Disturbing Trend in GRM and CM

Obviously there are different levels of what could be termed a legitimate rebuild, but I think a complete tear down and inspection (whether in or out of the vehicle - I used to do in frame rebuilds all the time on heavy trucks) must be included in anything that can be termed a rebuild. What is done after that depends on what the engine needs. My feeling is that neither the 911 or the Corvair recieved anything that could be legitimately called a rebuild, and thus is misleading, not to those of us who do this kind of work, but to those who don't. Calling a valve job a rebuild kind of reminds me of back in high school when all the teenagers wanted the others to think they knew more than they did. I expect more from a magazine that I pay money for.
I agree that the DIY content is likely a tough one when you're faced with deadlines, but I agree with the poster that mentioned them maybe needing some younger blood. I know I've slowed down drastically with age, and have less desire to do the work. One of Tim's recent columns talked about all the racing he did last year. Nothing wrong with that, but his columns used to talk a lot more about the work he did. This isn't a criticism, as I feel the same way, but maybe it does speak to the need to bring in some younger guys in addition to Tom. In addition, it was my impression that one of the guys on staff that still did a lot of his own work was Per, and now he's gone. I can find information all over the place about how to build this or restore that. The value of these two mags has always been that because they were doing the work themselves, they added a lot of the DIY related detail the others gloss over. I'm not feeling that right now.

Tom Suddard wrote: We haven't forgotten about you guys, but it is true that most readers won't rebuild an engine themselves.

Weird. You guys certainly know your readership better than I do, so I want to be clear that I don't doubt this in any way, shape, or form.

I just figured the readership was more hands-on than that.

Here's a question, and I suspect that I'd have to have my head in a hole not to already have my answer from GRM's actual evolution, but how does the chicken-and-egg aspect work with regard to the ever-broadening audience that you guys naturally seek in order to make a decent living at this whole writing-about-cars thing, and the fact that it grew from such a nuts-and-bolts, hands-on publication?

That is, the pretty-darn-tech-intensive version sold well, the readership grew, and then... Did you get less techy readers for whom some less-crunchy content was good, or did you start adding in some less-wrenchy bits which in turn attracted that broader group?

It's all a bit like the evolution of the Miata (and so many other things). Light, simple, fun, perhaps not everybody's cup of tea. It sells, it has some cachet, it gets softened up in order to go over better with the folks who think "hey, that looks like fun" but who don't want ride quality that'll over-agitate their latte...

Apologies, I'm more or less rambling now, and I still enjoy GRM too much to go crazy equating the evolution of the magazine with the larger/softer progression that car models always seem to follow.

I think that GRM has to walk a fine line between lifestyle magazine and geek rag. We'd all like to have garages full of awesomeness and the time/talent to do wonderous things with cars. But in the real world, most of us are getting the fixes that we require to maintain our enthusiasm in spite of frustrating restraints on our actual automotive involvement. If GRM wanders too far to the casual enthusiast, they'll loose that portion of their readership that legitimately builds cool stuff. And if they cater to the legitimately hard core (despite what the slogan says) they'll loose the interest of the casual set. I'm pretty sure that GRM needs both sets of readers to pay the bills.

So Tommy.... Please be precise in your language. - Don't call a refresh a rebuild or you'll loose cred. But keep it fun too. personally I think that the magazine's on a good roll, and I'm reading more than I have in a while.

I think many of us fall into the trap that this board represents all segments of the GRM readership - I don't think that is, in fact, very accurate.

kreb wrote: And if they cater to the legitimately hard core (despite what the slogan says) they'll loose the interest of the casual set. I'm pretty sure that GRM needs both sets of readers to pay the bills.

I'm not sure that is true. I'll probably never craft my own transmission like they did for the Berserkly but that doesn't mean I didn't want to read about it. I am more put off by the use of "Epic", "Awesome" and "Ultimate" on the same magazine cover. What are we... 13yr old girls? In fact, that the last time I learned something important reading GRM was Angry's brake article what... 3yrs ago? I could certainly do with a little more "geek" and a little less puff in my bathroom reading.

A counter-point though -- some of the "paying the shop guys" stuff is enlightening and valuable to me as a reader. Remember that for many of us, "grassroots" encompasses more than just "do it yourself".

ZOO wrote: A counter-point though -- some of the "paying the shop guys" stuff is enlightening and valuable to me as a reader. Remember that for many of us, "grassroots" encompasses more than just "do it yourself".

I depends. I remember the articles about the BMW whatever it was. I glossed them, at best. I re-rear the challenge stuff 5-6 times, and those issues never go into storage, they stay out. I even have the one from however long ago it was that was given to me by a buddy that was my inspiration to get a subscription. If he had handed me the issue with "How to make this very expensive BMW perform like this even more expensive BMW" I wouldn't even have read it.

Different place in life. I may feel differently if I turn into some sort of financial success in 20 years, but at present, if I can swing the $700 to get the Lemons car repowered and enter it again, I am living super large. I don't do my own oil changes because it's fun, I couldn't afford to do it any other way.

We can't forget the "Motorsports" component, either. I'd rather compete -- in autox, time attack, Chump Car, ice racing, or participate in an HPDE than build something from scratch . . . or change my oil.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

kreb wrote: And if they cater to the legitimately hard core (despite what the slogan says) they'll loose the interest of the casual set. I'm pretty sure that GRM needs both sets of readers to pay the bills.

I'm not sure that is true. I'll probably never craft my own transmission like they did for the Berserkly but that doesn't mean I didn't want to read about it.

There's a good question: Is it what people do, or what they dream? It's taken me a long time to get to where I have the resources to do a lot of hands-on stuff. I spent a long time serving coffee, buying GRM, and that was about the end of the budget...

It was always, many years before I bought a welder or a drill press, the nuts, bolts, guts of cars that I wanted to read about.

Again with the strong resistance to armchair-quarterbacking the magazine, I wonder whether the bolt-on and farm-out stuff is necessary in combination with eyeballs in order to sell enough advertising to make the whole thing viable.

Jumping back to my analogy of each title being like an auto model which in the apparent natural order of things grows out of its initial niche, there is often eventually a new (or recycled) model brought in at the bottom once the bottom car has swelled enough.

Is there room for another title for the crunchiest bits? Bi-monthly? Quarterly? How many other people, like me, blow another $25 a month picking up Racecar Engineering and Race Tech in order to get first-principles discussions of how cars go fast?

I think it's time for me to apologize to the OP for the tangent, GRM for the second-guessing, and go get some work done...

ransom wrote: Is there room for another title for the crunchiest bits?

Racecar Engineering Magazine?

ransom wrote:

Tom Suddard wrote: We haven't forgotten about you guys, but it is true that most readers won't rebuild an engine themselves.

Weird. You guys certainly know your readership better than I do, so I want to be clear that I don't doubt this in any way, shape, or form. I just figured the readership was more hands-on than that.

Rebuilding an engine (by the high standards laid out here) is a pretty high level of hands-on. It's not building your own (grenade) transmission from scratch, but it's still got a lot of wrenches in the Haynes manual.

I'm okay with a bit of looseness in what's considered a Rebuild. I'm not sure exactly where the line is, but it's maybe one step off reworking the head. Most people here seem to think it centers around the pistons and bearings, and I'm assuming a similar level of attention to the head. I have to say that Porsche engine work crossed the line for me, it sure looked like a rebuild to a casual observer. Of course, I come from an age where having to do a valve job every 20k wasn't normal Heck, when it's time to do a valve job it's probably time to tear the whole thing down...

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

You did read the rest of that paragraph, right?

Racecar Engineering and Race Tech are great. What would be sooper-dooper-awesome-with-sprinkles would be something that crunchy but easier on the F1/LeMans stuff. Like an entire magazine made up of a cross between earlier GRM and the Practical Racer department of Race Tech, with Racecar Engineering's The Consultant...

I would rebuild an engine, if I knew how. I want to learn, which is why I'm here. I consider myself GRM in my desire to be hands on, learn and tinker and appreciation of ingenuity and value (but that doesn't always mean shoestring budget.) My skillset and knowledge is mostly limited to what I've done and that so far in my automotive history has been basic maintenance, repairs and bolt on mods. I have never raced or autocrossed aside from some manufacture driving events or showcases and race prepping, suspension theory- all goes over my head.

