Comments on: Here Come…the Station Wagons! http://www.consumertrap.com/2009/11/station-wagons.html exposing capitalism, marketing & market totalitarianism Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:22:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Dawson http://www.consumertrap.com/2009/11/station-wagons.html/comment-page-1#comment-446 Michael Dawson Sun, 29 Nov 2009 04:07:54 +0000 http://www.consumertrap.com/?p=1755#comment-446 Amen, Heavy Armor -- and it's all with the complicity of the so-called "automotive press." The NYT reporter of this story wrote as follows: "If the performance package is a bit extreme, the 3.6-liter V-6 is a logical upgrade over the standard 3-liter. With 304 horsepower and 273 pound-feet of torque, the bigger engine is considerably more potent than the base motor, which makes 270 horsepower and 223 pound-feet. "With the 3.6-liter, the CTS wagon roars away from a stop, and the direct-injection V-6 emits a purposeful growl as the revs climb." This is teenage boy stuff, but it passes as serious analysis, rather than money-grubbing, planet-killing sycophancy. Need I mention the wondrous "design principles" behind the new Caddy wagon? "Particularly unusual for a wagon are the ultraslim rear-quarter windows and extra-wide rear pillars. They make it look as if Cadillac’s designers were afraid to let their wagon look like a wagon — and they were. “'There’s a stigma of what a wagon is and I think what we were trying to do is something that was not a traditionally defined wagon,' said Clay Dean, Cadillac’s chief designer, who is also executive director for G.M. global advanced design. 'The D-pillar is thicker than you would normally do; normally you’d thin that thing up as much as you can for visibility, but it was a conscious choice.'” Amen, Heavy Armor — and it’s all with the complicity of the so-called “automotive press.”

The NYT reporter of this story wrote as follows:

“If the performance package is a bit extreme, the 3.6-liter V-6 is a logical upgrade over the standard 3-liter. With 304 horsepower and 273 pound-feet of torque, the bigger engine is considerably more potent than the base motor, which makes 270 horsepower and 223 pound-feet.

“With the 3.6-liter, the CTS wagon roars away from a stop, and the direct-injection V-6 emits a purposeful growl as the revs climb.”

This is teenage boy stuff, but it passes as serious analysis, rather than money-grubbing, planet-killing sycophancy.

Need I mention the wondrous “design principles” behind the new Caddy wagon?

“Particularly unusual for a wagon are the ultraslim rear-quarter windows and extra-wide rear pillars. They make it look as if Cadillac’s designers were afraid to let their wagon look like a wagon — and they were.

“’There’s a stigma of what a wagon is and I think what we were trying to do is something that was not a traditionally defined wagon,’ said Clay Dean, Cadillac’s chief designer, who is also executive director for G.M. global advanced design. ‘The D-pillar is thicker than you would normally do; normally you’d thin that thing up as much as you can for visibility, but it was a conscious choice.’”

]]> By: Heavy Armor http://www.consumertrap.com/2009/11/station-wagons.html/comment-page-1#comment-445 Heavy Armor Sun, 29 Nov 2009 01:07:05 +0000 http://www.consumertrap.com/?p=1755#comment-445 I also see that these so-called wagons are overpowered with engines that are far too large. Add the fact that these vehicles are far too heavy from the needless amenities and useless "safety" features, and you have a recipe for what we see here. In other words, take your money...and give you crap in return. I also see that these so-called wagons are overpowered with engines that are far too large. Add the fact that these vehicles are far too heavy from the needless amenities and useless “safety” features, and you have a recipe for what we see here.

In other words, take your money…and give you crap in return.

]]>