , 145-150hp? Woot!

None of those cars were exceptional in any way except apparently in making your dick wet.

Anyway, get your facts straight Mr Auto “yes i get paid” Writer.

Joker.

 

[Niceguy2000]

I liked the part where you said “ i will now correct your statements” before proceeding to spout a bunch of crap.

The first gen mustang was a ford falcon and underneath was just as mundane.

Only Shelby and Gurney’s racing team tweaked first gens for racing use and sure, some could go fast in a straight line and yes they were very popular.

The second gen II was a Pinto underneath. A shitty little car. It DID get a V8 later btw and was a real turd the King Cobra II… it’s best engine was probably the 1.6 Brit Ford 4 banger.

The Capri was a Cortina underneath and was a far superior car to the Mustang II… anyone would prefer having a brit cortina gt to a pinto!

The Fox body was what… 10 different models? Arguably, a Ford Granada with manual transmission was superior to its Mustang sister.

And they made what , 145-150hp? Woot!

None of those cars were exceptional in any way except apparently in making your dick wet.

Anyway, get your facts straight Mr Auto “yes i get paid” Writer.

Joker.

I can see why no one pays you.
Mustang II was not a Pinto. Ever hear of the Mustang II front?
I'm not saying the Fox Body Mustang (I was taking about the Mustang, not the Fairmont, etc) was the best car ever made, but I thought I made it clear is was a pretty good car in pretty bad times.

140-145 hp wasn't too bad for a $5000 car when Corvettes of the era were onlyb180-200. Again, put things into perspective.

Have you ever driven a II or Fox body Mustang?

When I was living in the UK, the British Fords you mentioned aren't exactly great cars. If nothing else, they'd rust before your eyes.

Improve your language, no need to display your lack of manners here, no need for name calling.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Ford Mustang II: Let's Get Small​

What Ford came up with wasreallysmall andreallytrim—a car derived not from the mid-size Torino or even the compact Maverick, but from the subcompact Pinto. Compared to the outgoing 1973 Mustang, the new Ford Mustang II was more than a foot shorter, 4-inches narrower, and 900 pounds lighter.

(Please fuck off with acting like you know it all. You don’t…. Your crack about nobody paying me is funny. You have no idea)

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]

 

[Lance_Castro]

I’ve never liked the seating position in lambos or ferraris.

 

[Lance_Castro]

Assad had some nice cars… good videos on cnn including a pair of (‘53?) Caddys.

 

[Brains_N_Boobs]