And now, the moment you have all been waiting for...
RESULTS!
As a quick foreword, the cars will be split into four groups. First, we have seen some cars which do not quite follow the rules, and have been binned. Then, there are some cars which are just too bad. Perhaps they don’t seem realistic, or go too far, or just don’t do much - they are fair entries, but miss the mark. Then, there are cars that are not bad enough. Some of these cars are actually pretty good, and thus lose the bad car contest. Finally, we have the top 2 cars, paragons of the awful. I do want to note that the “too-bad” category is not worse than the “too-good” category - they are just different ways to miss the mark.
BAD, BUT NOT FOR DESIGN
Rivera Stagnade Freeroamer, by @TheLapTopX20
This car... wasn't submitted. A forum post got made and everything, and the .car file was shown there, but we never got a DM. You also went above the wheelbase limit by 0.7 meters. We may have let it slide… had it not been directly called a minivan in its’ ad, which is too far removed from a compact car anyways.
Rattlesnake VT by @Warren_Boofit
This gets binned for not following naming convention. Honorable mention for the decision to go for leaf springs in the rear (Just… why?) on a late ‘90s convertible- even the Mustang used coil springs! Yes, we know, this is the Bad Car Design Challenge… but seriously?
Westland Scarab by @Kyorg
We forgot to do a 1 day warning, so we agreed to give this a review, but not score it! This vehicle is called the Scarab, but it sure doesn’t live up to its’ name very well. In the shade that the car arrived in, it really looks a lot more like a cladded pea. This car is having quite the identity crisis, that is for sure. What motive would a company have for combining a hot hatch, an offroad vehicle and an econobox? The tiny 825cc turbocharged (!) boxer four making 84hp is hilarious, as is the fact that this same car has rear leaf suspension. Did I mention that the engine knocks? It’s remarkably hard to take this car seriously, and it makes absolutely no sense. The fact that it has the world’s tiniest roof rack as well as the tiniest running board I’ve ever seen is quite remarkable! It’s so bad it almost circles around to being kinda cool, but I just can’t get my head around how this would possibly come to fruition…
TOO BAD!
Hongyaeng Jageun Sport by @bilobilo - 139.5 Points
Hi’s Review: To be totally honest, this car confuses me more than probably any car here. Where do I begin? It gets 51mpg, has 0 comfort, has crappy brakes, a turbocharged DOHC 3cyl motor making what for a DOHC motor is a measly 100hp, +3 quality SPEFI, and partial aluminum panels. In the late 1990s! On a $16k car! The motor, panels and interior means it could be a failed hot hatch attempt, and the styling somewhat backs that up, considering that it looks like a “modernized” ‘70s shitbox with a crappy bodykit… but 3 quality SPEFI makes no sense considering they have DOHC tech, not to mention that it has VVL. Regardless, 51mpg with crap 1 piston solid/drum brakes completely screws with the hot hatch idea. You’d think they could sacrifice some of that MPG for more power if they were going track-ready hot hatch, and any credible hot hatch would have decent brakes… Not to mention that the engine block is cast and has aluminum heads… you’d think Hongyaeng would pick one or the other- justify the aluminum production or cheap out, not combine the 2! This car is well under budget cap, so it could’ve afforded a few of those things and been more convincingly terrible… Since there is no lore or even a forum post about this car to help make sense of it, I had no choice but to just relegate it towards the very back of the field. 77 Points.
Crypt’s Review: I want to start out by congratulating Bilobilo on the amount of work that has had to go into this car. The body kit has been crafted from a decent number of 3D fixtures, but it’s still been done in a rather efficient manner. The number of fixtures used for the chosen effect is rather impressive. Sadly… that’s where the congratulations end. The body kit looks like an aftermarket monstrosity, the kind of thing that ends up being the butt of more than a few jokes. Given that we specifically called out the fact that we do not want gaudy aftermarket body kits, this car gets relegated quite a way down the order. Making it worse is the fact that the car does not quite have the engineering to match its sporty visage, but it also doesn’t have the sort of engineering you expect in a non-sporty hatch. For example - SPEFI is a big budget choice, but it’s turbocharged. It missed the mark. 62.5 Points.
