Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

CSR 105 - Does this *$#!ing thing need fuel again?


Preliminaries Part 2

@Repti - Rhisuki Trekka B-12AT
Julie: Wohaaaa, sport!
Gerald: It sure is… something, not necessarily in a bad way though.
Gerald: And an automatic… 8.2L/100 km WITH automatic…
Julie: Not too bad interior?..
Gerald: Enough space…Let’s check it out?
Julie: Sure!

Goes through

@abg7 - GEC GC1 1.4i
Julie: What is up with the name? GC GC number number
Gerald: hey, companies can give weird names sometims, but we can name it whatever?
Julie: it’s green, so, froggie?
Gerald: It sure looks futuristic too, especially from the back.
Julie: oooh, the interior looks nice and futuristic too!

Aaaaand, it goes through.

@Bmaggiori - Giotto Eco LT
Julie: Wow… Those seats are in leather like your couch.
Gerald: Yeah, the interior looks great… The fuel economy though, not so good, and it’s Italian.
Julie: What does that mean grandpa?
Gerald: It breaks down, a lot.
Julie: Soooo… I’d be late for school?
Gerald: Sometimes you could be if we have bad luck…
Julie: LET’S GET IT.
Gerald: no, let’s not.

Not selected, amazing stat though, but its lifetime costs due to mediocre fuel economy and poor reliability weren’t a good way for Gerald to save money. It still could have been in the finals, but the lower than usual safety made me decide against that. (ladder chassis)

@DoctorNarfy - Shromet Radiant
Gerald: It sure looks…Special
Julie: Kinda sporty and playful!
Gerald: But kinda odd,… ah well i can live with it.
Julie: Looks grandpa, it’s pretty cheap too!
Gerald: And not expensive to maintain… Yeah this one’s worth a look. Although hopefully it doesn’t have to come in orange.

Goes through

@Mikonp7 - Popas Rushba
Gerald: I knew it, the soviets are coming.
Julie starts crying.

Binned too for scaring the children, low reliability and well, taking too much fuel away from the capitalists. Freakin commies.

@Oslo - Cayeux CX 1.6
Gerald: Looks quite spiffing.
Julie: Looks charming!
Gerald: it has a “turbo” though… interesting, not sure what that is.
Julie: ooooh, it does look like a comfy car too.
Gerald: not too expensive to run, hell, I can stand this kind of orange.
Julie: No cursing!
Gerald: Sorry sorry! But we’ll be checking this one out.
Julie: Sure!

Goes through

@zschmeez - Albatross Ventura
Gerald: It’s…
Julie: A convertible! Doesn’t that seem like fun Grandpa? Like wheeeee! Best way to go to school! Plus bragging rights.
Gerald: Well, sure, I’m happy that you’re keen on it, but there isn’t a lot of luggage space…
Julie: I could keep the violin on my lap or something, c’mon grandpa, let’s at least go look at it.
Gerald: Alright alright.

Goes through

@machalel - Albere Gille - Le Chiot 1700
Gerald: It’s a van.
Julie: No. It’s a party bus.
Gerald: No playing in the back while I’m driving!
Julie: Awww, it’s so funky looking too, although odd, but funky.
Gerald: Look, we’re not getting a van, it’s a bit too costly for grandpa to drive you and your cousins around in.
Julie: Awwwwwww.

Not selected due to high lifetime costs and subpar compared to more compact approaches in terms of safety and comfort thanks to a ladder chassis with solid axles all around, a valiant entry though, taking another approach.

@yurimacs - Bradford GV1
Julie: it’s a sportscar!
Gerald: No. It’s a plain ol coupe. Although… It goes to 100 km/h within 10s!
Julie: Is that fast?
Gerald: Faster than your Grandpa is used to, that’s for sure.
Julie: Woha!
Gerald: not really that useful to carry you all around with, with that roof dropping off so soon though.
Julie: Yeah, we would get hunchbacks!
Gerald: Okay, maybe it wouldn’t be that bad.

Not selected, turbocharged entry with a relatively good amount of power of a shocking 95 hp. Sadly while interesting an expensive car to buy and own, with low comfort, but high sportiness, which Gerald isn’t all that interested in. But a good eco sportscar with higher tech than it should have.

