Tim Suddard's Articles = uncool

Tim, Marjorie, please ignore this crap; and thanks for your great magazine, web site and forums.

1slowcrx wrote: Oh and Vito.... STFU AND GTFO

Right will do!

Logging off never to troll again.

While I don't agree a new BMW is in anyway a low cost grassroots option, you must also realize that motorsports is a rich man's game. I'm saying that the audience for racing and high performance cars that will be very diverse. You have the funky guy in the suped up civic then you have a guy in a new go fast beemer. The only difference is in cost. The experience is the same. Hell I've only read the mag a few months but I think it has it's head on it's shoulders. If you want to make a stink about something look at the money they put into these funky old cars to make them go fast. I've noticed the costs of some of the upgrades in the magazine and thought 160$ for sway bar links? But if got the money and want to spend it go for it. If someone is in the position to buy the car they want that is their decision. If the 75$ I have spent on the GRM/CM mags is what pays for the oil, hey that's capitalism. Don't like it don't buy in, simple.

alfadriver wrote: Here's a couple of other perspectives... No, I'm never probably going to own a supercar. But the magazine is about driving, and competing. I'd think it would be cool if GRM did a feature of a person who autocrossed their Ferrari (if there was such a person...). Grassroots doesn't mean cheap. That's why I get this magazine, and it + CM and a couple other that I read cover to cover. The rest are for info, and reference (since I do this as a living, too....) Eric

Interestingly, I did autocross my Ferrari 250 GT years ago out here in socal. V12, wire wheels, narrow tires, and the traditional weak clutch did not make for very quick times-especially with a light mist falling. I didn't care-the car sounded great, was easy to drift and was very popular with the other competitors. Still have a vintage 330 GTC, although I haven't auto crossed it yet!

I've also been a fan of the mag since the Auto X days and am a couple years into my 10 year subscription. I don't begrudge Tim or anyone else for driving a new BMW-they are nice cars and the articles about the 3 series have been interesting. GRM is still true to its original intent and I applaud the Studdards for their tenacity. GRM is my favorite automotive publication(I subscribe to a dozen or so) mainly because of its relevance.

My only gripe is that damn Ridgeline-truly an awful substitute for a truck/tow rig.

This magazine is proof that a guy (or girl) can get a few grand and go make a killer track car. It's about trade-offs. I don't see a track car as any more or less foolish than a fancy house, a new daily driver vs an old one, a vacation, a big tv etc... People ask how I can justify a car for the track. I tell them the same way they justify a new car every couple of years, or tropical vacations every year, or a 50" tv, or a fancy house (key word is fancy). It reminds me of an article in a plane magazine about a writer who overheard two guys talking and mentioning that flying is a rich man's hobby. He wrote a whole article outlining the costs to get a used, but safe second-hand plane, do the expected maintenance, pay all the legal fees and insure it. By the time it was ready to fly, it was still cheaper than your average new car. I sometimes hear people say that it would cost too much to get a spare car for the track. I'm not doubting their financial situation, only they know that. But it's worth showing people who think they can't afford one that they can.

But people who shell out 30 grand or whatever on a car aren't any less of an enthusiast. The new Bimmer isn't exactly a budget car, but it's still within the reach of some people who may take it to the track. And in a couple years, they will be nose-diving from depreciation and they will be attainable to even more people. Grassroots is more of an attitude and an approach to racing/automobiles than a certain price point.

P71 wrote: I did go back in my archives to review the initial BMW editorial, and it does spell out in plain English that Tim bought the car. Now GRm is taking the stance of "it's a loaner". I do not like being lied to. It's either one or the other, NOT both. Do you in fact own the BMW, as in you bought it and are making payments like the rest of us mortals? Or does BMW in fact let you use it free of charge for some ink? Please answer.

We did not buy it, it is on a one or two (I forgot the exact amount) year loan from BMW.

Yeah, um, sorry for the non-answer. Was sleeping.