Gyors Oko+ 8O by @O.O - 157.75 Points
Hi’s Review: Stylistically, this slow and ugly, moderately lifted hatch (that looks like a piece of tofu on wheels in its’ beige color) would have been a more serious contender if there wasn’t another entry that attempted the exact same thing, on the same body, with far more detail and success. This car also has a number of decisions that manage to surpass “questionable”. For one, this boxy hatch that looks to be FF actually is rear-engined. Why? Don’t ask me. Maybe it’s Gyors’ specialty? This car also features a leaf suspension rear, double wishbone front suspension. Why? I have no idea. It features a tiny, low-powered 3 cylinder engine mated to a 4 speed manual that has probably been gathering dust in the Gyors factory since the second Hungarian Revolution, but at least has low service costs, decent brakes, and galvanized panels. It’s also remarkably decent offroad for what it is. Regardless, this Hungarian hatch simply won’t go any further due to the number of decisions that make no sense. 81.75 Points
Crypt’s Review: The Gyors Oko+ feels like one of the more realistic entries we have seen. It’s a little bit ugly, but the car ultimately feels like a background character. The lights are rather abominable, and the rims don’t fit, but beyond that, there’s not a lot that makes this car stand out as actually bad on the outside… On the inside, meanwhile, it does not make sense. We have a rear-mounted, turbocharged engine far before turbochargers were being used for economy. A space frame has been used, and leaf springs. There’s a few issues here and there, but it’s just somewhat… meh. 76 Points.
Starbird Endura 4-Drive by @Elven_Sage - 162.5 Points
Hi’s Review: This car is the automotive equivalent of Grumpy Cat. Every line on it, every piece of detailing looks agonized about the car’s existence. The bumper is oddly puny, the bits of exposed paint make it look like it has a tearing car bra on its’ bumper, and, perhaps worst of all, none of the cladding continues around to the sides of the car! On the engineering front: For an American car, the Starbird also features a remarkably low amount of power (although greater than a lot of the other cars here) at an anemic 106hp from yet another blah 4cyl motor (although it is aluminum), and it still features coil springs on the rear. My main strike against this car is simply the lack of engineering ambition: the engineering belongs in the Blah Car Design Challenge, rather than here. Other than partial aluminum panels, this car takes no risks on the engineering front. Fortunately, engineering isn’t that important in scoring, or this car would have done much worse! 89 Points
Crypt’s Review: This car is a walking paradox. Nothing about the styling seems to fit together. The headlights stick out and curve into the plastic cladding, the little bits of exposed paint are just weird, and the geometric taillights are a bit off… but this car also just sends me to sleep. This is ultimately an odd car, both boring and ugly. It fails to really evoke any reaction deep down, just sending me to sleep. The engineering once more feels uninspiring but also… not great, really failing to add up to a great package. If you wanted to make the most forgettable car, you have succeeded - but a truly bad car is memorable, and the sheer forgettability ultimately knocks it down for me. 73.5 Points
Regal Bounce 1.3 by @karhgath - 166.25 Points
Hi’s Review: To be frankly honest, I don’t know what to say here. It has a face that looks like it’s straining to get a deuce out, and a rear that… uhh… speaks for itself. The car isn’t very cohesive, design motifs barely carry over from front to back, and there is an odd stripe-adjacent piece above the grille and extending across the front of the hood. There are odd painted plastic bits down the side, a tiny white pinstripe that continues all the way around the car, and wheels that look more like crappy hubcap covers. As for the engineering? This car features a sluggish 96hp 4cyl engine. But, hey! It has a fancy Sport interior, and brakes that are actually good! Safety is exceptional, too. I can’t say this is a car I’d enjoy, and it sure isn’t sporty despite what the interior might suggest, but it isn’t actually a half bad car as long as you’re someone who needs to wear glasses and routinely forgets to put them on until entering the car. Especially to the innocent eyes of ‘90s car design critics, this car would certainly be considered something like the ‘90s equivalent of BMW 4-Series styling… if it was an underpowered, $20,000 hatch with FWD. Overall, the lack of enough in the way of unique engineering decisions, coupled with a body that, while eye-searing, isn’t nearly boundary-pushing enough, is all that keeps this from getting closer to a podium. 86.75 Points.
Crypt’s Review: I kinda don’t know what to make of this car, to be completely honest. It has a sporty rear end, sporty sides, and a front that looks like it is trying very hard to be sporty. It ends up walking right up to the line between stock and aftermarket, and I am not quite sure where it ends up. It’s ugly, yes, but mainly because it’s dated and because a lot of stuff doesn’t fit together. On the engineering side, it’s a bit of a letdown. You get this sporty vision of the outside, followed by a light-weight, sport interior and even vented disk brakes… But the car runs into brake fade, experiences too much understeer to be sporty, and has a somewhat gutless inline four under the hood. The design and engineering both run into some cohesion issues, which kinda stings. 76 Points
Radnik WH250 by @Nonon - 168.25 Points.
