I wrote into Chevy Hi Performance Magazine a couple months abck because there was some issues I had with a reply on a tech question. On the same page, they had incorrectly stated that you couldn't get a TBI intake manifold for Vortec heads, which was wrong (67SS has one on his 67SS...).
Well, they didn't use my name, but I felt vindicated when he said "all valid points" in the large paragraph response in this month's issue. I wasn't nit picking, Kevin's (from ChevyHi) original reply looked very much like it was a cut/paste that had been forwarded to Edelbrock to answer. They never addressed his questions directly (swapping in a 400 and keeping his 4.3L TBI unit and also what cam to use), just pushed towards buying a crate engine package, but if he still wanted to go EFI, thye had several on the shelf gathering dust and he better hurry before they go away...
Anyone else write in to magazines?
Scott-any feedback from the other side when you were with NSMC?
Scott Parkhurst said
Jun 5, 2012
I was at Popular Hot Rodding a lot longer than I was at Street Thunder (7 yrs. vs. 3.5) so ya, I have some insight for you.
I was the guy who answered the non-Tech letters in the front of the magazine and also the guy who answered the Tech Letters in the back at both magazines (plus Engine Masters magazine too- I was the Editor of that, but it was only 4X a year).
Frankly, about half the letters we got back in the early days (98-2000) were stupid. A third of those were from prison (convicts write a LOT of letters, longhand). The advent of e-mail changed everything. Suddenly we got a lot more mail from more intelligent people, and the 'letters' column became vibrant again.
Magazines take letters seriously now. We always appreciated the feedback and even when we were alerted to errors we'd made. It proved to us that people really did read the magazine and that they really cared about it. What we didn't need were the snarky remarks (..."I can't believe you guys didn't know that Epperson Jackrabbits came with V-8s...you're all complete idiots") and opinions (...ALL musclecars must have 15-inch wheels and Radial T/As or else they're owned by ni&&ers...and the new GTO sucks balls"), but the sincere, well-crafted and passionate letters were the kind of feedback that really impacted stuff we did. The encouragement and criticism were all important to us.
The magazines I worked at had pretty wide limitations (American V-8 RWD cars, for the most part) as opposed to "Street Rodder" or "Muscle Mustangs", where the lines were pretty clear. This freedom was both a blessing and a curse, as we were encouraged to try things beyond '69 Camaros to get readers interested (like 4-door Chevelle wagons) but sometimes we'd go too far (like Hunkins' Laguna) and readers would have no problem telling us they weren't into it. Interestingly, the later Colonnade cars are coming around a bit now, but he got a lot of flak over that car.
The Tech stuff is different- I did my best to research every answer and make sure it was accurate...but even then mistakes (and misprints) happen. Being off by one decimal point is all it took (..bearing clearance is .025..) and the mailbox would fill up fast. That's probably what happened to your letter, Bryan. They probably got swamped with 10-20 similar letters pointing out the error, and deferred to Edelbrock for their take on it.
I don't e-mail the magazines, since I know the Editors personally and just e-mail them directly. I send encouragement, mostly, since they're pals. I'm still selling them freelance stories too, so there's a business angle I'm not going to deny either.
But, yes- magazines do value your letters and the more effort you put into it, the more they mean to them. All the magazine guys I know work really hard to produce the best-possible mags they can under the limitations they're saddled with, and feedback from dedicated readers is a big deal. So, keep writing!!
bowtie said
Jun 5, 2012
Thanks Scott. BTW, I didn't know your exact background before this. More than I knew for sure.
How Kevin responded to what I wrote was pretty good. I was surprised that it was actually addressed, so I either hit a nerve or he felt it needed to be addressed. I think how he answered helped give the readers a better idea of how the tech questions are handled too.
