REVIEW: Hostess Suzy Q’s

Hostess Suzy Q's

To quote the great John Fogerty, “Oh Suzy Q, I love you.”

I’m not here to talk about a Creedence Clearwater Revival. I’m here to talk about a famous snack cake revival. Suzy Q’s are back.

Remember when Hostess went under and individually wrapped Twinkies held more value than gold for a few weeks?

That feels like decades ago. When they initially released their product line again, Suzy Q’s were benched, and I guess some people were upset about this. Why they were bummed, I’ll never know.

Invented in 1961 and named after the daughter of a higher-up at the Continental Baking Company, Suzy Q’s preceded far superior cakes like Ding Dongs and Ho Hos by six years.

I’ve always been a fan of various snack cakes with no real bias towards any brand. I feel like I’ve had most if not all of what Hostess has offered over the years, but can’t remember ever eating Suzy Q’s. They always seemed like an early attempt at the Devil’s food cake with crème concept that no one bought anymore because Hostess was able to improve on the recipe.

Let’s be real, Hostess doesn’t exactly have a diverse product line. Half of their current product lineup are chocolate cakes with crème. And while one might be a cupcake, another in roll-up form, and another shaped like a hockey puck, it’s not enough of a change to warrant favoritism. Each are delicious in their own right. So why aren’t Suzy Q’s?

Hostess Suzy Q's 2

These things are super boring. The texture of the cake is horrendous. This is not a good sponge cake. This is a sponge labeled as a cake. The chocolate flavor is underwhelming and I’m not sure they’d work even if slathered in the plastic layer of chocolate Ding Dongs have.

Hostess Suzy Q's 3

The crème filling is basically what you’d expect, but that coupled with the bland sponge somehow made it taste worse than normal. I imagine the crème recipe doesn’t change much between the various products it fills, but it didn’t even taste as sugary and delicious as I’m used to.

I honestly can’t imagine a person alive who would prefer this over their other cakes. Taste is subjective, but come on.

Suzy Q’s have to be the worst snack cake Hostess makes. Have to be. There’s just no reason to ever get them when there are so many similar yet better options made by the same company and its competitors. Drake’s Devil Dogs are king, in my not so humble opinion.

I couldn’t find a box of Suzy Q’s in my local supermarket, and I gotta say I’m happy I didn’t because it would be sitting in the back of my cabinet for months.

To be fair to Hostess, they are under a new corporate umbrella now and the recipe for Suzy Q’s may have very well changed. BUT if this is the form they’ve come in since their inception, I can’t imagine them ever being good. Sorry Suzy, but you are the black sheep of the family. I don’t love you.

To misquote the film Dumb and Dumber, “That John Fogerty’s full of crap, man.”

(Nutrition Facts – 2 cakes – 310 calories, 120 calories from fat, 14 grams of fat, 6 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of cholesterol, 440 milligrams of sodium, 44 grams of carbohydrates, 2 grams of fiber, 30 grams of sugar, and 2 grams of protein..)

Item: Hostess Suzy Q’s
Purchased Price: $1.79
Size: 3.03 oz.
Purchased at: 7-Eleven
Rating: 2 out of 10
Pros: The crème is still solid. Good to have Hostess back in our lives. CCR.
Cons: Bland cake. Weak chocolate flavor. Referring to this as a “Snack Classic.” Worst revival ever.

254 thoughts to “REVIEW: Hostess Suzy Q’s”

  1. Dear Hostess…
    How tough can it be to look up the original Suzy Q recipe and FOLLOW THE RECIPE. What you now call Suzy Q’s are NOTHING like they used to be. You should be ashamed (and not allowed) to sell them using that name… So disappointed in you. They are disgusting.

  2. I’m so disappointed with the hostess suzi q’s ….they were not dark chocolate…there was barely any filling…they were very dry… they were nasty! plain and simple!.. you need to fix this hostess! You have the recipe…bring back the old! I won’t be buying these again unless they go back to the original! ???

