Reviewed: Jul. 3, 2011

Wish I had read all the reviews first. I cooked it longer than I should have and didnt get the fudge tunnel I was hoping for. everyone loved the taste but now I know to only cook for 45 minutes.

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

Reviewer:

TipsyUMF

Reviewed: Apr. 10, 2011

i actually used the original pillsbury recipe, & it was a big hit. i will put it up as soon as i have more time, but it is very similar to this. they stress that you must use the walnuts & don't skimp(i was going to skip them, glad i didn't), also, just bake until top is set(i went about 55-60, thinking 50-55 should be enough). anyway, there was a tunnel & the cake was a big hit with the 17 year old birthday boy & his dad :)

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

Reviewer:

Liz

Cooking Level: Intermediate

Home Town: Queens, New York, USA

Living In: New York, New York, USA

Reviewed: Mar. 7, 2011

I followed the suggestions of other reviewers and baked it at 325 for 40 minutes, just until the cake pulled away from the sides and looked kinda done on top. I let it cool in the pan a bit, then flipped it over. No icing necessary. Delicious, moist, and a goopy fudge at the bottom. Rave reviews from kids ages 2 to 60!

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

Reviewer:

Kristens

Cooking Level: Intermediate

Reviewed: Dec. 1, 2010

I give this a three star because it tasted amazing but there was no tunnel or difference in texture in the cake. I baked at 310 degrees for an hour... till the cake was set up on top. Well, it sure tasted good but nothing really special about it.

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

Reviewer:

JenA

Reviewed: Nov. 7, 2010

This is a fine recipe! I followed it exactly, except based on the other reviewers' comments I baked it for only 55 minutes. The tunnel of fudge was just perfect - soft and buttery and delicious. I took the cake to a party yesterday where there were both adults and kids. The adults LOVED the cake, but the kids didn't think it was sweet enough. I think it would be delicious served with whipped cream! I would have given this recipe five stars except for the fact that the non-tunnel portion of the cake was somewhat dry. However, this might be the fault of my oven, and not of the recipe. The next time I make it I will cut back on the baking time by another five minutes and see if it makes a difference. Other than that, it's easy to see why this is a prizewinning recipe.

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

Reviewer:

Mallmarie

Reviewed: Aug. 6, 2010

I made this for my stepsons birthday, it turned out pretty good, but wish is was a little more gooey.

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

Reviewer:

Mrs. Chef Esh

Supporting Member (Click to learn more about Supporting Membership)

Cooking Level: Expert

Home Town: Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA

Living In: Lititz, Pennsylvania, USA

Reviewed: Mar. 27, 2010

FANTASTIC. Followed the directions exactly, cooked for 45 minutes at 350. I greased the pan heavily based on other reviewers' comments about it being hard to get out, but I'm wondering if those folks didn't let it cool for an hour and a half like the instructions say. I did that and it plopped right out clean as a whistle. I was nervous because I was serving dinner to my husband's friends, but it was a HUGE hit! The only change I made was to the glaze, because I wanted it creamier. I added about 2 T. butter and melted in a handful of chocolate chips. The tunnel was perfect, the consistency was perfect, and I will definitely make it again!

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

Reviewer:

NCwriter

Cooking Level: Expert

Home Town: Greenville, North Carolina, USA

Living In: Garner, North Carolina, USA

Reviewed: Feb. 13, 2010

Delicious, old-fashioned, "clean" flavor -- BUT ... would absolutely not come out of the pan. I followed the recipe to a T ... but it was glued in place, despite my having appropriately greased and floured the Bundt pan. It was still quite yummy, scooped into serving dishes ... but alas, it could not be served as a cut cake. Luckily, I had very gracious (and hungry) dinner guests, who didn't care. But I was disappointed. (It was also a little dry, which is why it gets only two out of five stars).

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
1 user found this review helpful

Reviewer:

Amybobamy

Cooking Level: Expert

Home Town: Los Angeles, California, USA

Reviewed: May 20, 2009

6 whole eggs, 1.75 cups of butter and 4 cups of sugar -- can't be good for you at all. Tasted the batter and it tasted of sugar only with a hint of chocolate in the background. Didn't want to come out of the pan when completed cooking. When flipped onto cake platter, the fudge center oozed all over the place. Believe I'll try the recipe that uses chocolate cake mix and chocolate pudding as ingredients for the next attempt at this recipe.

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

Reviewer:

LMYORK

Reviewed: Mar. 31, 2009

This recipe was okay. My family liked it but I wasn't fond of the uncooked center part. Also, the bundt pan needs to be very well greased. My cake fell apart when I was trying to get it out of the pan and then the inside goo went everywhere. I probably won't make this again.

Was this review helpful? [ YES ]
1 user found this review helpful