Contributing to the Site


No, sorry. Ate Up With Motor exists in large part as a showcase for the owner’s automotive writing. Although we’ll happily take suggestions for future articles (and/or corrections to existing ones), and we might occasionally quote someone else’s work, we don’t accept outside articles, editorials, or other written content. (In particular, please note that it’s our firm policy not to run any type of “advertorial” content, such as sponsored posts.)


If you have photos or images that you would like to offer for use in our articles, please send us an inquiry using the Contact Form or via email.

We cannot offer any compensation (monetary or other valuable consideration) for the use of your images, but any photo or image of yours that we use on the site will appropriately credit you, either under your real name or a pseudonym, as you prefer.

Please refer to the Photos Needed page for more information on submitting photos or other images for use on Ate Up With Motor.


You can “subscribe” to Ate Up With Motor via web feed, using your choice of web feed apps (and/or web browsers that have their own feed management tools). However, to be clear, access to the site is free — we do not charge and do not plan to charge a fee to access content on the Ate Up With Motor website. There are no paid subscriptions.


Absolutely (although you’re under no obligation to do so). The work involved in creating these articles is substantial — typically well over 25 hours each — and while this is a business endeavor (we garner modest revenues from advertising and voluntary contributions from site visitors), it is so far not a particularly lucrative one in any direct sense.

If you would like to make a monetary contribution, you can use the button in the “Support Ate Up With Motor” button in the right sidebar.

Money we make from visitor contributions (and advertising) goes to both the site’s operating costs and our living/personal expenses. (The site owner is self-employed and the site is one of the ways he pays the rent and eats!) Please note that Ate Up With Motor is **NOT** a nonprofit organization, and donations, contributions, or other payments or gifts to Ate Up With Motor are **NOT** tax deductible.

While contributions are appreciated, they are NOT required. We don’t charge any fee to access the content on the Ate Up With Motor website!

Please also note:

  1. By making a contribution or other payment to Ate Up With Motor, you signify your agreement to our Financial Transactions Policy — please read it!
  2. To make this absolutely clear, contributions are **NOT** tax deductible.

Additionally, state law requires us to disclose the legal name under which our business is conducted and the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted, which are:

Aaron Severson dba (doing business as) Ate Up With Motor
11100 National Bl. #3
Los Angeles, CA 90064

(You can always find this information in the Privacy Policy and the Terms of Use for Ate Up With Motor and its related services. The law also requires us to make this information available via email upon request. You can find our email address and the Contact Form on the Contact Information and Contact Form page.)

Updated: August 24, 2023 — 9:28 am


Add a Comment
  1. In your article about the 1969 Grand Prix, you have a couple of errors – one is my title at that time, but not that important (I founded Pontiac’s Product Planning Department in 1966) and another is the wheelbase of the 1969 Grand Prix I proposed – the proposal called for 118″ wheelbase(2″ longer than the “A” body sedan)and that is what the 1969 Grand Prix had.

    Ben Harrison

    1. Mr. Harrison,

      Thanks so much for the corrections — it’s great to hear from the folks actually involved with these cars. I’ve amended the article accordingly.

  2. I’m afraid there will probably not be any articles on trucks. I really don’t know enough about commercial trucks (big rigs, buses, coaches, etc.) to say anything interesting about them. I don’t like trucks or SUVs — I did do the Chevrolet El Camino/Ford Ranchero, but that’s as close as I’ve come. At some point, I may make an exception for either the original Range Rover (which was designed by the same people who developed the Rover P6) or the first Jeep Grand Cherokee, but that’s not a high priority. Sorry!

  3. Mr. Severson,

    Great website, great articles. Every one Ive read has been so very well researched and written! Im an instructor at an automotive trade school, and I recommend your site to as many students as I can. In this day and age of ever accelerating change in the automotive world, I tell them its vital to appreciate where the automobile has come from in order to understand where its going. Your site is one of the best at doing that.

    As a suggestion, I would love to see an article on some of the early 60s attempts at OHC engines by Detroit. Specifically, the Pontiac Tempest OHC 6 and the lesser known Jeep Tornado 6 cylinder. There may be others, but those two are the two that come to mind for now.

    Thanks again for your well researched and written articles.

    Joe Dunlap

    1. Joe,

      Thanks for the kind words! I tackled the Pontiac OHC 6 earlier this year: (It’s listed on the Model Histories and Manufacturer Index pages under “1966-1969 Pontiac Tempest Sprint and 1967-1969 Pontiac Firebird Sprint.”)

      That article mentions the Tornado, but doesn’t discuss it in any great detail. If we ever get browbeaten into doing the original Kaiser Jeep Grand Wagoneer, we would definitely talk about it there.

  4. Hi,

    I love this site. I have been trying to read through an article without opening up more links for a month now and I just keep adding more stuff to read. I feel like I will have the whole site read by the time I am done.

    I have one request, and since I cannot find a contact us link, or authors don’t seem to have emails listed, This hopefully is a good enough place to do it.

    Can you please add POE and FOB to your definitions page? I have yet to figure out what they mean, and between google, and context, I can always figure stuff out. But these terms are too generic for google. Thank you!


    1. That’s a reasonable question. “POE” means “Port of Entry,” while “FOB” means “Freight on Board.” Both refer to manufacturer’s suggested retail prices for new cars. For many years, new car prices in the U.S. varied considerably depending on region, reflecting the costs of transporting the car from its point of manufacture to its destination. An imported European car, for instance, might have an MSRP of $2,195 POE New York, which meant that was the price if you picked it up at the terminal in New York where it arrived in the U.S. If you were in California or Seattle, the actual retail price would be somewhat higher, because of the need to ship it by truck or rail to the local area. The extra cost would vary based on where you were, so some manufacturers would publish multiple price lists for different regions.

      Today, that’s relatively uncommon, and manufacturers apply a generic transportation charge to all new car sales. It’s not part of the MSRP, but it’s usually the same charge, regardless of locale.

      The reason I occasionally mention it is that some sources list different prices for particular models, which sometimes reflect the different regional costs. (Sometimes prices change during the model year, as well, another reason there are sometimes inconsistencies.)

  5. Wow, thanks for the quick reply! And thanks for the definitions!. Continuing to enjoy the site and open more links.


  6. The design of the 1979-1985 year models of the Oldsmobile Toronado were not created in a General Motors design studio but by yours truly in a prison cell in 1972.
    I see you changed the text about the Toronado and you now say "Stylistically, the 1979 Toronado — developed under Olds chief stylist Len Casillo, who had succeeded Stan Parker in 1973 — was not a great departure from its predecessor, save for its dimensions." Why is that?
    Although I delibertly used familiar design cues the third generation Toronado’s styling [i]is[/i] a significant departure from it’s former styling. There is certainly no mistaking the design of one for the other however it is the design cues that gives it the distinction of being a toronado.
    General Motors incorporated every minute detail from my original design: wire wheel covers, wheel openings, bumpers and bumper strips, roof lines including vertical angles, opera-side marker-turn lights, front grilles, headlight bezels the whole nine yards and including the lines of the door openings.
    I drew hundreds, if not over a thousand copies by hand during my time.
    I sent copies to and corresponded with a professor Harry at General Motors Institute and had person contact with a professor Bush who was a friend and associate of professor Harry from Northwoods College and he set up and conducted extention classes at Marquette Correctional Facilities in Marquette Michigan which I attended. The classes were set up after I got there and ended before I left. The State of Michigan should still have records.
    You could take any two of my drawings and place one on top of the other and they would be like photo copies. I did not have access to a copy machine and it is likely there are still copies of my original drawing floating around the Michigan Penal System.
    Before I was released I received a letter from a Mr. Jordan who invited me to come by and tour the Warren Design Center which I did. I did not however meet Mr. Jordan.
    This is Black History Month and I believe my contributions have redeeming value. I have made it my mission to make it known that I am the artist that created many of the designs General Motors used on their down sized full sized cars introduced in the 1977 and 1979 model years. And also the 1980-1985 Cadillac Seville albeit my original design was that of a larger vehicle which I invisioned as a Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy Five.
    There are papers from General Motors that I signed and were notarized by the Prison staff.

    1. My comment about the stylistic direction of the ’79 Toronado was essentially a subjective one: it was hardly identical to its predecessor (dimensions aside), but as you say, it preserved many of the second-generation car’s design cues. I would compare it to, say, the distinction between the E46 and E36 BMW 3-Series. The E46 is significantly different in detail from the E36, and no one would mistake one for the other, but park them next to one another, and they look like variations on the same design themes.

      By contrast, the second-generation Toronado [i]was[/i] quite a departure from the first; other than the flared wheel arches, it didn’t look a lot like the ’66 original.

      I would be very interested to hear more of your account — feel free to contact me via the site contact form.

  7. Dear Mr Severson

    I just want to say hi to you, i felt that it is only appropriate to sent an email to you showing how much i appreciate your writing about cars. I love all kinds of cars and i find that your article is very helpful in opening my eyes to all kinds of cars that i have never seen before in my country (I live in Indonesia, our roads are mainly populated with small Japanese cars, popular American cars came from Ford and Chevrolet, Europeans are represented by BMW,Benz, and recently Audi and VW, Korean Cars like Hyundai and Kia is also well represented here). The history of the cars is also well written, and as an academician i really appreciate on how you managed to stay objective to the cars you choose to write the history on. please keep up the good work, and if someday you got yourself bored with writing about car history in America i will be more than happy to help you in gathering data for writing histories of cars sold in Indonesia/Asia.


  8. Yes, this is a very well written website indeed. I have few quarrels compared to my own recollections, and that is rare!

    I became a car nut about 1955 at the age of 8 in England, and four years later found myself in Eastern Canada when the family emigrated.

    We got off the ship, and outside were a 1959 Chevrolet and down the road a 1959 Cadillac. My mind was unable to assimilate the styling which seemed extraordinarily over the top. They looked like movie props or a dream.

    The next month before school started I was in heaven learning about all these new-to-me cars, particularly their engines. I could recite the bore and stroke of any engine you’d care to name and their compression ratio. I have since lost most of this info as age advances, but retain quite a bit.

    In 1969, I went back to England for 5 years of graduate work in mechanical engineering on a scholarship. That was neat because I now knew how badly English cars worked in Canada, except Fords – they seemed fine. But the usual British stuff was awful, and my parents (mother actually – that most unusual thing, a gifted female driver, she really was good, amazingly enough) discovered Volvo about 1965 after I prodded them. Those things made US cars seem thrown together, and my mother, all 5’2″ of her, bombed around in a new 544 at a high and illegal rate of knots.

    On the other hand, British cars puzzled me after my return to Britain, because relatively speaking, they worked just fine. Winter in Canada, I think, is what they simply could not handle. It was blank stares all around when I criticized their cars in England. One man in 1971 gave me a ride in his Landcrab with 84,000 miles on it. Amazing – my father’s same year 1965 in Canada had already been scrapped!

    Anyway, I certainly would be interested in seeing what you could dig up on Subaru. There sure isn’t much written of any authority on that marque that I’ve been able to find. Now they’re selling well in North America, their history beyond the once-over-lightly brigade repeating the usual fluff seems thin on the ground. Yet I’m sure there must be a story to tell beyond the immediately obvious. Then again, information may be hard to find.

    What do you think?

    1. I generally don’t do manufacturer histories per se, but I have been contemplating doing an article on the Subaru Alcyone (sold abroad as the XT and SVX), and since I haven’t written about a Subaru before, it would end up covering the gist of their history. Some stuff would probably have to come from nonautomotive histories — Subaru’s parent company is, as I understand it, one of a bunch of descendants of the Nakajima Aircraft Company (which made the wartime Ki-43 Hayabusa, inter alia). (Another of those descendants, albeit in a more roundabout way, was the Prince Motor Company, which merged with Nissan in 1966; the Nissan Skyline/Infiniti Q50 is a direct successor to a pre-merger Prince model.)

      As people have probably noticed, I’ve taken a particular interest in Japanese models, not because I necessarily have a special fondness for them, but because they tend to be spottily documented in English-language sources. Of course, that also makes it noticeably more difficult…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments may be moderated. Submitting a comment signifies your acceptance of our Comment Policy — please read it first! You must be at least 18 to comment. PLEASE DON'T SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED CONTENT YOU AREN'T AUTHORIZED TO USE!