Reviewed: Jun. 22, 2006

This recipe is terrible! I should have known - there are no eggs in the recipe! The cake tasted like a runny sugar and coco water mixture. Very plain, one dimensional and simple. Don't be fooled by the name "crazy chocolate cake". The cake was not rich nor moist. In fact, it took long to bake and even then it appeared uncooked in the middle (sort of like a brownie consistency, but minus the chocolaty-richness). If someone baked this for my birthday I'd throw it at them.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
79 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

ella

Reviewed: Feb. 7, 2007

This was a recipe that has been passed down in my family as well. It's called 'crazy cake' because it's made without eggs and butter. It became popular during War Rations because it didn't use eggs or butter. Our family recipe calls for 2 Tablespoons of vinegar, 2 teaspoons of salt and 3/4 c. oil. It makes a FANTASTICly chocolatey cake (and trust me, you can't taste the vinegar). If you're making a layer cake, I'd use less oil, as the 3/4 c. makes a very soft and tender cake that won't hold up outside a pan. We top our crazy cake with a boiled chocolate p'nut butter frosting (fudgy!) or with cool whip and a variety of crushed up chocolate candies...but it's way yummy just right out of the pan with nothing on it!

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
74 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

QUEENOFGREATJUNK

Cooking Level: Expert

Reviewed: Dec. 8, 2006

i was a little nervous about making this cake after reading such extreme contrasting views - i decided that i'd go for it, hoping that the raving reviews would reflect my opinion. so i started to bake this cake for my husbands birthday party - after i had the batter in the cake pan and ready to go into the oven i realized that there wouldn't be enough for all of the party guests so i hauled out my ingredients again and made another batch. here's the interesting part. i found that the first batch had a cookie dough consistancy vs. a cake batter consistancy but the second time around it was like a typical cake batter. my conclusion is that i must have missed adding something in the first batch because the first cake was: 1. baked in only 20 minutes 2. very dry 3. very flavorless. Yikes!! BUT.. The second cake was AMAZING living up to every positive review I read... so my advice is to: 1. carefully follow the directions and 2. don't give up if the first cake is a dud.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
73 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

natasha beth

Reviewed: Jan. 26, 2007

I changed the recipe a little. I took the cocoa up to a full cup, and added an egg for good measure. The cake turned out rich and moist! It was so simple to make, too! Thanks for a great recipe.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
35 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

mangoduck

Reviewed: Sep. 3, 2006

This cake was amazing! It was thick and moist HOWEVER... due to doing the mixing right in the pan, the flour did not get thouroughly mixed in which resulted in chewy parts of the cake. I suggest using a net thingy to thin out the flour before putting it in the pan.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
28 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

london bridge

Reviewed: Feb. 8, 2007

This came out great - I did up the cocoa powder to 1 cup - like others had suggested doing. We made cupcakes out it for my daughter's birthday. No idea how people ended up with bad results - this was so easy to put together, and it is so moist and chocolate-y!!

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
27 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

piechild

Reviewed: Sep. 21, 2006

Let me thank you for putting ths cake on here! It is the BEST most moist cake I've ever made!! and simple too. Thank you again its the best chocolate cake!!! I can't say it enough.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
20 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

HONEYBEAR242

Reviewed: Feb. 20, 2006

This cake was sooo good and chocolatey. We added almost 1 cup of cocoa powder to enrich the flavor. My son loved that you can make it in the pan!! thank you it is a keeper for us!

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
19 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

EKRISTA

Reviewed: May 31, 2007

This was a strange recipe. The batter tasted good. The cake smelled wonderful while baking. It looked great when it was done. The texture was perfect, very moist and dense. Unfortunately, it didn't taste very good. It's not that it tasted bad, it didn't have much of a flavor at all. I topped it with a rich chocolate frosting, and the kids were happy, but I'm glad I didn't make it for company. I won't make this one again.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
18 users found this review helpful

Reviewer:

jackandallysmom

Reviewed: Oct. 17, 2005

I would actually give this cake 2.5 stars.I made a quick fudge icing to go over this and it wasn't too bad but I think it could use more chocolate...then I would give it a 3. For something that has neither eggs, nor milk I think this turned out well. However it really doesn't measure up to a chocolate cake that DOES use these things. It is moist but a bit thick going down. I think maybe 1.5 cups of sugar would suffice and maybe a cup of cocoa powder would improve the taste even more.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
16 users found this review helpful