Tonight I'll scan in the original question, add my letter, and scan what was printed this month so everyone can know the whole story. I don't normally write in on stuff like that since quite a bit of the tech stuff either is outside my GM world, or above my head but it was staring at me and I thought it needed to be addressed. I also tried to be direct and helpful as opposed to just ranting or giving less than helpful info like Scott said.
bowtie said
Jun 6, 2012
OK, I know nobody cares but here it is:
Here's my letter:
Hi, my name is Bryan, I am a regular reader and subscriber. I enjoy your magazine and typically read it for the tech sections more than the feature cars since I am the kind of car guy who loves to know more about how to do something than see pictures of someone elses finished product. I can appreciate what they have done, but I would rather see it in person than in print because I'm always looking for those little things that were more problem solvers than obvious inclusions.
The reason I am writing is to point out an error that was made in the march 2012 issue I just got in the mail. In the Q&A section, it asked about the possibility of changing an '86 ElCamino with a TBI 4.3L to a vortec headed 400 and retaining the TBI. Most of the info was good reading, but it didn't really address the 2 questions the writer asked:
1-He wanted to build a 400cid engine. The question was Can I use the factory computer without making any changes to it? This idea was glossed over with the explanation that it would run, but take "a tremendous amount of time on a chassis dyno" to tune it. Instead it was recommended he build a 350cid engine since Edelbrock offers the components and a pre-packaged kit, which would bring him "up to the 250hp range." It said he "may be lucky and find a calibration for a large-displacement small block." I guess I would suggest looking for a TBI Caprice cop car ECM and chip since they would be closest to a good baseline already being 350 cubes and a higher power output. For a couple hundred bucks, you can buy chip burning equipment and make your own custom chips so any changes made beyond the original ones could be accounted and adjusted for. There are several companies that offer chip burning services, ECMs that can be programmed, and the like. I would even have expected to see it commented that a Pro-Flo, FAST, XFI, etc system would be more likely suited for a plug-and-play option. The cost of that would be fairly comparable to a different heads and complete top end system like what was recommended.
2-His other question was "Could you recommend a mild camshaft that would work with this stock 400 combo?" Other than being alluded to as part of the power package, not a word was written about what to shoot for. I know camshaft selection is not a simple cut and dry process, but even that wasn't mentioned. Personally, with a 400 short block, good flowing heads, and a decent fuel delivery system, I would opt for something like the factory specs from a 1974-ish 400 small block. You want something that will use that torque just sitting there.
3-He stated he planned to use stock Vortec heads. It was noted that "There isn't a TBI manifold on the market that offers the Vortec cylinder head pattern." This is incorrect. GM Perforamance Parts still currently offers part # 12496821 Vortec Head Design for TBI Intake Manifold. It is aluminum, and is fully designed to bolt directly onto pre-1996 blocks using the Vortec heads. On a related note, it was not noted that the Vortec heads would need steam holes drilled into them as well as gaskets that wouldn't cover those holes up. It also should be noted that those heads require new bolts, different valve covers and gaskets, and Vortec intake gaskets.
4-Nothing was noted regarding the soon-to-be inadequate fuel supply. The factory Elky pump would be insufficient, though a Grand National pump should work since it is designed for higher fuel flow and the new V8 shouldn't require more than that turbo 6.
In all honesty, I did see that the source was Edelbrock (half the questions were answered by outside companies) which made me think the question was forwarded to them and then cut and pasted into your format after proofing it. As I read the answer, it sounded more like an advertisement. I was OK with that until I read "Call for more information. These packages are getting some dust on them....Many aftermarket companies have moved on from this technology. If you're going to do something we would do it soon."
I understand that your magazine can't run without it's advertising support, but this was pretty blatant. What happened to the tech questions being answered with a reference to the company and what it offers but at the same time giving consideration to everyone who is reading the answer thinking about thier future plans. I have made several decisions on projects based on tech questions I have seen in magazines.
Thanks for the time.
