Something interesting to note is that even in the Super Hunky days, Maicos got pretty bad reviews. When you compared it next to a Honda review, they would casually list this great load of things that were bad with it. Important things, that you really don't want to go wrong. But then the rest of the article is a glowing review. On a Maico test, they go into excruciating detail on every little thing that's wrong. Entire paragraphs dedicated to the bolt that liked to vibrate loose in the engine, and how they had to have some guy fly in from Madagascar to apply some ancient secret Loc-Tite made from the leaves of a tree found only by the Oolompiqui River. Oh, and by the way, the bike is by far the fastest motorcycle available today both in turns and on the straights. BUT, you'll first have to overcome the dastardly engine chain which requires replacement three times per moto!
It wasn't a matter of ad revenue as it is today, as Maico ran their own ads as well, and a magazine could rake in massive dollars without any ads at all. However, it seemed like they were held up to higher standards than the other bikes. It was like Hondas were held to Honda standards, and Maicos were held to Porsche standards. I've seen Top Gear give a glowing review of a Ford Focus and then grind a $200,000 car into the wood, because they're apples and oranges. But why did the magazines always treat Maicos like they were apples and oranges to the other bikes? They were expensive, but the extra cost was made up for by the fact that Maicos were covered in desirable aftermarket parts that the Yamaha owner was just going to buy anyway.
