CAR magazine may now be one of the UK’s major motoring enthusiasts’ monthlies, but it has an interesting back story. It was founded in 1962, and has always tried to keep to standard of honesty and frankness that was at odds with the rest of the rather loyal industry comments we could get easily. Who could forget the Volvo as “a domestic appliance”, the Hans Lehmann Scoop shots that other publications completely shunned, the fulsome recognition of Citroen and Peugeot’s relatively modest saloons over grander names or the criticism of 1970s Japanese products for everyday failings, such as roadholding and comfort, although not reliability or value for money?
One feature amongst several, such as the thorough comparative tests known as the Giant Test, named opinion columns and a monthly summary of tests of new products that have spread to other magazines, that is still there in 2022 is the pithy, provocative summary of all new cars offered in the UK, under the title of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly, sometimes referred to as the GBU. At this time, though not now, cars were divided into “Interesting” or “Boring“. Cue endless arguments. Let’s try to pick some highlights from June 1977, the year of the Alfa Romeo Giulietta, Peugeot 305, Porsche 928 and the intermediate Ford Thunderbird.
That the Alfa Romeo Alfetta was judged an “all time great” may not surprise. No it wasn’t perfect, but I could go with that. And the Austin Maxi in “Interesting“? That was a surprise, but the Maxi did have many good points hidden under the dreary appearance and by the weak points. By CAR’s criteria of being better than most, and technically interesting, you can see their point.
Perhaps most telling were the Honda Civic – “Is it really Japanese?” – and the Accord – “Meets Europe’s best on their terms”
Working through the Interesting saloons, the Mercedes-Benz S Class (W-116) gets an expected high rating, as do some others that some in the British press preferred to overlook or at best clearly found hard to quantify, such as the Renault 4 (by now 16 years old) and the Simca 1100. The only Vauxhalls to get into Interesting were the Opel based Chevette and Cavalier, and the Golf was clearly flagged – “Very hard to fault now” – as was the Passat – “Gets better by the month.”
But the Austin Allegro and AMC Pacer sat side by side in Boring
Still in Boring but with a more optimistic summary was the Cadillac Seville. “Now quite decent” CAR said, which is more flattering than the BMW 1502 – “The past lingering on“. The East European cars got a bashing – the Lada was “Dreary“, the Skoda should be “sent back to Czechoslovakia” and the Moshvitch summed up as “Aaagh!“.
But CAR’s ire was perhaps reserved for Datsun – the 100F11 Cherry, 120Y Sunny, 140J Violet, 160/180B Bluebird, the 200 and 260C all got tough verdicts, the Toyota Carina was “ZZZZZZZZ” and the 1000 “Another nasty nip”
Mazda and Colt (Mitsubishi) fair a bit better and the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow, freshly revised that year, gets only a lukewarm verdict – “Improved but no pace setter” – that no other British magazine would have given.
But was the worst reserved for the Morris Marina – “Embarrassment” – and the Reliant Robin – “it’s not car!“?
The dated Triumph Dolomite got called out as such, as did the older Vauxhalls and the VW Beetle. The Vanden Plas 1500, the dressed up Allegro, was fairly ridiculed. And CAR gave Volvos their typical harsh review – not much to drive or ride in, and the other benefits were available elsewhere.
The Interesting Coupes are more cheery – the Alfa Romeo Alfetta GTV were named as “Sheer motoring pleasure, “BMW 633 drivers should be beware” of the the Jaguar XJ4.2C. LJKS’s preference for Bristol was noted, and Fiat coupes show well too.
The Lancia Beta variants fare well, as do the Opel Manta and Vauxhall Cavalier coupes. And the Triumph TR7, though it was identified as being almost a compact saloon. The Renault 17 was “Competent“, although the similar 15 was classed as “Acceptable but hardly exciting” but tellingly the VW Scirocco was “Delightful”
And the Boring Coupes? Aside from the Renault 15, these were the dated old British sportscars, the Rolls-Royce Corniche and Camargue and underwhelming Japanese coupes. And the Ford Capri and Triumph Stag.
Elsewhere in this edition, CAR scooped the Opel Senator, the Peugeot 305, the facelifted VW Passat (B1) and the second generation Ford Granada, as well what turned out to be a red herring new Ford Escort based n a stretched Fiesta. Still, you can’t be right all the time, and that’s five more scoops in a month than Autocar had all year.
There was also an analysis of the failed Volvo-SAAB merger, a Giant Test between the Renault 14TL, Mazda 323 and VW Golf – won by the Renault on comfort, equipment and refinement against a less powerful and noisier Golf hampered by exchange rates and a well equipped Mazda hampered by a dated layout. There was also LJK Setright driving an Aston V8, and a long term review of a Morris Marina estate, which fared better than you might expect on someone’s personal (not corporate) tab, and reliably too.
All for your 40p, or £2.64 adjusted and about half the magazine’s price now. But I’m still reading it.
