Moosetang Posted August 29, 2009 Share Posted August 29, 2009 Considering how many vehicles on that list are Mercedes specifically, not just generic expensive-to-maintain imports, it sounds like some stuck-up WASP at Forbes had a bad experience with a Merc once and just whipped up some flimsy excuse to bad-mouth them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 That article blew. Here's why: From what I can tell, they are gauging the depreciation value of the vehicles as a harbinger to what goes on the list. Forbes is throwing the term "clunkers" around because these vehicles also are gas guzzlers. The fuel cost was another major determinate, which kind of goes hand in hand considering these are fuel-thirsty vehicles. The end result, in reality, is a list that had a very bad headline to get internet play on the Cash for Clunkers program. A disconnected hack job nonetheless. Not all journalists can crank out winners all the time. Note that journalists get judged not by their overall stream of work, but the material the public reads. In this case, though, it appears Hannah Elliott handles automotive content as one of her beats. More from the author: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=+site:w...b1c6ebfff7f9103 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.