@Darkshade-AP_Autos - Csirius Erect500
Gerald: Well this is one modern fella.
Julie: Looks alright I think? What do you think of the rest Grandpa?
Gerald: hmm, it isn’t very economical, and doesn’t seem very comfortable either. I think this is a skip.
Julie: seems like it?

Not selected, nice 80’s styling, but the 12.9 L/100 km fuel economy was not competitive. Rather surprisingly it was one of the most expensive cars concerning lifetime costs. Its fuel was not fully used (88 ron), the camshafts need a more eco friendly tune, and the single barrel carb probably didn’t help. Along with a 14.2 fuel mixture. Fully double wishbone chassis, corrosion resistant panels, both which is an expensive investment when designing a car. Good effort, but it seems like you need more experience to be competitive.

@titleguy1 Kimura Auburn

Julie: Yellow!
Gerald: Hm, it looks alright. Fuel economy is alright too.
Julie: Hmmm, looks a bit dull, but I kinda like it.
Gerald: Not too bad to maintain, alright 1.6 engine, Kimura is a respectable brand. But not really exceptional.

Not selected, in this close match, it just didn’t get there, although oh so close. This match is so hard to decide in. I cant just let more through to the finals.

@Private_Miros Cicero Arpino 1500s

Gerald: Hmm, the newspaper is lofty of this car
Julie: Looks, the usual, like a lot of new cars.
Gerald: Ugh, 11.8L fuel economy, and apparently Cicero cars break down pretty easily, somebody at the pub often has his at the repair shop.
Julie: Can I come with you to the pub some time?
Gerald: Absolutely not.

Not selected, pretty average in stats, but with worse fuel economy and reliability, so this fella didnt make it into the finals.

@Quotex GMF Trend
Gerald: What a spiffing ad, truly a display of Flemish prowess.
Julie: yeah yeah, I’m sure you’ll hang a small lion on the rearview mirror again. Isn’t it kinda small?
Gerald: I think you all will fit in it alright though, it’s pretty cheap too.
Julie: I guess it’s alright yeah, smol carrr.
Gerald: Nothing else to really flaw it… at that price… Yeah let’s go look at this Belgian marvel!
Julie sighs.

Goes through.

@thecarlover - Cascadia Combo Safari
Julie: Hey that looks pretty cool for a car with that shape, and look. it says it’s frugal!
Gerald: I suppose it does for a wagon, but I wouldn’t exactly call 11 L/100km frugal though…
Julie: Plenty of space for us though, and look at that interior!
Gerald: Holy… Leather seats, good 8 track thingy. Okay, it’s expensive, but wow.
Julie: Can we go look at it then? Pretty pleaaase?
Gerald: Alright alright, let’s put it on our list.

Goes through.

@USDMFTW Hawker Leopard
Julie: Hmmm, looks a bit dull, and a bit weird.
Gerald: it isn’t a bad car though, and it has good fuel economy.
Julie: Still, its name is Leopard but it looks nothing like one! How odd is that!
Gerald: you don’t like it then?
Julie: Nope.

Not selected, good fuel economy, average overall, but to me doesn’t score that well on looks, very close to a finalist entry otherwise.

@donutsnail Legion Sparrow 1.4tci Turbo
Gerald starts laughing.
Julie: W-what? The car looks good to me though.
Gerald: No, no it’s not that, this fuel economy, if this is true, oh dear lord yes.

It goes through.

@NormanVauxhall - Znopresk ZAP
Gerald: These fuel economies, wow, the cars in these latest ad sure are picking up their game.
Julie: Looks a bit bland though?
Gerald: True, but it is cheap after all, and good for what it is.
Julie: You really wanna give it a shot?
Gerald: Kinda want to yeah.
Julie: sureee, I’m alright to give it a shot then.
Gerald: …I thought this was going to be m- ah whatever.

Goes through

@Continent - Wissen Folk
Gerald: Ooooh, look neat.
Julie: It does look different at least, yes!
Gerald: Fuel economy isn’t bad…oh wait, it… isn’t a very safe car.
Julie: You don’t feel like trying it out then?
Gerald: It is tempting, but I don’t want to end up in a dit- I mean get hit by a drunk driver with this car with you lot in it.

