The Drive32%

Hot Rod Designer Chip Foose Made This John Deere Tractor Look Like an Old Race Car 76%

By Caleb Jacobs56%

7/20/2026, 6:36:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.2% saturation with 201 hits. Analysis detected 1,076 faulty-reasoning hits from 445 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.5% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,239 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.30% of the article peer group.

Can tools be art? 
Opinions on that question certainly vary, but I believe so. 
Hot rod designer Chip Foose apparently agrees, seeing as he took this 1970 John Deere 4020 tractor and restyled it to look more like a vintage sprint car than an antique soil tiller. 
Foose modified the workhorse around 2010, just after his TV show Overhaulin’ aired its final season. 
While he made his name penning designs like the Hemisfear, which went on to become the Plymouth Prowler, Foose partnered with Deere for something called the Big Buck Sales Event. 
The snazzy tractor toured the nation, stopping at one dealer after another before being given away. 
Now, more than 15 years later, it sits in the John Deere Archives facility in East Moline, Illinois. 
Tractor Zoom via YouTube 
Legend has it that Foose saw similarities between the 4020, one of John Deere’s greatest hits, and classic circle track cars. 
That’s why he accentuated the long hood, which swoops up just before the cockpit, and gave it fat side pipes. 
The rear-end also sports the same boat tail as sprint racers from yesteryear, complete with “4020” hand-lettered on the rear. 
It was surprisingly divisive when Foose modified the tractor. 
Apparently the only fanbase more opinionated than Porsche purists is John Deere diehards, and they disagreed with practically everything Foose did to the beloved 4020. 
You can still see the disgust in archived forum threads from years ago: 
I doubt their attitudes have changed much in the time since, but as Heritage PR Manager Chris Boyens points out in this video on the Tractor Zoom YouTube channel , it’s not like 4020s were rare. 
John Deere made lots of ’em between 1968 and 1972. 
Boyens also explains that everything is totally reversible, if they ever chose to undo it. 
But why would they? 
Maybe those guys were frustrated when new tractors became nearly impossible for owners to work on , and as they went looking for older models , they thought the singular Chip Foose model would’ve been the right fit for their farm. 
In any case, the tractor lives in climate-controlled comfort while others are still out there, earning their keep. 
Perhaps that’s the real reason they’re upset. 
If it’s not helping someone make a living, it shouldn’t exist at all. 
But if you ask me, tools can be art, too. 
Got a tip or question for the author? 
Contact them directly: caleb@thedrive.com 
The post Hot Rod Designer Chip Foose Made This John Deere Tractor Look Like an Old Race Car appeared first on The Drive . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Caleb Jacobs: 3.0%The Drive: 3.0%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.4%The Drive: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Caleb Jacobs: 6.5%The Drive: 4.0%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 6.7%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic6.7%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 3.5%The Drive: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 3.5%The Drive: 4.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.0%The Drive: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.4%Caleb Jacobs: 4.6%The Drive: 3.4%Optimism Bias3.4%This article: 11.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.9%The Drive: 2.0%Pessimism Bias11.0%This article: 9.0%Caleb Jacobs: 7.5%The Drive: 6.7%Negativity Bias9.0%This article: 2.2%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.9%Self-Serving Bias2.2%This article: 9.2%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error9.2%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Caleb Jacobs: 1.6%The Drive: 0.7%In-Group Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.6%The Drive: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Caleb Jacobs: 4.6%The Drive: 2.6%Halo Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Caleb Jacobs: 1.9%The Drive: 1.3%Recency Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.4%The Drive: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.5%The Drive: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.8%Caleb Jacobs: 4.7%The Drive: 3.5%Appeal to Authority17.8%This article: 2.9%Caleb Jacobs: 1.8%The Drive: 1.8%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.7%Caleb Jacobs: 10.2%The Drive: 6.6%Hasty Generalization13.7%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.6%Caleb Jacobs: 1.5%The Drive: 0.9%Bandwagon5.6%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 4.8%The Drive: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.5%Caleb Jacobs: 1.3%The Drive: 0.7%Begging the Question4.5%This article: 8.1%Caleb Jacobs: 2.0%The Drive: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.1%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.9%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.9%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.3%The Drive: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.6%The Drive: 0.3%Composition/Division4.0%This article: 15.5%Caleb Jacobs: 4.8%The Drive: 3.5%Anecdotal15.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.2%The Drive: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Caleb Jacobs: 0.9%The Drive: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.2%The Drive: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.1%The Drive: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.4%Caleb Jacobs: 0.7%The Drive: 0.4%Special Pleading3.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 22.5%Caleb Jacobs: 1.7%The Drive: 2.1%Unattributed Quote22.5%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.8%The Drive: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 45.2%Caleb Jacobs: 23.9%The Drive: 11.1%Biased Writer Voice45.2%This article: 7.4%Caleb Jacobs: 2.1%The Drive: 1.4%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Caleb Jacobs: 0.0%The Drive: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Caleb Jacobs: 5.2%The Drive: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.7%

445 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.4%attributed speech430writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChris Boyens • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chris Boyens

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-46.7 ptsWriter: 46.7%Chris Boyens: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-23.3 ptsWriter: 23.3%Chris Boyens: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Chris Boyens: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Chris Boyens: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.