Some here might think me a poser, some in the general non wrenching public might think me a guru. Whatever. I love cars, I'm not a kid with an ego trying to show off how much I know. I'm here on this board every day, reading, soaking up what I can, reading about things I didn't even know I liked, in awe of the vast amount of practical knowledge, comraderie and civility. And sometimes asking/saying things that display my ignorance. This is the only magazine I subscribe to, the main reason being I like the forums and wanted to support the mothership, don't get me wrong, it's a great magazine with a decent amount of content that piques my interest, but I look forward to the stuff here more than what shows up in my mailbox.

Maybe I'm not part of the demographic. I do agree that a rebuild is more than a valve job and to label it as such isn't doing anyone any favors. I do like reading about personal anecdotes, stories of races and how racers got where they are, and I do like to see at home wrenching with real world applications. I also understand some things need to be farmed out, for whatever reasons. I hope the magazine can keep the balance and not skew too far to one or the other and I hope the board continues to further flesh out the more geeky aspects.

Everyone has a different situation, life,perspective and opinion. GRM needs to take all of them and try to come up with a mag that somehow appeals to all of us. I realize that's a tough challenge. But just speaking for myself, I let my subscriptions run out to both GRM and CM last year because I wasn't reading content that I couldn't get somewhere else and also appealed to me. I only re-subscribed because of the holiday deal. For me to continue my subscription, they need to have content I can't get elsewhere. Someone mentioned the custom trans for the Bezerkly. That's something I can't get elsewhere! I may never build one, but I learned something from it anyway. I'm not interested in new car reviews from GRM, unless they are geared heavily towards the things we do with cars. The last one I remember really caring about was the article that compared the CRZ to the CRX. That was interesting, because it was relevant to us, the guys that autocross, open track, and often use our daily drivers for multiple purposes. And it was a COMPARISON. I couldn't care less about the newest rolling appliance, and can easily get that information elsewhere if I decide I do.
Offer me hands on articles that cover things that apply to us readers and we can't get elsewhere, and I'll be a subscriber for life. Move more and more mainstream and I'll drop it like I did just about every other car mag. Just my viewpoint.

Keith Tanner wrote:

ransom wrote:

Tom Suddard wrote: We haven't forgotten about you guys, but it is true that most readers won't rebuild an engine themselves.

Weird. You guys certainly know your readership better than I do, so I want to be clear that I don't doubt this in any way, shape, or form. I just figured the readership was more hands-on than that.

Rebuilding an engine (by the high standards laid out here) is a pretty high level of hands-on. It's not building your own (grenade) transmission from scratch, but it's still got a lot of wrenches in the Haynes manual. I'm okay with a bit of looseness in what's considered a Rebuild. I'm not sure exactly where the line is, but it's maybe one step off reworking the head. Most people here seem to think it centers around the pistons and bearings, and I'm assuming a similar level of attention to the head. I have to say that Porsche engine work crossed the line for me, it sure looked like a rebuild to a casual observer. Of course, I come from an age where having to do a valve job every 20k wasn't normal Heck, when it's time to do a valve job it's probably time to tear the whole thing down...

I come from an era where we learned to do complete rebuilds when we were teenagers, and engines rarely lasted more than 100k miles.
While some may, I don't define a rebuild by the pistons and bearings, but I think a real rebuild should mean that everything in the engine was cleaned and inspected, and then the parts that needed replacement were replaced. The 911 wasn't even in the ballpark using my definition. And if my definition is incorrect, meaning that the 911 engine can be considered a rebuild, what do you call it when someone does everything I used in my definition? See, if the term "rebuild" doesn't mean a thorough rebuilding, then what does?

I think bravenrace and ransom hit it on the head for me. When I first started into automotive enthusiasm, I could barely change a spark plug, but I wanted to learn. Unfortunately almost all of the 'tuner' or 'build' magazines simply threw out old parts, sent the car off to the media blaster and paint booth, and then upon arriving back at the shop there were boxes of shinny new parts to bolt up, all fresh and ready. I didn't want to know how to spend money, and I don't care about how nice the new leather in a $200k Ferrari smells. I wanted something I could relate to, and emulate. I knew I wouldn't be rebuilding an engine any time soon back then, or build my own transmission, yet here I am now having done the former and ready for the later. I feel like, as others have voiced, some of the articles that made GRM so special was that it actually involved engineering, ingenuity, and logic. Sure it was sometimes geeky, sure some of those articles required several reads to comprehend. That was what made the magazine so special. I can blow through a GRM now in less than 45 minutes. It used to take me 3 hours and it's not because my comprehension has suddenly gotten OMFGWTFBBQ. I know it might be hard for the staff to constantly do projects, but why not do like you did in a few CM articles, go find a well-documented subscriber build, and pen 3 pages on it with pics?! It's got to be faster to spend a few days pouring over someone eles's build than spending 6 months on your own (apologize for criticizing, GRM/CM are still Tier 1 auto mags to me, nothing else is on the same shelf).