Not selected, very competitive, but just not safe enough for a tree hugging like Gerald did, and that memory has not left him. Henche why it was VERY close to getting into the finals, but did not. Great design too.

@CMT - CMT Mantra CLX
Gerald: Hmmm, sure looks unique.
Julie: Looks playful!
Gerald: It is very safe too, but ugh, expensive.
Julie: What about the rest? Boxy futuristic?
Gerald: Sure looks alright for the rest… nothing too special, not the most reliable brand, but kinda is what I’m looking for.
Julie: That was the last of the newspapers then, looks like we got our last entry to the list.

Goes through.

Alriiiight, finals are following, that’s the end of the blurbs. Time to get more in depth tomorrow.

Possibly thanks to the budget, the competition is very tight, so in the end to not get my head in to deep with too many finalists I really was picky at times, my apologies for that. It’s a harsh competition, and sometimes a detail can make all the difference when everything is closely matched.


this was my first 70’s design, so I understand not doing good in this.


Is that a typo ??


I just love the communist ads and propaganda. They are hilarious.


i guess i should have spent more time choosing my suspension types and tuning the setup. Good luck to everyone that got through, some really good entries there


I feel relieved about this, quite frankly. Especially since I haven’t qualified for the second round of any CSR in ages. But I deserved to do so - the exterior styling of the GC1 really is on point and suitable for the 80s, as the blurb clearly states.


Almost on the finals…
O choose ladder to make it cheaper and confort…

Good Luck to the finalists


CSR 105 - Finals part 1

@MGR_99 - Aumilla Vertra 1800AE
Arriving at the Aumilla dealership, it wasn’t hard for them to spot the car they were looking for.
Gerald: Well, that green sure pops.
Julie: C’mon let’s go look at it! I love the stripe n all!
After being greeted by a salesman and booking a test drive they soon were on their way.

The torque curve eagered Gerald to shift quite late to his liking, coming on only at 2300 rpm, but it was an alright engine, definitely for its economy of 9.5L / 100 km it still made 77 hp and 123 Nm. Using very fresh efi tech. Having only one muffler it isn’t the quitest, but it certainly wasn’t obnoxiously loud, just a small brrrrrr in the distance to remind them that there indeed was an engine in the front.

The brakes did their job alright, always delivering enough force, but during the hard stop the rear wheels locked up first, causing the tail to step out slightly, catching Gerald by surprise. Still, nothing bad, and stops in 45 m from 100 km/h when you get your footwork right.

The interior was a nice cabin to be in, with standard interior and basic 8 track it suited the grandchildren job getter perfectly and Julie could appreciate the bit more quality in the cloth and seat padding. The suspension though, well, the springs are not the softest, with mcphersons and a torsion beam. it wasn’t bad, but the car felt somewhat floaty over the bumps with the very soft dampers in contrast, although it soaked them up alright.

Service costs at 537.8 is a tad over average, but luckily so is the reliability at 60.1, not the cheapest to maintain, but certainly not too keen to spontaneously combust either.

Conclusion: Nice looker, good amount of space, okay-ish engine, alright comfort, not too bad on the budget.

@TheTechnoVampire - Juniper Halo 16V Injection
Julie: Woo, the other flashy car!

Well, if anything, this car has got a sporty character, a very rally look which is fun for the kids, and hell, it kinda really is sporty on a very budget way.

The engine, boy, it’s a little engine that could, relatively aggressive on the cams with a 42 setting, giving the car not bad mid range torque, peaking at 113 Nm, but not much down below. Top power being 76 hp with a lot of dropoff at the end. Not really the kind of torque curve for Gerald’s use though, leaving him short shifting quite low on the power. Surprisingly this gives 9.6 L/100 km fuel economy, definitely not bad for an engine with sporty camshafts.

It has good brakes, both front and back locking up about at the same time, stopping in 41.4 metres.

4 seats on the inside, with an alright boot, bit of quality here too like in the Aumilla. 4 seats should do the trick, and it isn’t a bad place to be, so it checks the boxes in that regard. The boot has a small entry as a saloon, but hey, gotta make some sacrifices for a charming look.