  3. I’m so disappointed with the hostess suzi q’s ….they were not dark chocolate…there was barely any filling…they were very dry… they were nasty! plain and simple!.. you need to fix this hostess! You have the recipe…bring back the old! I won’t be buying these again unless they go back to the original! ???

  4. **UPDATE**
    I have left a couple comment prior, similar to everyone else – the “new” Suzi Q’s are terrible!! However, there is a slim ray of sunshine I’d like to share and suggest… Have you tried the Chocolate Twinkies? While not quite the Suzi Q’s of old, they are MUCH closer than the Suzi Q’s of today!! It is a darker, more moist chocolate cake, with the creamy filling…really not too bad. Seems to me they would do themselves a huge favor by changing out the “new” Suzi Q’s cake for this Chocolate Twinkies cake! Give it a try!

    1. The same can be said for the new Chocodiles recently re-released this year. While not perfect, they are MILES better than what they tried to pass off as a Chocodile in 2014! So I am hoping there’s a re-reboot to Suzy Q 3.0! Lol

  5. I’m sooooo disappointed. I just ate one of the worst dessert cakes ever! The Suzy Q I purchased today at Kroger was just not right. The dense moist dark chocolate of long ago was missing. I will not purchase any again. I’m so pleased I bought a single.

  6. The Suzy Q is just God awful. Why in the world would you listen to the public and bring back one of the favs in the Hostess line. Only to completely change the cake recipe to this tasteless, dry and must be the worst chocolate cake ever?!?! I will not buy them again ever.

  7. Of the purchasable choco cake and creamy filling snacks Suzy Qs were my favorites.

    Some years ago when it seemed I would never see my beloved Suzy Qs again I was a over-dramatically devastated as one could get about a snack essentially made with plenty choco-tasting dust, lard and loads of processed sugar.

    The other day I had to pull myself though some dreaded shopping in the local supermarket. In my peripheral view I saw the big blazened “Suzy Qs” label on some boxes on a low shelf. Now that is what I call a “resurrection.” Hooray! It is a wise good thing I am fastidious about taking and keeping to a shopping list. No impulse purchases for me – unless it is something I missed listing during my days tabulating needs and wants procured from my dreaded supermarket shopping.
    I tossed rules to the wind and purchased two boxes, 8 cakes each; 16 Suzy Qs would be in my kitchen within the hour.
    I couldn’t wait to get them home to devour one. After all, in their previous incarnation one had to be a real pig (my apologies to our porcine friends) to eat more than one of those large delicious snacks.
    I open the box. OK, they are smaller. No biggee; I got 16 of ’em.
    With the impatience of youngster on a 1950s 25 December morning I couldn’t open the protective wrapping fast enough. Initial taste from some of the creamy filling clung to the wrapper. Hmmm. Sorta creamy tastelessness. Then I do my best Orca chomping on a cetacean imitation: big bite. What the …! Where’s that rich chocolatey taste mixing with the cream lusciousness? It certainly isn’t in this snack. ‘They’ ruined it.
    Suzy Qs were never really resurrected. The name was. The look was. The size certainly wasn’t – unless in a multiple cake box you get smaller sizes. But that does not really matter now.
    I continued to eat through these mediocre cakes.
    The cake is hinted chocolatey dryness above and below a bland tasting skimpy portion ‘they’ call a “creamy filling.”
    As a good friend likes to say about the current production of well-known and popular items, “The kids took over. They have little regard for maintaining high quality and continuing tradition.” I usually agree with her. In the case of Suzy Qs I certainly do.
    This incarnation of Hostesses “Suzy Qs” are terrible. The 21st Century Suzy Qs simply suck.
    I will not purchase them anymore and will simply remember the goodness they once were and the badness they are currently.
    Not a resurrection of a much-loved product but a 3-card monte production in name and poor imitation only.
    Bummer. But it’s a snack, folks; not important at all in the grand scheme of things.

  8. Feels weird responding to a post that’s two years old — but apparently Hostess can’t take a hint that their product is garbage. I had the displeasure of tasting a “new” SusieQ today and this is not even a shadow of its former self.

    Farewell SusieQ – we knew thee well!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *