I appreciate the effort someone took to scan and post that article. However the pompous ass that wrote the story in 1995 is or was so full of __it. I think he was trying to be clever and funny but comes across as a condesending snob. The Escort GT is the better car in many important ways. It is safer and more reliable. Consumerreports.org puts the escort on it's used car good buy list. (the Cavalier and Neon are absent). The US Government (www.safercar.gov) gives the Ford Escort 5 stars for driver and passenger in frontal crash. The '95 Cavalier and Neon death traps are rated with 3 stars each. In the Edmunds.com poll the owners of the following cars rated them - Escort 7.8 out of 10 Cavalier 7.3 / 10 and the Neon 6.7 / 10. The writer of the story, Daniel Charles Ross, could have mentioned the 5 star crash rating (availabe at that time), the fact the Escort GT not only hauls ass but it also can haul your sh .. uh, stuff too with much larger cargo room because of it's practical hatchback. He was right about the little buttons on the radio, but since the Escort was at least $348 cheaper than the neon, buyers could afford to upgrade that. I could go on and on, but one more point he said the high reving 1.8 engine was not a fast reving engine and it seemed to take a long time to get to the sweet spot. Dude? How is that possible if the the Escort GT is the fastest from 0 - 60 and has less HP and displacement than the other cars? Don't try to answer. He's wrong.