Hi’s Review: This is one of two ute trucks, this one far more rugged than the other! The enormous bugeye headlights and large, beakish grille give it a cross-eyed look, and the matte beige-brown paint definitely doesn’t do it any favors. The vertical semi truck-style exhaust combined with the “rugged” decals on the side also creates an air of fake, tacky macho. The rear looks nice, as for the engineering… do you really want to know? It has a molasses-in-January 4cyl making 70hp and slurping 95 octane for some reason, but with its’ leaf springs and untreated ladder frame, it’s actually ridiculously capable for a trucklet… apart from once the frame snaps like a cookie five years into Rust Belt ownership. Did I mention that the panels weren’t treated either? At least for the 5 years before its’ matte brown becomes more of a orange, you can enjoy the nice premium stereo Radnik put in this car. This car is quite something, that is for certain… 88.25 Points
Crypt’s Review: On the outside, the Radnik makes some rather big promises. It looks like an active truck, one that will be practical but also fun to just chuck around a dirt track somewhere, if you either take yourself too seriously or not seriously at all. With an unusual vertical exhaust, a scooped intake, and even some extra lights mounted to the bumper bar, it looks like the kind of light truck that could be fun to drive, with all of the design language you would expect there. It seems to fall apart just a little in the realism stakes - with a grille that almost feels modern, accessories that seem unlikely to come from the factory and the afforementioned vertical exhaust. Sadly, this falls apart when you actually check the car. Despite having a 2.5 liter i4, and using premium fuel, the end result is incredibly slow. It goes from zero to 100 in 18 whole seconds, and then crawls up to its 150 km/h top speed from there. It’s understeer central for this car, and it even experiences wheelspin well into road speeds. This is a disappointing lack of sportiness, even for a “bad” car. 80 Points
NOT BAD, NOT BAD
Reduit BH4 by @kobacrashi - 137 Points
Hi’s Review: It was honestly difficult to find large issues with this entry. The more I looked at this entry and its’ engineering, the more I was convinced this car had committed badception: it somehow manages to be bad at being bad. The only abnormalities or issues, styling included, I could find was using a McPherson/double wishbone setup on a late ‘90s van (which could be just considered innovation) and 95 octane for an N/A 4cyl (this will be a recurring theme, trust me…). 68 Points
Crypt’s Review: This car is a quirky, unconventional minivan. Personally, I find it almost cute. Between the three-spoke wheels, the four-eyed grill and the vertical lights, it certainly stands out. Unfortunately, I honestly can’t find much to dislike about it. I am sure many, many children have ridden in worse vans. I do have my concerns, such as the tubular headers and the high-flow catalytic converter, but this is honestly a good car - which, paradoxically, means it loses. 69 Points.
Mandarin Avenir Privilege by @TheAlmightyTwingo - 139 Points
Hi’s Review: Yet another case of “the normals”, visually. The looks aren’t very unique. As for the engineering? You can definitely tell where Mandarin decided its’ money was best used, which resulted in a few… questionable but justifiable decisions. In the pursuit of creating an absurdly nice interior for a compact car, the company decided to cost cut elsewhere on the car. Which is how the car ended up with untreated steel panels… Speaking of odd decisions, 95 octane for a N/A 4cyl- why? Again? Regardless, this car just doesn’t match up to the rest of the field on either intrigue, innovation or styling. This car is very much the Toyota Camry of bad. It’s bad, sure, but in a safe, inoffensive way. And that is why this car doesn’t do any better. 74 Points
Crypt’s Review: In all honesty, this feels like a real, actual successful car from an alternate nineties. Much of the trim, the shapes and the interior all feel pretty normal. It’s just the choice to go with an angular theme for the lights and grille rather than the rounded shapes we actually saw. This is not a bad car, it’s just a bit different. 69 Points
Altra Vol 1.2 SL by @Hilbert - 140.25 Points
Hi’s Review: Is this car comfortable? No, it has a basic interior. Is it fast? No, in fact it is even slower than most of the cars here, which says a lot. Is it made completely out of unprotected steel and will become ferrous oxide in a few years? Yes. Are its’ brakes weak? Yes. However, this car also costs $12k, is fairly spacious for a hatch, looks decent (almost kinda cute like a Twingo), is safe, reliable and is fairly drivable. The only decision I truly can’t rationalize is the 95 octane on yet another naturally aspirated 4cyl… It may be a shitbox, but I have a hard time believing it would sell badly. 71.25 Points
