Illustration for article titled I identify as panbrandual.

Rant time!

Alright, I googled “panbrandual” and nothing came up, so I think I can safely say that I’ve made up this word and therefore it means what I think it means. It means I don’t give a hot, steaming pile of cat dookie what brand a car comes from, and therefore I’m sick and tired of all the people mocking me because, shockingly, my 54 year-old, unrestored Ford Thunderbird broke down. I didn’t buy it because it’s a Ford. I bought it because I really, really like it. There’s nothing more to it, I just really like my Thunderbird. If it was a Chevy Thunderbird, I’d feel exactly the same way. So why do people feel the need to rub the fact that my car broke down in my face? I feel like I’ve been sucked into a battle that I never wanted to be a part of. I admire both sides of this battle equally, so why do I have to pick a side? Also, why is Dodge seemingly excused from this rivalry? They’re supposedly the other major American company people know about, but it’s like they just sit back and watch the others fight while their fans quietly remain loyal. Maybe it’s just because Mopar people are kinda odd, but I digress. The point is, I think brand loyalty when it comes to cars is stupid, because all it does is limit how many great cars you can potentially enjoy; and I wish that buying cars from certain brands didn’t automatically enter me into a stupid debate that only causes headaches and rifts. Maybe I just need better car enthusiast friends... which is a great excuse to spend more time on Oppositelock :) 

Advertisement

Share This Story

Get our newsletter