Suspension tuning is… good, surprisingly not firm despite its looks, and performs quite well for any scenario, definitely not breaking Gerald’s poor back.

Service costs at 584.4 is on the high end, and its reliability well, about average here at 58.2 (overall average in this CSR is 57.9). Making this car a more expensive option to run, together with its fuel economy, although it isn’t bad.

Conclusion: Charming car, okay space, engine is not too suited for Gerald, alright comfort, meh on the budget but not too expensive to buy at 12600.

@Xepy - Kuma SU15i

Julie: hey, it’s the you-car!
Gerald: Well, it sure is a pretty good looker to me, definitely in the flesh.
Julie: I suppose it’s alright? Let’s go drive it!

Well, it’s a pretty quiet engine at 27.2 loudness, and is one of the first truly economical ones, giving 8.4 L/10km fuel economy, while still pumping out 67 horses. It doesn’t have a lot of torque, giving 100+ Nm 2000-4400 rpm, it is a quite flat torque, so not too bad to drive with at all. Overall one darn good motor, although a good investment went in here with the mechanical fuel injection and 1.8L family size (1.5L variant).

The brakes, well, the fronts lock up first quite safely, still pretty neutral though, and gives a stopping distance of 42.6 m, pretty good.

Take that quality of the previous interiors, and one up it, beating the previous cars Gerald and Julie had looked at. But what it gained in interior comfort, it gives back on the suspension setup. Although using fully independent suspension (mcpherson, trailing arm) it is set up not floaty at all, with a very confidence inspiring ride. What this does though, obviously, is making the car very driveable for Gerald, hurray for no more near cow tackles… hopefully.

Once again, service costs quite higher at 545.6 due to that fancy injection tech, but, this car is one reliable bugger having 61.4, so unexpected issues should be about as rare as Gerald going to the pub and not drinking. (so yes, pretty rare)

Conclusion: Great on the budget, okay space, good engine, alright comfort and really driveable.

@racer126 - Geschenk Güey
Gosh, where have I seen this car before?

Anyhow, let’s start off with the engine again. 70 hp, but torque coming on quite late with its 42 cam setup. Fancy mechanical totally-not-golf-gti injection. One muffler, but one hella fancy muffler, still, not the quitest, but it’s getting there. It also has a good, yet healthy dropoff.

The interior though, it has your usual standard seats, but wait, there’s more! 4 whole speakers, wahey! Gerald is not sure about it, but it sure could be neat to blast kid sounds loud enough for the neighbourhood to hear. Quality isn’t above and beyond like the others, but hey, this car got a nice entertainment trick up its sleeve. Sadly though, its interior isn’t the safest, especially compared to the others.

The suspension setup is pretty good, not too stiff not too soft, with the car behaving pretty good, although the back sometimes gives some odd bounces after going over a bump, which is a bit of a shame.

Oh, and yeah, this car also, got pretty neat fuel consumption, 8.5L /100 km? Well played, sadly though, it is kinda offset with the below average reliability, Gerald may have to fear that totally-not-golf check engine light.

Conclusion: Good eco but lifetime costs are due to the reliability nothing special, alright comfort with fancy speakers, pretty driveable.

@Ryan93 - Eigle Innovation

Gerald: Spiffing.
Julie: Hmmmm, even now I’m not sure…

Definitely has that grandparent look to it, this car, maybe a bit too much though? Ah well, let’s have a gander at the engine… Well well, isn’t that a nice little torque curve, almost perfectly 100 Nm 1800 - 3500 rpm, perfect for your usual driver. Not a lot of hp for climbing mountains, just 56 hp, but who are we kidding here, Belgium is as flat as board, and Gerald isn’t likely to do many overtakes to begin with. Again, alright with the silence, but not the sound of silence either. So the usual for this age, a great engine though, also opting for carbs instead of the more fancy and expensive injection tech. Sadly though, carbs still make this car consume 9L/100 km

The interior may be nothing too special, standard with your basic 8track, but the suspension? Properly plush tuned, nice n soft for poor Gerald’s back, pretty safe too, resulting in the best comfort and safety so far, giving 15.7 comfort and 34.7 safety probably also helped by the fact it has fancy powered steering.
It is reliable, sadly still not the cheapest to maintain, but hell, it’s reliable, resulting in pretty good lifetime costs.