Crypt’s Review: Ultimately, HighOctaneLove said it better than I ever could. “Hey Hilbert, you’re meant to make a bad looking car, not a cute and stylish runabout!” Is the Altra the most beautiful car ever? No, I don’t think so. Is it without its faults? Again, no - just look at the incredibly sluggish engine, at 47 kW. But it would absolutely develop a decently large cult following. The Altra simply oozes charm and charisma. I simply cannot hate this car. Task failed successfully. 69 Points
LCE LDX AWD by @abg7 - 145.25 Points
Hi’s Review: This car would have probably done a fair bit worse if it wasn’t for the fact that the looks make me throw up in my mouth a little. This car is not detailed and the backstory is questionable, but what is there is pretty hideous, if only semirealistic. The cross-eyed taillights are a bit too modern, and the face is too empty, but the end result, especially in white, is a drivable Botox injection you’d probably have to pay me to be seen in. As for that driving experience? With a remarkably advanced N/A 4cyl engine featuring an AlSi composition and DOHC while making about 100hp, along with a McPherson/Multilink suspension, it seems like an odd decision for a van that the market wouldn’t appreciate, which does support its’ lack of selling potential! This vehicle is also a bit large for a competition based around compact cars, but that can be let slide based on that it is fairly well under the wheelbase regulations. This van also features AWD, which helps it have remarkable prowess offroad. Overall, this van does make some sense as a failed product, and the looks are properly bad, but there are simply better detailed entries with better adherence to the challenge’s focus. 81.25 Points
Crypt’s Review: This is a car pulling in two directions, and neither fits too well here. On one hand, this is a somewhat inoffensive white panel van. Yes, the trim doesn’t fit too well, and yes, the lights are somewhat misplaced… But it is difficult to create a truly hideous van. Honestly, I could walk past this van in the street and forget it. Sadly, the engineering isn’t nearly as forgettable as the rest. It is an All-Wheel-Drive van with offroad tyres - which suggests an all-terrain setup. However, it also uses Macpherson struts on the front and multilink suspension on the rear, which hurts the offroad. This independent suspension isn’t utilised to deliver any camber, however, and serves to take up valuable cargo space more than anything. The end result is a van going in multiple directions, lacking in cohesion. It has the styling of one van, and the engineering of two different ones. While this would fail in reality, the reasons it fails just don’t match the scoring criteria. It’s an intriguing van, for sure, and I can see what you are doing, but it just doesn’t match the aims of the challenge. 64 Points.
Solare Roma by @ldub0775 - 145.75 Points
Hi’s Review: To be perfectly honest, I like this car, and that is the primary issue with it. Despite its’ anachronistic-by-the-late-90s pop-up headlights, this car is essentially a ‘90ified Fiero. It looks like a cross between a Ferrari and a C5 Corvette, and features a mid-engine GM 4 cylinder making a respectable 215hp. For $20k, that’s quite the accomplishment, and in no way “bad”! The suspension’s McPherson rather than the garbage a Fiero had, and the car somehow manages a premium/standard interior! It’s sporty, gets good MPG for a sports car, and safe, but I suppose that probably has to do with the number of 20 year olds who will buy one, mod it (badly) and wrap it around a tree since it’s cheap, RWD and mid-engine! In general it is good in basically every category save off-road, and has a partial alu/galvanized steel body and chassis. The service costs are high, but what can you expect for a mid-engine car? So where were corners cut to get it under $20k and qualify it as bad? Mostly quality. This car has a reliability of 66.6, which is one of the lowest in the competition. Despite that, I would honestly buy one. And, for that reason, this car fails at being bad. Which I guess makes it a bad car in the context of this series? 79.75
Crypt’s Review: This car loses some points for realism, mainly due to its pop-up headlights. While pop-ups are really cool, they were a dying breed at that point, with brand-new cars with them few and far between. This came for good reason - re-investigations of safety regulations in the US and Europe led to them being effectively banned. The pop-ups on the Roma, then, are an anachronism on an otherwise-well designed car… And this is where we reach the issues. If you want a cheap sports car, you could do worse than the Roma. It looks the part - and with a mid-mounted, forged 2L i4 putting out 155 kW, plus enough oversteer to sate any enthusiast, it acts the part. This is a great success, not a failure. 64 Points.