Bryan
Here's the response in this month's mag:
LIke I said, I liked his response and how he addressed what I wrote. He could have ignored it, written a very defensive reply (which I have seen printed in other magazines in the past), or otherwise blasted me a new one. He supported my position, explained his, and I think it was done very fairly. Cool.
Ok, who does it?
I wrote into Chevy Hi Performance Magazine a couple months abck because there was some issues I had with a reply on a tech question. On the same page, they had incorrectly stated that you couldn't get a TBI intake manifold for Vortec heads, which was wrong (67SS has one on his 67SS...).
Well, they didn't use my name, but I felt vindicated when he said "all valid points" in the large paragraph response in this month's issue. I wasn't nit picking, Kevin's (from ChevyHi) original reply looked very much like it was a cut/paste that had been forwarded to Edelbrock to answer. They never addressed his questions directly (swapping in a 400 and keeping his 4.3L TBI unit and also what cam to use), just pushed towards buying a crate engine package, but if he still wanted to go EFI, thye had several on the shelf gathering dust and he better hurry before they go away...
Anyone else write in to magazines?
Scott-any feedback from the other side when you were with NSMC?
I was the guy who answered the non-Tech letters in the front of the magazine and also the guy who answered the Tech Letters in the back at both magazines (plus Engine Masters magazine too- I was the Editor of that, but it was only 4X a year).
Frankly, about half the letters we got back in the early days (98-2000) were stupid. A third of those were from prison (convicts write a LOT of letters, longhand). The advent of e-mail changed everything. Suddenly we got a lot more mail from more intelligent people, and the 'letters' column became vibrant again.
Magazines take letters seriously now. We always appreciated the feedback and even when we were alerted to errors we'd made. It proved to us that people really did read the magazine and that they really cared about it. What we didn't need were the snarky remarks (..."I can't believe you guys didn't know that Epperson Jackrabbits came with V-8s...you're all complete idiots") and opinions (...ALL musclecars must have 15-inch wheels and Radial T/As or else they're owned by ni&&ers...and the new GTO sucks balls"), but the sincere, well-crafted and passionate letters were the kind of feedback that really impacted stuff we did. The encouragement and criticism were all important to us.
The magazines I worked at had pretty wide limitations (American V-8 RWD cars, for the most part) as opposed to "Street Rodder" or "Muscle Mustangs", where the lines were pretty clear. This freedom was both a blessing and a curse, as we were encouraged to try things beyond '69 Camaros to get readers interested (like 4-door Chevelle wagons) but sometimes we'd go too far (like Hunkins' Laguna) and readers would have no problem telling us they weren't into it. Interestingly, the later Colonnade cars are coming around a bit now, but he got a lot of flak over that car.
The Tech stuff is different- I did my best to research every answer and make sure it was accurate...but even then mistakes (and misprints) happen. Being off by one decimal point is all it took (..bearing clearance is .025..) and the mailbox would fill up fast. That's probably what happened to your letter, Bryan. They probably got swamped with 10-20 similar letters pointing out the error, and deferred to Edelbrock for their take on it.
I don't e-mail the magazines, since I know the Editors personally and just e-mail them directly. I send encouragement, mostly, since they're pals. I'm still selling them freelance stories too, so there's a business angle I'm not going to deny either.
But, yes- magazines do value your letters and the more effort you put into it, the more they mean to them. All the magazine guys I know work really hard to produce the best-possible mags they can under the limitations they're saddled with, and feedback from dedicated readers is a big deal. So, keep writing!!
Thanks Scott. BTW, I didn't know your exact background before this. More than I knew for sure.
How Kevin responded to what I wrote was pretty good. I was surprised that it was actually addressed, so I either hit a nerve or he felt it needed to be addressed. I think how he answered helped give the readers a better idea of how the tech questions are handled too.
Tonight I'll scan in the original question, add my letter, and scan what was printed this month so everyone can know the whole story. I don't normally write in on stuff like that since quite a bit of the tech stuff either is outside my GM world, or above my head but it was staring at me and I thought it needed to be addressed. I also tried to be direct and helpful as opposed to just ranting or giving less than helpful info like Scott said.
