Car Craft Mustang Slam

[2002 Roush Vert]

In the April 2002 Car Craft in the Point of View Editor’s Letter Column (Matt King) wrote an article entitled It Takes All Kinds. This article went through his description of different types of car guys and the types of cars they drive. It was mildly amusing until I got to the following passage:

“Rice Boy isn’t just an import phenomenon. Like a squirrel attracted to shiny objects, Rice Boy can’t hose his car down with enough gee-gaws and doo-dads he sees in magazine ads or hanging on the rack at the auto parts store. Rice Boy’s car looks like it drove through Pep Boys with a magnet on it. He usually drives a new Mustang.”

Now this is one of the greatest insults I have ever read. The Mustang is one of the greatest cars ever built as attested by its over 38 years of popularity. Rice Boys drive Rice not great American Muscle Cars. EVERYONE STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW AND EXPRESS YOU INDIGNATION AT THIS SLAM BY E-MAILING THE CAR CRAFT EDITOR AT:

carcraft@primediacmmg.com

[joe4speed]

I wrote him... what an idiot.

[Fox Body]

"Rice boy" can come in any form, yes, even a Mustang.

"Rice Boy’s car looks like it drove through Pep Boys with a magnet on it. He usually drives a new Mustang.”

But that statement of his was so dumb and inaccurate, I'm not even sure it's worth getting angry about. Editors such as Matt King is one of the many reasons I could care less about Car Craft .

[RAINSTANG]

This moron hack just got my 2 cents too. He probably drives a Yugo.

[7000rpmisheaven]

No, he probably drives a riced out honda civic. He probably thinks it is the coolest thing on wheels too.

[Mr 5 0]

Idiotic statement for a car magazine editor to make - in public. He's probably just clueless as to what constitutes 'rice'.

There is a very wide chasm between those who own and drive Japanese cars and sport stupid accessories like fart pipes, garish paint jobs and pounds of 'racing' decals and those who own and drive American muscle cars and add accessories that increase or enhance actual performance.

This Matt King guy, as a car magazine editor, should be well aware of that obvious fact. I suspect he's the kind of guy that hates most anything that isn't in his particular ballpark, and that would seem to include Mustangs. Probably a '55 Chevy-type guy who doesn't think anything made after 1965 is any good, or else he just doesn't get out much.

Anyway, who reads Car Craft and who could possibly cares what 'Matt King' thinks?

[father joe]

I know your mad at his comments - I am too - but you guys that are saying he probably drives a Yugo or a riced out Honda Civic are completely wrong.

In an issue awhile back he stated in an article that he drove a 63 Falcon which got stolen and then a 65 Falcon that met a Merc or Caddy (or something like that) at hot August nights so in reality he is a Ford guy like us but is playing to the GM crowd right now.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by father joe

...he stated in an article that he drove a 63 Falcon which got stolen and then a 65 Falcon...

As I guessed, he's an 'old car' fan and disses anything made much after the '60's - including late-model Mustangs - which he foolishly confuses with Japanese econo-cars made to look 'fast' but consisting of mostly paint and decals.

As I said; he's clueless.
Matt King should stick to writing about what he knows best - old cars - and not attempt to comment on 'ricers' and make inccurate and annoying comments about the modern car scene, of which he obviously understands little if he can lump Mustangs with 'Ricers'.

[Coupe Devil]

Originally posted by Mr 5 0


As I guessed, he's an 'old car' fan and disses anything made much after the '60's - including late-model Mustangs - which he foolishly confuses with Japanese econo-cars made to look 'fast' but consisting of mostly paint and decals.

As I said; he's clueless.
Matt King should stick to writing about what he knows best - old cars - and not attempt to comment on 'ricers' and make inccurate and annoying comments about the modern car scene, of which he obviously understands little if he can lump Mustangs with 'Ricers'.

YYYY..Y....Y..Y.Y......YY.....YEAH, What he said.

I totally agree Mr 5 0. There are some people that are jsut this way. I would love to have a 65 Fairlane that I could make perform in stock trim like the Mustangs and other performance cars of today. Iwould love to see a 65 Fairlane EFI TT 351, with a tough c4, 9 inch and about 4.10 gears. But it just isnt as common place now-a-days and he jealous that a larger percentage of the aftermarket crowd is know jumpin into the more modern tuner type performance products.

Brad

[bigwhitecobra]

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one, his just stinks.

*******' are everywhere.

[srv1]

maybe he did that to get attention? who knows. maybe he wants to see what kind of replies he has so he can put it in his article? hmmm....

[Fox Body]

Originally posted by srv1
maybe he did that to get attention? who knows. maybe he wants to see what kind of replies he has so he can put it in his article? hmmm....

Hmmm. I guess you got a point there. Who would dare make such a stupid statement unless he really desired attention. But like I said b4, his opinion is worthless to me-- I could care less.

[mustangman65_79]

But that statement of his was so dumb and inaccurate, I'm not even sure it's worth getting angry about. Editors such as Matt King is one of the many reasons I could care less about Car Craft .

I agree, I only get this mag if they have a really got articule, but thats rare.