Conclusion: Strong little contender, not the most exciting looks, but a great overall performer with a great engine.

@CorsicaUnknown - Sisten Trebla 1.6 Super
Well well, what a looker, really well designed car with a fun look.

The engine? Forget yo inline machines, this is a boxer boi, and one torque-y one, comes on not too early, but grabs 125 Nm of torque already at 2400 rpm. Ending up with 78 hp. This car is actually a pretty good performer in that regard, especially if you consider the economy, 8.0 L/100 km. Manages to pull the emissions off without a cat thanks to the engine being fully aluminium too. A little marvel of an engine this is, also really damn quiet and low on vibrations.

The brakes though, well, the rears are more keen on locking up, although not by much, not the safest emergency stops, not to mention the ladder chassis probably resulting into nasties with a crash. yeah, this isn’t the safest car of the selected bunch, but let’s move on from that.

The interior is of good quality with your usual standard seats and basic 8 track, the usual Gerald and Julie by now having gotten used to, although thanks to its smooth engine and suspension tune, which, although not that soft, is rather confidence inspiring.

Now, let’s talk money, because this fella is good at that, damn good. Great reliability of 60.9 with relatively low service costs (471.9) and great fuel economy, means this car is cheap to own. And did it do much wrong asides from the safety? No, not really no. A strong contender indeed.

Conclusion: Great overall contender, just low safety, which may not fare well after Gerald’s incident.

@ST1Letho - CMZ R12
Well, let’s have a look what’s under the hood…nothing, and more nothing than you’d expect, heh, now this is rather embarrassing. Right, let’s have a look what’s in the back then.
A small modest 1.2L inline 4, alright/good power of 61 hp, but the meager torque of 89 Nm comes on only at 3300 rpm, and well, the engine is pretty dead down below, I guess that’s what a camshaft profile of 46 does. It is also not too loud though, and despite the cam profile the car manages a 9.2 L /100 km economy, not too bad.

Comfort wise, well, it’s the good ol’ standard interior basic 8 track with some quality, but it got a well tuned suspension, which, is rather fancy, double wishbones up front even, with phersons in the back, back aches no more! Also, the engine in the back rather helps the steering too, making good ol’ Gerald work less to turn the wheels… unless if the grandkids wanna bring something heavy along, well, as long it’s not bricks or something Gerald should be fine?

The service costs though, ohboy, 618.9 may be one of the highest of all entries, together with average reliability and well, pretty good but nothing special fuel economy, this may cost Gerald some money over the years.

Conclusion: Great comfort for gerald, good for the kids, mediocre engine in the back, but an interesting approach with overall pretty strong result, but rather expensive.

@Repti - Rhisuki Trekka B-12AT
it’s yellow, it’s a sedan, it’s…not a taxi? Some cool styling going on here though.

Under the hood, you indeed find an engine this time round, and it’s a boxer 4. Another aluminium solution that has no need for a cat hiding in the car, with a 97 Nm torque at the best of times, kicking in at around 2400 rpm. Not the earliest torque, but still relatively useable, dropping off at around 3800 rpm. Not the quitest engine though, having 36 loudness, but a very smooth one (68). Would this make a good (grandchildren) taxi then? Well, the rumble sure would be there, but it’s a quite refined engine for the rest.

This car has a got an ace up its sleeve though, an ace for people who hate driving cars, it’s an automatic Yeah boys and girls, this gets 8.2 L/100km, with an automatic transmission. Now that is rather impressive, and makes, together with confidence inspiring grandchildren carrying suspension for a car that’s really easy to drive. Perfect after a visit to the pub…lic office, yes.

Service cost wise, it’s on the lower side, 485.2, but it’s also… not the most reliable of cars, being slightly below average at 57.2. Still, with its marvellous fuel economy, a cheap car to own.

Conclusion: Good engine, comfortable, easy to drive, quite funky design. Giving me very little to fault this car, making it an impressive all rounder.

@abg7 - GEC GC1 1.4i

Tad too modern design, but it passes. Not sure about this neon green for its time either, but hey, always can be changed.