Tom Suddard wrote: ...We haven't forgotten about you guys, but it is true that most readers won't rebuild an engine themselves.

I wonder if you're actually catching yourself in a cycle there. You write articles that apeal to the more afluent hire-someone crowd, so you get increased readership of that crowd. So you write more articles for them. And so the cycle goes.

A ~$5000 dollar study on the subtle differences of aftermarket exhaust systems for a Mini has a very narrow appeal.

A comparative study of various high performance brake pads on the other hand is a whole lot more usefull to a whole lot more people.

Pull out your last years stack of CircleTrack, and GRMS. Compare them. Look at the breadth and depth of technical articles on things like handling in the one, compared to the other. One of them will be talking about entry, exit, transition, etc. See of those terms are even used in the other magazine.

I've done a full rebuild before (see my avatar), and I don't think that a magazine like GRM can go into the details required to do that sort of thing. Aside from the liability issues, there are just too many variables and desired end results.

I think they could say something like: "Longer duration cams do xxx and higher lift cams do xxx and cams with higher lift and higher duration do xxxx" and maybe illustrate what cams they chose for a particular purpose and why. That would be valuable without having to go into torque specs on the actual job.

I enjoy the tire comparisons, the reviews, the challenge builds and really don't give a fig about the racing results. Others readers are different. They're after broad market appeal and journalistic integrity.

Good enough for me.

I've been reading GRM for ten years. I am into hardcore fabricating but actually don't like much the wrenching (does that make sense?). I too have noticed a definite shift in the content of the articles. I was quite shocked when the $2006 challenge didn't even make the front page of the magazine, and it was relegated to just another article.

Now, what I am about to say is a complete guess from reading the columns and all, but I think it follows the life evolution of Tim Suddard and I suppose that's normal since GRM is his child. Ten years ago, he was a guy with young kids, a still growing business, and probably not much money. Now the kids are grown up, the business seems to be doing well enough and he has the money to do what he really likes i.e. race cars. And all his buddies that started out at the same time as him are probably also in this situation. That's the risk of producing an interest magazine is that your interests change with time.

I think the magazine is moving away from the grassroots and towards the motorsports. Maybe it would be time to split those two into two different magazine?

Don't worry, I will still renew my subscription because it still is head and shoulder above the rest of the crap at the news stand.

ransom wrote: In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker: You did read the rest of that paragraph, right? Racecar Engineering and Race Tech are great. What would be sooper-dooper-awesome-with-sprinkles would be something that crunchy but easier on the F1/LeMans stuff. Like an entire magazine made up of a cross between earlier GRM and the Practical Racer department of Race Tech, with Racecar Engineering's *The Consultant*...

Car Craft? It's not so much about handling, but there's always something interesting in every issue. Definitely worth the super-cheap price of admission.

There are some good points - I agree that the exhaust and intake shootouts don't do much for me, as the differences between them are pretty minor and don't really apply to more than one particular car. Brake and tire tests, definitely. Camshafts, I'd love to see that. Part of the problem is that the GRM/CM family only has so much time, and if you're trying to put out a magazine you may not have time to lock yourself in the dyno room and do an in-depth test of 8 different cams.

In reply to Brett_Murphy:

I don't think it was ever suggested that they try to document everything one would need to do an engine rebuild. Bravenrace started with commentary about using the word "rebuild" a bit loosely, and I tangented from Tom's comment about whether the readership even does such stuff and I started babbling about editorial content...

I think when I've seen things like engine rebuilds covered successfully, it goes over the general steps, pointing out stuff that most will farm out (machine work), and maybe pointing out a few specific tips and pitfalls for the engine at hand (or the operation at hand).