Kurskian Frosty by @Kursk - 154.5 Points
Hi’s Review: This car is the first one I’ve ever seen that does what this does: creates a bargain-spec body with supercar proportions. And I definitely can appreciate that! The face is just purely odd. The smiley grille is… quite something, and the plastic panels combined with the cheapo wheels make it something truly unique. The engineering also mostly lives up to that- a 144hp mid-engine RWD 4cyl is more powerful than many of the cars, but still very slow by sports car standards. Oddly, this car also runs 95 octane, despite still being naturally aspirated. Treated steel panels with a steel frame is also very curious- I guess when your car snaps in two driving up north, at least the panels will look nice! It also isn’t particularly reliable, but I guess that is just part of the mid engine experience even if your mid engine car has a boring commuter car engine under the hood! Safety is also good. Overall, this car is quite middling though when you can buy a Roma for the same price, which definitely contributes to the “bad” factor. While this car may have some flaws, I can see a business case for it. If the Roma didn’t exist, this car would practically be a bargain, and regardless, this is a fun, fairly cheap sports car! Can’t say I dislike the styling, despite some questionable styling cues, and I can’t say the engineering completely buzzkills its’ potential. And, at the end of the day, that is what prevents this car from doing better in my eyes. I can see how it would sell badly, but I really don’t mind it. I almost like it, and I can see how many other people would do the same. 83.5 Points
Crypt’s Review: The Frosty is a sporty, exciting little thing, let down by a hefty reliance on some rather dull and ugly plastic. Unfortunately, thanks to the car having somewhat boxy proportions with near-vertical bumpers, the plastic does rather little. In any collision, it wouldn’t do much to offset the energies before the metal starts to hit - because there’s not much room to travel. It just sits there, looking ugly. Sadly, this is the end of the negatives for styling. Above the plastic, you will find a sleek, stylish supercar which aspires to supercar heights - and with sporty handling and a powerful enough engine to back it up, the Frosty is ultimately too good to win. 71 Points
Mara Kraplya 96 Concept by @AndiD - 159 Points
Hi’s Review: Does this car have some serious issues? Yes. With 47hp coming from a 3cyl engine that tops out at 5600 but doesn’t redline until 6300 and a 4 speed power-sapping automatic, you’d practically have to push this thing up a slight incline, despite that it’s pretty light. However, this car also has some innovations for such a cheap car that would probably more than make up for that- as long as you live in Florida, Texas or Iowa! With a remarkably solid interior, miserly efficiency, good brakes, a galvanized chassis and an entry cost of a lowest-in-field 11k, it’s hard to hate the rest of the engineering. As for the looks, this car has a very convincing late-90s or early 2000s “futuristic” look creating something that somehow looks both soul-sapping and unique/interesting. This car somewhat does the impossible- it is both too convincingly good and convincingly bad at the same time! What to make of that? To be honest, I have no clue. 81 Points
Crypt’s Review: This is a very strong entry, let down by just one word in the name - concept. It has a rather interesting, ugly overall design, with its droplet-style front shaping an innovative sign of things to come, and a hideous rear that should not be copied. It is replete with some rather naff plastic bumpers, and looks… distinctive. The engine inside makes around as much power as the Yugo - a car from quite a bit before, but a close analogue in lore terms. Rather unfortunately, it is let down by a number of rather unrealistic design choices. These are the sort of things you would expect from a concept but which would be ironed out by the time the car reached production, but we are looking for production cars here. 78 Points
GSI Fabuloso Turbo by @oppositelock - 159.75 Points
Hi’s Review: This car, from the front, looks like what the Miata would’ve become if it was inspired by the Bugeye Sprite, instead of a blanket pool of old British roadsters. It’s very innocent; it has a smiley, happy demeanor I actually quite like. “Well, hey, it’s cute!”, you’d think, especially in flakey pink. However, the rear doesn’t match up: it’s a bit of a Good Cop/Bad Cop situation. It has taillights that remind me of spider eyes, and a mildly angry demeanor with the very race-style rear splitter and frowny license plate holder. Was it styled by 2 separate people from the front and rear? I have no idea. All I know is that it creates a very odd design dichotomy. Maybe the specs back up the more angry demeanor? Is it a cute little track-style compact coupe? Uh… not particularly. It’s still very drivability and comfort-forward. However, as a little runabout it isn’t half bad. It has a small turbocharged 4cyl good for 128hp, RWD and one of the best power to weight ratios in the competition! It gets absurdly good MPG at 54.5, and has some nicely corrosion-resistant panels. To be honest, I quite like this car as well! It’s a fun, cheap and exciting little car that is probably quite fun to drive. And that is both its’ best feature, and biggest shortcoming for this challenge. 82.25 Points