As for the mechanics, well, frick, it’s a good little engine. A small 1.4L engine with flat torque for days, giving 95 Nm of torque from 1600 rpm to 4000 rpm. The most useful powerband I’ve seen so far for eco driving due to how early it kicks in. Giving a fuel economy of 8.6L / 100 km. Its somewhat hampered by its gearing for eco driving, due to not having an overdrive gear. 56 hp is modest to say the least, but does the trick for what Gerald has to do.

The rest of the car is well sorted, maybe too little brake power for when it is carrying 3 grandchildren or so to fully utilize the tyres for an emergency stop, but in other aspects this car has nothing much to write home about asides from it being damn well sorted. The usual interior we’ve come to expect, great suspension tuning which strikes a balance between comfort and driving confidence, resulting into good score for both comfort and driveability, although the suspension tuning could be better arranged for the scenario once again, when the car is carrying more than just Gerald himself.

Conclusion: passable design, great engineering for the rest, but nothing really to set itself apart. Strong contender overall.

So this was part 1, part 2 following later

9 finalists down, 8 to go, seriously what did I get myself into selecting 17 finalists?


Very excited that my first ever CSR entry has made it to the finals!


That is a quite strong and close competition. I guess the Mantra won’t survive this second round as it is too expensive to buy and does not stand out in terms of economy and power, the only thing that makes the Mantra a strong contender is it’s galvanized Chassis and the excellent safety combined with bearable Service cost. I think this is not enough to defend cars like the Trebla, but let’s see. :slight_smile:


Respect, I started with CSR94 or so and didn’t get through the preliminaries once.


This is the first one for me, and I got through preliminares. I guess it is just a begginers luck. To be fair I dont really have a lot of faith into my creation.


Either that, or I think way to realistic. What I have noticed is that although they have a lore which determines a certain character to the customer, the host always decides by his own taste and not really the one of the character created.
And if I misjudge that, I would have been a bad car salesman but I wasn’t. Very opposite in fact.


Well the customer is infact the host. If I understand CSR correctly.


Do you have any intention or interest in buying an eco 70s car? The worst era there was?
If not, you won’t be in character. I understand that these are only scenarios, but a cheapstake like Gerald would most likely not care for any plush interiour, if he drove a Peugeot before that.


CSR 105 - Finals part 2

@DoctorNarfy - Shromet Radiant Sport

Well, I know beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but although nicely quirky, this rear end seems too modern, and overall the car looks rather odd to me. But I appreciate the effort to try be unique. Also, is that a bloody fuel filler cap right next to where the kids are supposed to sit? Ah whatever.

As for the engine, did someone call 1-800-TORQUE? Jfc, it already got 107 Nm of torque at 1400 rpm, and still got it 2000 rpm’s later. This engine loves being shortshifted, and makes it rather good for eco driving, but well, it has pushrods, yup, pushrod valvetrain. Now the torque makes sense but… it isn’t the most efficient valvetrain either. Resulting into the car still consuming 9.6L / 100km.

Interior wise… It is… more modest than the other cars they’ve looked at, being very basicly clad with no real eye for additional finish or padding, still got that 8 track though. What it does have however is double wishbone suspension on all corners. So, you’re sitting on harsh stuff, but the harsh stuff of the road is soaked up rather well. Still, it makes the car cheap to buy, but the grandchildren may still prefer to sit in the “fancier” interiors of the other family members.

Costs wise, whew, cheap servicing 314.2, not sure how it is possible, but that is neat. along with a 61.9 reliability this car is very cheap to keep running mechanically, just the fuel economy letting it down to be a proper eco rocket.

Conclusion: Cheap to buy, cheap to maintain, but not so cheap to refuel, and the interior is lacklustre compared to its competitors, also odd design.

@Oslo - Cayeux CX 1.6

Nice vinyl roofline, kinda classic, but looks pretty neat and has some character, especially with the colour, neat.