Even when GRM was covering stuff in more depth, I think it was often an introduction to the concepts and concerns, not a bible for a given operation. As I read lots of that stuff, I learned a lot from article to article, and it also told me what I ought to go get books about for the whole story...

You're certainly right about the breadth of what appeals, which is why I keep apologizing for saying what I want and fearing that I sound like I'm specifying what they ought to do

Oh yeah, to answer the actual question of the OP. No, that was not a rebuild. More of a refresh. And reading "well this job was easy because we had the specialized 125$ tool from our buddy" and "we didn't mind spending 130$ on a tool we will never use again in our lives" is the kind of crap that pisses me off.

They say the criticism is only as valid as the proposed solution so:

I'd love to see a series of In-depth, full detail articles that make me store a magazine for reference. I mentioned Angry's brake article. I still have that issue because all the math I need to size pistons and things are in there. I've used that information. If I could see someone put straight cut gears in a T5 or optimize roll centers after a hefty drop... meaty stuff, in detail enough to actually use in a competition environment... that would be swell. It doesn't need to consume the magazine - one article a month that replaces the hole left by NASA pulling out would be great. If it needs to have more than one episode to get the detail in... who doesn't love a cliffhanger?

We have all been down this road before. I agree that the reason I originally subscribed was for the hands on stuff from the writers. However you all can also agree that there is only so many times that you can write an article about rebuilding a motor. That would get boring. It use to irritate me but then I realised that this was really GRM documenting the repairs / upgrades made to a car and that the real proof was when it was complete what does GRM think of the results. I really don't care if they did the actual wrenching. However This leads me to one of the biggest gripes I have had over the last 4-5 years is when an article says that they went to so and so and they said this or they don't like that about what has been done to a car. The fact of the matter is I really don't care what other people say. I subscribe to GRM to here what the people of GRM have to say about things. I can relate much better to what Tim thinks about the results from a modification than a professional race card driver has to say about it. Some of the articles from a couple years ago were almost like reading some of my legal crap that I have to write at work. For insurance reasons I have to quote others and site other peoples findings when ever possible. Thus if I get sued I can just point at the reference source and defer the liability. Some of the GRM articles read like this. GRM has got much better at not doing this over the last year or two but every time another person is sited to cast an opinion about something my eyes glazed over.

As for the definition of rebuild. I agree with the OP. The 911 did not get a rebuilt motor. They simply fixed a problem and refreshed the heads. And installed a clutch while they were there. Basic everyday service for a P car owner.

@Tom Thank you!!!! Getting back a little closer to GRM's roots can not be a bad thing!!

Something to remember. The reason Toyota sells so many corolla's is because they are plan vanilla cars. The vast majority of the general public wants plain vanilla. This is the problem that GRM is running in to. In order to sell more magazines and sell more add space (what really pays the bills) they have to appeal to the casual car person as it is a much bigger market than the hardcore car nut's. It is business. Pure and simple business. I for one don't really mind. Tim and everyone at GRM have worked hard to get to where they are now. But please GRM make your voice heard. Cast your opinions about things. If something is crap say so. If you don't like a set of tires (even though it is the fastest) say so. I know this is difficult when some of these statements can directly conflict with who is paying the bills but it is the information that we want.

Now that I have said all that I still think that GRM is by far he best car mag on the market.

WOW do I ramble on.

Funny thing, I just took an engine building class and the jist was it really isn't all that difficult given thousands of dollars worth of measuring equipment, tens of thousands worth of machining equipment, and thousands of hours of experience. Basically you cannot rebuild an engine without tons of specialty equipment and the prof said that modern engines don't really need rebuilding like the old engines did.

There were three distict levels of effort going into a rebuilt.

An overhaul was basically just a freshining up of components, if the crank is in good order this might just be piston and rings and a valve job.

A rebuild requires the engine to be totally disassembled, cleaned, measured, and machined. Bearings, pistons/rings, etc replaced, with all the machining of crank etc to bring the engine to within the tolerance/clearance you'd want.

A blueprint is like a rebuild on meth, basically you do everything like a rebuild while correcting any mistakes from the factory. This means machining all parts to where they should be, piston bore to connecting rod angles, straightness of the crank bores, balancing rotating/reciprocating components, etc. Basically correcting any and every machining issues to make an engine perfectly machined to better specifications than the factory. I guess from the factory an engine is good enough but not great.