[RTShadow]

to: [email protected]
from: toasteroven

Below is your text with my revisions. Regards, toasteroven.



Sounds like the definition of cheap speed to me.

So? Lose weight.

Again, sounds like the definition of your article.

Spell check is a great thing.

So, aside at the real lame attempts at humor over all the acronyms the writer was too lazy to look-up, at least you tested the right version of the SRT-4; the ACR. And god forbid it have a decent suspension set-up. I mean, I know you guys like to drive around in your STS's all day, but the wallow of an STS as it screams around the track at Willow Springs doesn't exactly say "Cheap Speed" to me.


And it came in 3rd place in a SPEED comparison because it's interior wasn't up-to-par? You guys need to get your priorities straight.


Well, at least you didn't pick any competitors with drum-brakes.


Write bigger. Or get your asses out of the tight seats. Or, hey... TURN THE CAR OFF. Problem solved.


I'm surprised you're not complaining about the lack of memory seats, a flower vase, and auto-tilting rear-view mirrors. Of course, we all know how important the interior fit-and-finish is to someone who is concerned about CHEAP SPEED, so please - point out all the flaws that Dodge wallows in, and Acura excels in.


So, you're saying you need to know how to drive it. Gotcha. Then again, you got one of the lousiest 1/4 mile times out of an SRT-4 ([email protected]), so perhaps you need to learn how to drive first.


So, in other words, it lost points because it has a crappy interior, and goes fast as hell. Right. In a "Cheap Speed" comparo. And of course, far be it to shine the light on a car that won't be around in a few months when there are other cars that have manufacturers waiting to purchase advertising space for their continuing cars.


Funny, I have super-size drinks in my SRT-4 all the time, and I never spill them. You should get the hole in your lips checked out.

And if you're sipping espresso, you're not interested in "CHEAP SPEED".

Lol you are going to get a kick out of what they did now

2005 Compact Sports Car Comparison

Cheap Speed: We compare five $25,000 tarmac torpedoes—Acura RSX Type-S, Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged, Dodge SRT4 ACR, Saturn Ion Red Line, Subaru Impreza WRX—and discover five new ways to induce arrhythmia.

www.caranddriver.com

Notice "Cheap Speed" has been removed from the title all together?

 

[RTShadow]

They definitely should have thought about the title a tad longer before coming up with "Cheap Speed". If it was something like "Sport Compact Slugfest" than it wouldn't be as big of a deal. Oh and I happen to like the rsx-s but it shouldn't be getting first place in a cheap speed contest.

Haha this guy nailed it, this is exactly what they did later on. I guess they think they can do damage control 15 years later?

 

[toasteroven]

Lol you are going to get a kick out of what they did now

2005 Compact Sports Car Comparison

Cheap Speed: We compare five $25,000 tarmac torpedoes—Acura RSX Type-S, Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged, Dodge SRT4 ACR, Saturn Ion Red Line, Subaru Impreza WRX—and discover five new ways to induce arrhythmia.

www.caranddriver.com

Notice "Cheap Speed" has been removed from the title all together?

Too bad it'll live on YouTube with it's original title forever.

 

[RTShadow]

Too bad it'll live on YouTube with it's original title forever.

I'm going to do one better. I researched it out and found the original article on waybackmachine

ORIGINAL 2005

SNIDE DIRTBALLS REWRITING HISTORY 2021

Hey Car and Driver, you can try all you like to delete "Cheap Speed" from the title, but Dodge, Chevy, Saturn, and Subaru fans all know what you scumbags did then, and what you are doing now scumbags.

Cheap Speed Wayback Machine

I know wayback from time to time changes links, but they've been pretty steady in the last few years, hoping it remains for a good while now.

 

[RTShadow]

I know I'm rehashing history, but the facts surrounding this article are every bit as amusing as aggravating for so many people.

The article itself drew a massive amount of backlash from nearly every corner of the automotive world, and a bunch of people cancelled their subscriptions. There was so much talk about it that in the editorial section in a later issue they actually addressed the article again, albeit in a very sarcastic manner. That shxt attitude led to a whole new bunch of people (including myself) cancelling their subscriptions.

They finally addressed it one last time (I can't find either online, probably for a good reason LOL) in which they did a half arsed apology and actually admitted two things:

1) The article resulted in more negative hate mail than any article they had ever done in the history of the magazine.
2) The article and editorial response resulted in more cancelled subscriptions than any other article, so much so that the second time it was addressed, it had the appearance of having been done by Hearst Publishing themselves (the owners of Car and Driver magazine), in such a way to try and fix what had happened.