(A note on car prices – the GBU included the UK list price. £1000 in 1977 is now £6611. The Cortina started at £2365, or £15600, not that far off Fiesta money now.)
Aside from its boringness, I’m sure the AMC Pacer’s asymmetrical doors didn’t help matters in a country that drives on the left.
AMC was last man standing in the UK car market. I assume they imported Australian models but may have also converted to RHD. As a result they were the best selling US make in the Seventies and the Rambler Ambassador was a common sight in estate form. Unsurprisingly, the Pacer and the oil crisis finished them. Just last month, Tesla was #1 & 2 in the UK car market, probably the first time US cars have been best sellers since the Ford Model T.
I started reading CAR about the same time you did, and was a faithful reader/sometime subscriber for over 50 years. I even kept every single issue for several years until I was forced to ” down size “.
The art/photos from the front covers to the last pages were worth the steep price I had to pay for an issue off the newsstand and the news/comparison tests sometimes seemed like bonuses.
In the last few years I became a bit hesitant to buy every issue but the last year has seen my interest renewed. The coverage on new hybrid and electric vehicles is now my reason for buying, they are unsurpassed.
Have been reading Car since I971. Never missed an issue. It’s glory days, like most magazines, are sadly behind it. GBU lit a fuse under car magazines which then never criticised whatever they tested. GBU still appears monthly, but is pretty tame compared to the original.
Bloody Aussies. Disrespectful bastards.*
The summaries are quite brilliant, and apt. Look at the Marina entry – it deserved exactly those words, and still had another 7 years to run! They certainly didn’t pretend to be a consumer publication. It was for enthusiasts.
The magazine ultimately re-shaped the entire car reporting industry: even David E. Davis wanted to buy it. But it’s a pity the cheek and relentless focus on dynamic or design excellence – not to mention lots of very fine writing – transmogrified into the glib, smart-arsed self-focused rot of most modern motoring “journalism.”
*(CAR was edited by them for nearly all of its existence, and even owned by the editor and a few others from ’74 to ’89, when their 5K GBP investment netted them 8mill GBP).
I would’ve classed the AMC Pacer as “interesting” almost by default, and under “Against” I’d put “Shockingly overpriced on the UK market”. You could get a Mercedes 220 for that money!
Say what you will about the US-spec Austin Marina, at least it was still priced in the class it belonged rather than against the LTD and Caprice.
About the ’77 AMC Pacer X: “For: It’s different. Against: This is a small car? Sum-up: Yech!”
I’d be laughing louder if I didn’t actually like the ’77 Pacer X, which I do.
I bought this exact copy as a 12-year-old. I loved good/bad/ugly! Notice the slight disdain towards Japanese cars. Boy, would that change!
Edward F.
” …slight disdain towards Japanese cars…”
SLIGHT DISDAIN? The staff bordered on downright hostile to Japanese brands for quite some time, be it rightly or wrongly during the 70s. Japanese cars were rarely tested, and if I remember correctly, 1 or more brands (Nissan? Toyota?) did not allow them to have access to a car.
Thankfully, that did change, but there is still a heavy bias towards British branded vehicles.
They were much friendlier towards Japanese motorcycles, LJK Setright loved his six cylinder Honda CBX although he did have the engine swapped into a Dresda cafe racer because the Japanese didn’t fully grok motorcycle handling until the Suzuki GSXR.
They relentlessly sneered at Japanese cars. It took me years and hefty doses of CC to discover how fabulous Japanese cars can be, even the superficially dull ones. An example is Georg Kacher´s patronising review of the 1987 Honda Legend coupé. It´s clearly a really decent car. Kacher can´t bring himself to admit it. His analysis of the styling is based on what he thinks and not what he sees. It´s poor stuff.
So true. And equally so in Germany, where I sued to wonder if they were testing the same Japanese cars we got here.
The simple reality is that the Europeans were actually quite scared of a massive “Japanese Invasion” like what had/was happening in the US. It was a sad combination of superiority complex and fear. And the results were significant.
Honda developed a rep in the UK as being a retiree’s car, and not one that anyone with driving ambitions or discernment would buy. This is directly the result of all the reviews in the buff magazines being so biased.
FWIW, Auto, Motor und Sport was a bit less biased, as the had a more objective grading scale. But of course a Japanese car could never win a comparison, or even come close. There were always demerits for certain subjective aspects to make sure of that.
I remember that specific review by Karcher; it was around then that I started to go off him. His ego started getting in the way of his objectivity too much.
My entire view of Datsuns was formed by the summary of the 120Y: Y indeed?
I’ve never forgotten that…
Somehow or other I picked up an issue of Car magazine when I was getting close to being a teenager in 1988. One of the feature/test cars in it was a Fiat Uno Selecta. I lurved the English snark, rolled my eyes at the pearl-clutching over non-leaded petrol (eek, oh no, end of the world, big scam, etc), and lurved the English snark some more.
I lurv to read your comments. They help me expand my English vocabulary.
I used to read Car regularly in the from the late 80s into the late 90s. They had some good moments and I admired their editorial courage in keeping LJK Setright onboard after Car & Driver fired him for criticizing Mercedes Benz and having comedians Rowan Atkinson and Alexei Sayle as regular staff writers. Their opinions on Perodua, Proton and Ssangyong clearly inspired Jeremy Clarkson.
As an aside about odd motoring writers, Practical Classics had Chris Barrie (Rimmer from Red Dwarf) and Fuzz Townshend from the band Pop Will Eat Itself on staff for years.
If I were to critique Car magazine’s own presentation of this very interesting compilation of their reviewer’s opinions, and vital stats of cars in each segment sold in the UK, I’d give it a ‘D’ letter mark for dull. Even by 1977 standards (and pre-desktop publishing), what an extraordinarily boring magazine presentation of so much valuable data and quick takes and views. This could have been presented as a very attractive mix of car photo collages with statistical side tables and enlarged pull quotes. Instead, they present dry, dry, pages of tables.
With a forgettable single title page of photos.
As a former print magazine designer myself, rather lame work by the art director(s). This interesting topic could have been so much better presented. Even showing a 35mm slide on the magazine cover is not going to build much excitement. Enlarging the watercolour (?! lol) concept drawing would have been the way to go.
I gave up on CAR magazine in 1980, after their inventive “scooped” driving impressions of the new Mk3 Escort…..
Ooh, tough crowd. I love what they had to say about the MGB.
For: Lasts forever
Against: That’s the trouble
Sum up: Decrepit
“Death were is thy sting” was the Car verdict on the Triumph Spitfire 1500. It lasted another 3 years. The mag did not have time for the outdated BL range and loved Fords. They just could not stop raving about the Audi Quattro , 4 wheel drive,ABS and 200 hp from a 5 cylinder engine!. The shape of Things to come!.
Long time Car reader here. I used to roll around laughing at GBU. Their sum up for the Fiat Uno; Millions of Italians can be wrong. Should have remembered that when I bought one..
I have bunch given to me- mid 1980s editions. Fully 50% of the content is ads. The worst ad to content ratio I have ever seen. I’ve got a few left, so I’ll go over them over easter at Bathurst.
Car Magazine is responsible (to blame?) for my forty year long love of the Citroen 2CV.
As a teenager growing up in Pennsylvania, Car was not available to me. That would have to wait until I moved to Canada for my second bash at getting a university education.
I remember a GBU entry for a 3-wheeled car, possibly the Reliant Robin. I forget the “for,” but it said:
Against: Tends to trip, stumble, and fall.
Sum up: If God had meant cars to have 3 wheels ….
Herb Caen in San Francisco had his “three-dot” column which was not quite as brief but still similarly quotable.
Reliant Robin: For: You tell us Against: Some-on stole a wheel. Sum-Up: Is it a bike? – It’s not a car!
I started reading Car in 1989 or so. I bought it until 2014, long after I stopped reading it. On reflection, the GBU was destructive and crude and laid the ground for Clarkson´s misleading hype. I go back over old editions from time to time and I am surprised at the rubbish I accepted at face value, material written for laughs. I was only 20 when I started reading it so I wasn´t so critically aware. Now I recognise it for what it was, often material written not because it was true but because it was funny. Sure there were bad cars and they needed to be called out. Car made the mistake of assessing too many ordinary cars on the basis of the fun and performance potential which is not everyone´s priority. Take for example the 2002 Opel Vectra. It´s a car for practical driving and the aim is space, comfort and modest prices. Car´s assessment includes one about its appearnce (irrelevant – it´s as boring/nice/accepable as the other peers it was up against) and dismisses it because it´ll sell to reps.
The period 1970-1985 had a lot less of this kind of thing but by 2000 Car as it was in the moustache, beard, smoking and drinking days was gone, replaced by guys who knew little about anything other than cars and car marketing.
I made the error of mistaking Car’s sophomoric snark for sophisticated wit…when I was eleven years old, not long after fart jokes stopped being quite as funny as they had been shortly before. It took me a little longer to figure out the American buff books are the same shit pronounced a little differently.
Clarkson is a noxious insect, through and through. I’d love to see someone’s best argument that Brock Yates or J**k B*r*th (for two of too many examples) is any better or practically different.
I already posted it elsewhere but interesting to note then there’s an other but not related magazine in South Africa also called Car Magazine. https://www.carmag.co.za/magazine-issues/
Hi, Very nice trip down memory lane! This article offers a fascinating glimpse into the British car scene of 1977 through the lens of CAR magazine’s honest and insightful reviews. It’s interesting to see which cars impressed the editors (Alfa Romeo Alfetta!) and which ones landed squarely in the “boring” category (Austin Allegro). The comparisons to inflation and current car prices add a great touch of perspective as well.