Here's my letter:
Hi, my name is Bryan, I am a regular reader and subscriber. I enjoy your magazine and typically read it for the tech sections more than the feature cars since I am the kind of car guy who loves to know more about how to do something than see pictures of someone elses finished product. I can appreciate what they have done, but I would rather see it in person than in print because I'm always looking for those little things that were more problem solvers than obvious inclusions.
The reason I am writing is to point out an error that was made in the march 2012 issue I just got in the mail. In the Q&A section, it asked about the possibility of changing an '86 ElCamino with a TBI 4.3L to a vortec headed 400 and retaining the TBI. Most of the info was good reading, but it didn't really address the 2 questions the writer asked:
1-He wanted to build a 400cid engine. The question was Can I use the factory computer without making any changes to it? This idea was glossed over with the explanation that it would run, but take "a tremendous amount of time on a chassis dyno" to tune it. Instead it was recommended he build a 350cid engine since Edelbrock offers the components and a pre-packaged kit, which would bring him "up to the 250hp range." It said he "may be lucky and find a calibration for a large-displacement small block." I guess I would suggest looking for a TBI Caprice cop car ECM and chip since they would be closest to a good baseline already being 350 cubes and a higher power output. For a couple hundred bucks, you can buy chip burning equipment and make your own custom chips so any changes made beyond the original ones could be accounted and adjusted for. There are several companies that offer chip burning services, ECMs that can be programmed, and the like. I would even have expected to see it commented that a Pro-Flo, FAST, XFI, etc system would be more likely suited for a plug-and-play option. The cost of that would be fairly comparable to a different heads and complete top end system like what was recommended.
2-His other question was "Could you recommend a mild camshaft that would work with this stock 400 combo?" Other than being alluded to as part of the power package, not a word was written about what to shoot for. I know camshaft selection is not a simple cut and dry process, but even that wasn't mentioned. Personally, with a 400 short block, good flowing heads, and a decent fuel delivery system, I would opt for something like the factory specs from a 1974-ish 400 small block. You want something that will use that torque just sitting there.
3-He stated he planned to use stock Vortec heads. It was noted that "There isn't a TBI manifold on the market that offers the Vortec cylinder head pattern." This is incorrect. GM Perforamance Parts still currently offers part # 12496821 Vortec Head Design for TBI Intake Manifold. It is aluminum, and is fully designed to bolt directly onto pre-1996 blocks using the Vortec heads. On a related note, it was not noted that the Vortec heads would need steam holes drilled into them as well as gaskets that wouldn't cover those holes up. It also should be noted that those heads require new bolts, different valve covers and gaskets, and Vortec intake gaskets.
4-Nothing was noted regarding the soon-to-be inadequate fuel supply. The factory Elky pump would be insufficient, though a Grand National pump should work since it is designed for higher fuel flow and the new V8 shouldn't require more than that turbo 6.
In all honesty, I did see that the source was Edelbrock (half the questions were answered by outside companies) which made me think the question was forwarded to them and then cut and pasted into your format after proofing it. As I read the answer, it sounded more like an advertisement. I was OK with that until I read "Call for more information. These packages are getting some dust on them....Many aftermarket companies have moved on from this technology. If you're going to do something we would do it soon."
I understand that your magazine can't run without it's advertising support, but this was pretty blatant. What happened to the tech questions being answered with a reference to the company and what it offers but at the same time giving consideration to everyone who is reading the answer thinking about thier future plans. I have made several decisions on projects based on tech questions I have seen in magazines.
Thanks for the time.
Bryan
Here's the response in this month's mag:
LIke I said, I liked his response and how he addressed what I wrote. He could have ignored it, written a very defensive reply (which I have seen printed in other magazines in the past), or otherwise blasted me a new one. He supported my position, explained his, and I think it was done very fairly. Cool.