I don't know if I have ever seen one article in the automotive world result in about five years worth of forum arguments, in which the JDM nuthuggers tried woefully to defend the self righteous and biased erroneous outcome of the article against a blistering blitzkrieg of backlash.

Most people who cancelled their subscriptions never did renew, although that has a lot to do with the general culture of the print media at the time. At one time in the 1990's I believe they had a paid print circulation numbering around 12-13 million subscribers. That means there were that many people being mailed a magazine every month.

Today they are just over 1 million, and many of these are online only subscribers. This is an issue that has affected all of print media and in some ways has led to the biased garbage "news media" that lacks any journalistic integrity at all. In some ways the "Cheap Speed" article sort of embraced this combative "turn them against one another" concept long before we started seeing it everyday on CNN/MSNBC/FOXNEWS.

 

[The 05 SRT]

I watched the YouTube video with the Cheap Speeds title like 2 months ago for the first time and didn’t know this thread existed till tonight. I shared the same feelings written here. It was completely disappointing to watch.

Interesting to see they tried to address it with a name change all these years later, jackasses. They missed the mark so bad all around.

@RT - any chance you can post a more clear pic(s) of your Commemorative Edition Booklet? Just looked very cool and I’m interested to read it. Thanks.

 

[RTShadow]

LOL someone from Car and Driver actually responded:

The title changed to help Google find it on our site. The Cheap Speed part is still in the deck.

The Cheap Speed cover and headline didn’t cause any sort of problem with the carmakers. I’m not sure where you got that. I was an editor then and I even went on the comparison test.

Tony Quiroga

He assumed that saying the article "upset people" that I was talking about the carmakers, I was talking about the car owners. I think if anything the automakers could see from that article alone just how things work at Car and Driver.

 

[lilviper]

I know I'm rehashing history, but the facts surrounding this article are every bit as amusing as aggravating for so many people.

The article itself drew a massive amount of backlash from nearly every corner of the automotive world, and a bunch of people cancelled their subscriptions. There was so much talk about it that in the editorial section in a later issue they actually addressed the article again, albeit in a very sarcastic manner. That shxt attitude led to a whole new bunch of people (including myself) cancelling their subscriptions.

They finally addressed it one last time (I can't find either online, probably for a good reason LOL) in which they did a half arsed apology and actually admitted two things:

1) The article resulted in more negative hate mail than any article they had ever done in the history of the magazine.
2) The article and editorial response resulted in more cancelled subscriptions than any other article, so much so that the second time it was addressed, it had the appearance of having been done by Hearst Publishing themselves (the owners of Car and Driver magazine), in such a way to try and fix what had happened.

I don't know if I have ever seen one article in the automotive world result in about five years worth of forum arguments, in which the JDM nuthuggers tried woefully to defend the self righteous and biased erroneous outcome of the article against a blistering blitzkrieg of backlash.

Most people who cancelled their subscriptions never did renew, although that has a lot to do with the general culture of the print media at the time. At one time in the 1990's I believe they had a paid print circulation numbering around 12-13 million subscribers. That means there were that many people being mailed a magazine every month.

Today they are just over 1 million, and many of these are online only subscribers. This is an issue that has affected all of print media and in some ways has led to the biased garbage "news media" that lacks any journalistic integrity at all. In some ways the "Cheap Speed" article sort of embraced this combative "turn them against one another" concept long before we started seeing it everyday on CNN/MSNBC/FOXNEWS.

I honestly have no idea why this magazine shows up at my house every month. I have cancelled any subscriptions. I have a sneaking suspicion that its a sick joke from my sister, but she will never admit it. I just black out my name and write return to sender on it and drop it in a mailbox.

 

[RTShadow]

So that editor wrote back twice, he tried to say "The score was based on a table of statistics that we provided" I was like "Uh, no, take a look again, the car you picked as the winner actually finished last in the only categories that were supposed to matter, you didn't DARE include how you came up with the "score" because there was no score, you just arbitrarily gave the Honda the first prize, go take a look yourself, there is no explanation as to how you came up with the final rankings".

He wrote back with a link to an article from 2010 where they make fun of people who get upset about car comparisons and how funny it is when people threaten to cancel their subscriptions.

"Well, that's five years after I cancelled my subscription, so never read it, and won't read it now. I'm sure you guys did a bunch of bad comparisons after that 'Cheap Speed' one, so no wonder you get much hate mail. I guess there's a reason your subscription rate went from like 13 million down to about 1 million now."

No response after that.