I think that's the point of the Money magazine article (again, I don't remember if it was Money magazine I read it or some other publication): if you have to make major life changes to afford the monthly payment on a 3-year car loan, then you can't afford the car. (Sure, you might be able to make the monthly payments, but you'd have to sacrifice potentially important things in life to do it, like saving for retirement, children's education, etc.).
Likewise, according to the same article, if you have to stretch to a 4-year or 5-year loan in order to "afford" the monthly payments, then, technically, the car is too rich for you.
That's not to say that there shouldn't be any 4- or 5-year loan options for people who want to do it that way....just that financial experts say that when looking for a new car, ask yourself if you could pay it off in three years without having to sacrifice/delay one or more of the critical things in life (food, shelter, clothing, education, retirement). If the answer is yes, then take whatever loan terms you want.
In a way, it's kind of like interest-only mortgages. If you see a property you like but can only afford it by taking out an interest-only mortgage, then the it's just too expensive for you.
I'm not trying to lecture anyone or give out financial advice here. It's just that in this thread (HSE vs. LUX), I've noticed one or two folks (or more) who seemed to be defensive about having opted for the HSE, saying that it wasn't a money issue over the LUX, but then later reveal that, oh yeah, I didn't actually buy it, I leased it, and oh yeah, leasing saved me about $80 over my current car payment, etc., etc. "De Nile" ain't just a river in Egypt, folks.