Crypt’s Review: Let’s start at the front. This is a cute little thing, isn’t it? It’s a fun little convertible coupe, with a nice charismatic face. Around to the side, it has a shape almost closer to a toy than a car. The back lines straddle the boundry between sedan and coupe, although it still looks nice. Moving to the rear, however, it looks rather different. With a diffuser in the middle, aggressive exhausts and the interesting taillights, plus a swept-down wing, it starts to look rather angrier. This is a car of parts, stuck between a world of fantasy and reality, and between cuteness and aggression. It is this lack of cohesion which sees it slide - and the fact that it’s also not really a massive failure. 77.5 Points
Solo Blast GT by @thecarlover - 160 Points
Hi’s Review: This car is, in my opinion, one of the most intriguing cars here. A plastic-cladded sports hatch with an asymmetrical door layout? I find that really neat! To be honest, this is another car I really wouldn’t mind owning. The design is cohesive, the radioactive green paint gives that 2000s vibe off really nicely, and the 140hp 4cyl motor has enough oomph, unlike many of the other hatches which are really short on power. It would absolutely make a lot of sense if this car was a result of management asking for both a sports and offroad (considering the success of cladded wagons of the era like the Subaru Outback) variant of the Solo Blast, and someone had the brilliant idea to combine the two, resulting in this hatch that unsuccessfully tries to combine 2 opposites! I can also see precisely why people would look at it, shake their head, and leave the dealer. However, the design simply isn’t offensive. It might be an odd concept, but I think it was pulled off quite well. It’s remarkably consistent, and also even manages to look a little sporty! Is this a mangled idea? Yes. Would it sell badly? Most likely. Is it a well-done failure? Yes. At the end of the day, though, this car misses that element of disgust. This car doesn’t make me want to poke my eyes out with a stick. And that is ultimately where it falls short. 85.5 Points
Crypt’s Review: This is a bit of a weirdo, isn’t it? With its radioactive green paint and its asymetrical layout, it ends up looking like a mutant which crawled off of the assembly line. With three-spoke wheels, and the entire bottom half clad in plastic, it looks very much like it fits the era. The thing is, once you look past the paint, you actually have a really nice, fun hatchback. It looks fun, it feels fun, and it’s just an overall success there. It’s just a good car - and this isn’t the challenge for good, clean fun. 84.5 Points
Decarlis D10 Outroads by @Arn38fr - 160.5 Points
Hi’s Review: This is a cute and cheery retro-style convertible roof SUV, which I find cool and moderately innovative! I’d consider this a unique bodystyle and idea… if O.O hadn’t done the same thing minus the convertible top! Anyways, this car is cohesive and well-detailed, but the true surprise comes under the hood. Instead of the naturally aspirated, cast inline four found in nearly every other car here, this car features a 96hp aluminum boxer four! Could it use a good helping of extra power? Yes, but for a commuter car, it isn’t egregious. It also comes standard with AWD, has good brakes and safety, and is solidly capable off the beaten path. However, I do struggle to see how this is completely shitty. Is it slow? Yes, definitely. Is it small and done on an oddly proportioned body? Yes. However, the overall package is actually something I find remarkably compelling. It’s a small butch hatch with styling I find somewhat endearingly retro, an openable roof, and it has an interesting engine! I can see how it could sell quite well, to be honest, given the emerging SUV market of the late ‘90s. For $19,800, it isn’t a great value, but you could certainly do much worse. And, for that reason, it simply isn’t “bad” enough to do any better. 83 Points
Crypt’s Review: Well, this is quite the interesting one. It’s gone just a bit all-in on plastic here. The skirts are plastic, the bumpers are plastic, and all of the lights are set in plastic. It’s a scrunched-up, squished little SUV, with odd enough proportions to be just a little off-putting. Unfortunately, it’s not quite off-putting enough, managing to look pretty good despite the proportions. It’s kinda bad, but not particularly ugly - and that is what hurts it. 77.5 Points