We ordered the car, took delivery, and pay to license, insure it, and other charges to the tune of about $500 a month, so yeah, Tim felt like we'd put our money where our mouth is. But it is a long-term loader; after 2 years, it goes back to BMW. (Our $12000 does not miraculously come back home, sadly.) We do get to drive a lot of cars absolutely free, but we approached BMW for this one because we liked the concept of building an M3 beater, so we were willing to bear some of the costs for the car.

Tim drove it for one year, which was just up a couple weeks ago--now David will drive and play with it for a year. There is no set editorial commitment; we told BMW we were going to modify the car and track it, but they might not have been so thrilled if we had told them we were going to try to knock off the M3 with it. So please drop the whole fantasy of "they're riding a gravy train with biscuit wheels and getting us dupes to pay for it."

As for the original poster, yes, he's just trying to stir up E36 M3, as he admitted in a PM last night. Which he's obviously succeeded in doing.

Now you can amuse yourselves by talking about what idiots we are because we DON'T get to drive the car for free.

Margie

Not that I personally care one way or the other, but I think full disclosure on these manufacturer loaner vehicles is fair to the reader. I too recall pretty vividly Tim discussing his reasons for 'purchase' of the BMW. That kind of endorsement (our fav editor putting his own money into something) vs BMW being nice enough to give you a car for use is an important difference. I'll stick my neck out and ASSume that the much-loathed Ridgeline and Pathfinder are also 'donated' vehicles since they are mentioned in so many articles in a NASCAR post-race fashion (as must be the Trailer World trailer). Hey, not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but the distinction of who own it and makes the payments is a point of honest journalism.

In contrast, Autoweek makes a big deal about having long term test vehicles and making it sound like they 'buy' them but I'm sure they are mfr supplied loans as well. It became pretty obvious this was the case with the recent Audi R8. They've never disclosed the truth, but those of us with a brain can figure it out.

Don't care much what the car is, or how many pages are spent yammering about it. If I could get free cars for doing nothing more than writing about them, I'd be pushing people out of my way to be first in line, believe me. But that one column did certainly have me convinced that the Suddard family was writing checks to pay for it. That carries weight with me as a reader. We readers give you guys a lot of trust and respect with our subscription dollars. Just be vigilant on your honesty. Matters to more of us than just idiots like Vito.

We are writing checks for the BMW, which is certainly not the usual deal for loaners. Other magazines do not. And I don't know about you, but these checks seem substantial to me--maybe because it's the same amount I pay to own the Ridgeline! And yes, we bought it from a dealer the "usual" way. Pathfinder is a long-term loaner, which it has been identified as in print numerous times.

Margie

In reply to Marjorie Suddard:

Marjorie, I have the utmost respect for you and everyone at GRM. I've been reading the mag for more than 15 years, and wouldn't do so if I didn't like it. I especially appreciate how approachable you all are, although I've never had the pleasure or opportunity to meet any of you in person. But I have a question about this BMW. You mentioned that "We ordered the car, took delivery, and pay to license, insure it, and other charges to the tune of about $500 a month.." But if I'm not mistaken, you would be paying all of that plus a car payment if you actually purchased the car. If that's the case, then this is not the same as owning it. Owning it would be much more expensive. That's an important distinction to me, as it shows two different levels of commitment, and thus two different levels or endorsement also. I don't personally care at all if you own it or not, but to this reader it's an important difference that plays into how I percieve your opinions of the car.

Wow! I stayed up late last night changing out a water pump in my Ranger and look what happened!

I will say that you guys are always polite and/or professional with Trolls. I am disappointed however that after all this Vito comes up with "logging off never to troll again"; can't even man up and admit it publicly after sending you a PM.

Buying vs Loaner cars: I can see where a free car could sway a reviewer's opinion and possibly keep small quirks or anomalies about the car out of print. As others have said, it's nothing I will ever own, but I don't mind learning about them.

Dan

Bravenrace: Actually, no, because the stipulations and additional insureds required by BMW mean that the fees we're paying are much, much more expensive than we'd usually pay to put a car on the road.

I understand all of your points about distinctions, though, and agree--which is why I've got to get that issue and see exactly how it was worded. My recollection is that Tim talked about ordering the car and how he thought one should be optioned to form the basis of an M3 killer--not, hey y'all, look at me, I own a 335i.

Either way, though, you guys do know there's no way in hell we could afford to own even a fraction of all the cars we drive and write about? The fact we treat the Ridgeline we bought the same way we treat a loaner should be a testament to how hard we work to keep that aspect out of it. As far as we're concerned, the question is ALWAYS "Is this car worth what they want for it?" Whether it's $500 or $50,000.

Margie

My Neons were totally worth $100 and $500.

Congratulations you have hit the big time!! You know the magazines a success when people start hating you.

I love GRM and CM, I subscribe to both and look forward to every issue. Keep up the good work.

Officially and for the record... I don't care if the car was paid for or if it was loaned... I want to see the front end knocked off of it like the MINI!

Get it out to the track Dave!

zomg 3 series gate

More GRM style Neons, Berkelys less Bimmers Nothing made this century qualifies for Grass Roots

Even the challenge rules need some adjustment to meet the definition Now? it 's more like an AIG accounting exercise than building on the cheap.

And no car at the end of the loan. Either way, it's far from free. At least what we'd consider free! (Sorry, we're still in a world where $500 a month is a lot to pay to drive a car.) And in our world, where let's face it, most cars ARE free, it'd better earn its keep for the money we're paying. So if Tim's biased in any way on this car, it's not because he sold his soul to BMW--it's because he has to keep the squirrels in his head from chattering about what it's costing him. Like most car owners.

Margie

Marjorie Suddard Either way, though, you guys do know there's no way in hell we could afford to own even a fraction of all the cars we drive and write about

Does this mean I have a shot at your Corvair when it comes off the lease?

TANGENT ALERT:

I have a few ideas for cars I would like to see in the magazine as development vehicles.

1: A zero option 2009 Nissan Versa sedan. The lowest priced car in America... is it any good for autocrossing? Develop the car over the course of a year and see what you get.

2: 2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP. Per, win Nationals with one... I triple dog dare you.

3: A serious CP Camaro/Firebird project

4: A serious circle track Pony Car endeavor (Come on I know you really want to).

5: A myth versus reality series, where you take a group of cars and really compare why the myth or legend exists over the competition.

SoloSonett wrote: More GRM style Neons, Berkelys less Bimmers Nothing made this century qualifies for Grass Roots Even the challenge rules need some adjustment to meet the definition Now? it 's more like an AIG accounting exercise than building on the cheap.

No no no. Grassroots has nothing to do with purchase price.

1) I would call any autocross competition grassroots, no one (Possibly Evolution school teachers aside) is earning a living from it, even if your successful and win big and get lot's of contingency and sponsor money/part, I don't believe it pays you to live. As others have pointed out there are some very high $$ cars at the Solo Nationals, full race cars, exotic cars, highly developed SP and SM cars etc, many many of those are either worth, or have invested well over $100K, but to me they are still grassroots.

2) The ultimate track car challenge seems popular, the last two winners were the Viper and Radical off the shelf race cars costing over $100K, still grass roots to me.

3) How much did the project RoSpit, 1990 Mustang cost? How much would the project E30 M3 cost to replicate today? What would have been the street cost of the original 2002 Mini Cooper S racer than got it's nose stuffed?

4) The magazine has had several articles about Z06's, 911, Ariel Atom's (how much!!!) etc

All those cars, projects and sports cost way more than a new 335i. To me taking a new 335i, making some changes to it so it's total cost is less than a new M3, it's running costs are lower (Service, fluids (no special oil as needed by the M3), insurance etc etc is as grass roots as it comes.

As I said in my first post in this thread cost isn't just $$'s it can be time, effort, resources or many other things. To many people hours in the garage are more expensive than $$'s spent. I've been in the workforce since 1990, I now earn considerably more than I did back then, but I have a lot less time in the garage to show for it. In the mean time I've built cars, raced, autocrosses, hill climbed, done track days etc. These day's I've got a shiny new daily driver that I picked up and drove straight to the Nurburgring for a few laps. Am I bragging? No. It's life and priorities change. Do I miss the hours welding up my old Hillman Imp, or bashing out the front of my Opel Manta after hitting a tree (dang leaves/understeer) yup, but I also value time with my family, children etc Doe this make me any less grass roots? I don't think so, I still print some numbers from the computer, tape them to the window and go autocrossing in a car with zero mod's, but I'm doing something. My latest 'grassroots' dilemma is scheduling time (THAT word again) to go stand in the Ice and Snow to watch the Sno*Drift rally with a couple of friends in January

GRM please don't listen to the GRM has to = $100 beaters. I'm enjoying the ratty Neon, but loved the track CRX, Love the concept of the 335 and would love to see some. If anything drop the $200x challenge coverage and do some more articles on things like the Kimini or other wild homebuilts that weren’t low $$.

Keep up the good work.

Adrian Thompson

That's a good car, but I'm planning on getting my ass kicked in B Modified in 2009.

(and hopefully learn how to build/drive the LeGrand well enough to do better in 2010.) Per

John Brown wrote: 2: 2009 Pontiac Solstice GXP. Per, win Nationals with one... I triple dog dare you.

In case some people feel that the sky is falling, there are still people like me at the office. I own four cars currently, none newer than 1984, none I paid more than $2,500 for. Three RX-7s and a Dodge Aspen.

The only car that is currently registered does not run. This is the same car I have around $12,000 in. It is my blue RX-7 (seen in the Dec issue) and I have spend that money over the six years I have owned it, does that amount push it out of Grassroots land? I am bumming rides or riding my bike to work this month so I can wait until January when my 1979 RX-7 becomes a classic in Florida and can register it for $35 instead of $200. Is that Grassroots enough? Should I yell at people that paid a over $5000 for their car? Should they be considered yuppies in my eyes? Hell no.

Last month I test drove a CTS-V. I could have afforded but I would rather looking into home ownership. If I would have bought that CTS-V that stickered over $50,000 new would that have made me any less Grassroots? Or would it be Grassroots since it cost half of what it did new. It is a silly argument and it is all relative to your budget and goals.

-Greg

In reply to Marjorie Suddard:

I haven't read the comments newer then here yet, but THANK YOU for your honesty regarding the situation on the BMW. I honestly figured that you were having to make a financial outlay on it, and after reading your response I too would have called it "my car". $12K is a lot of money, and while it's technically a lease, I'm not going to hold that over you. Again, thank you for the honesty and candor and I applaud your editorial decisions.

Carry on.

Marjorie Suddard wrote: And no car at the end of the loan. Either way, it's far from free. At least what we'd consider free! (Sorry, we're still in a world where $500 a month is a lot to pay to drive a car.) And in our world, where let's face it, most cars ARE free, it'd better earn its keep for the money we're paying. So if Tim's biased in any way on this car, it's not because he sold his soul to BMW--it's because he has to keep the squirrels in his head from chattering about what it's costing him. Like most car owners. Margie

I understand what you are saying, and $500 a month is a lot of money for me also. But for me it's not really about the money, but what the money represents. I guess what I'm trying to say, and this is my opinion only, is there is a very significant difference between buying a car and using a car. When I buy a NEW car, I've already done my research and evaluataion of that car. So by purchasing it, I'm making a commitment to it and a statement that I think that car was better than others in the same catagory. When you test a car, to a large extent you are trying to determine (admittedly in a lot more depth) what you already know about a car you buy. I know it's not that black and white, but hopefully you get the idea. In my mind, that difference is likely to show in your review of that car, so it would seem best to disclose that in the very beginning. When Tim said he purchased the BMW, it said to me that he thinks very highly of that car. That may or may not be. But in reality he didn't buy it, but is using it over a two year period to evaluate if he will think highly of it, and add parts to improve it. Both are fine, but in my opinion, different.