Now, this car is rather on the top of the budget, not cheap to run due to being relatively unreliable, 56.3 reliability is significantly under the 58 overall average, and its fuel economy is 9.2 L / 100 km. Also at the very top of Gerald’s purchase budget. What it does have though, is space, plenty of it. Also a very comfortable car, not due to a very plush interior but…
When you look under the bonnet, you get to see an 1.7L that has a snail attached to its exhaust, the exotic turbocharger technology. Now it is not the most responsive, it’s cutting edge early technology after all. But it helps the car develop a rather mad 154 Nm of torque. Helping the 1 tonne vehicle to still get that fuel economy, although at the price of having poor reliability, but being quite silent.
For the rest? Your usual vehicle, slightly laggy turbo that Gerald has to get used to, but it’s spacious.
Although, the front brakes, they never lock up, ever, making the car a quite slow stopper relatively, that’s its one most major flaw.

Conclusion: Expensive but strong contender, but expensive.

@zschmeez - Albatross Ventura

Convertible boi! Sure adds more flair, actually interesting for kids, although them trying to climb out may be a concern. Simple styling for the rest, but it works for the era.

Engine wise, quite torquey, 130 Nm of torque, although coming on later than one would like in a perfect world, it certainly isn’t bad and maybe even on the sporty side. Well, sporty without the huge consumption, not a eco hero, but 9.4 L/100 km isn’t terrible.

The brakes hardly ever lock up though, especially with kids aboard. Also not the most comfortable vehicle with its soft roof, lower safety, and it is on the harder side to drive. It is however alright with the interior and suspension, so really, actually the comfort is nice if the grandchildren like a nice sunny drive, but maybe a bit miserable in the rain.

Conclusion: Fun little “wildcard” entry, actually almost competitive for a top position, but its important stats are just too low.

@Quotex - GAF Trend 1.3 GLS
Charming lil car, but is it up to the competition?

Well, it has a modest, yet adequate engine, although it too has a later torque raise, but still acceptable at 2400 rpm. Not much torque to write home about though, just 87 Nm. But then again, it is a pretty light car. Still though, despite its small engine and size, the economy still is 9.3 L / 100 km, which isn’t bad, but nothing stellar.
Its brakes are good, but possibly only because its tyres aren’t. Despite its interior being about what we’ve gotten to expect with standard seats and a basic 8 track player, it scores fairly good for comfort thanks to good suspension tuning.
Is it cheap to run though? Well, service costs are average, 533.4 with average reliability, so nothing stellar here either. It is cheap to buy though, at 11200.

In short: a good all rounder, but nothing great, but at a pretty cheap purchase price. Sadly for it though the long term costs aren’t all that in its favor.

@thecarlover - Cascadia Combo Safari

Now this also is a wagon that is good looking, almost adventurous even.

Right, let’s slap that bonnet and look what’s hiding underneath it. Whew, torque coming on nice n early, at about 1800 rpm, 110 Nm, which should be adequate for its size. Quite interestingly though, this engine drives the rear wheels and not the front, bold move. Does it pay off? Well, the driveability still is good even compared to its FWD counterparts, so not too bad. Overall a pretty good power unit, but not the most economical one, gulping down 11 Litres every 100 km, being thirsty as hell.

As for the chassis, well, its front brakes dont lock up, so its stopping distance isnt great, but with medium compound, it still is very competitive. Its interior though, whew, now, that interior is a resort compared to others. Premium seats, 4 speakers, good 8 track. It’s almost a bouncy castle for the grand kids, a luxurious bouncy castle. The suspension is alright too.
The thing is though, the way Gerald looked at his wallet with pain. The kind of money this would cost over the years would be scarcely what he could afford.

Conclusion: Great comfort, but also at a great price.

@donutsnail - Legion Sparrow 1.4tci Turbo
Maybe a bit on the classic look, but the design has character, creating continuing lines and interesting shapes.

Well, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: 7.25 L / 100 km. What a fuel economy. How? A very, very low boost turbo, boosting only 0.44 bar, but that’s enough to make the car very econominal. Hell, it brings all of the modern eco tricks to the old times. squeezed that 1.4L in that’s just small enough to leave the car FWD. It is a quite laggy turbo though, so real life figures may differ drastically I recon. Still probably would be damn economical though. Surprisingly cheap to maintain too, 355.8 service costs with average reliability. This car is the cheapest to both keep in good condition and refuel way ahead of the rest. Still, the engine has a bit of a too modern design to be true back in its time, so I’m docking some points for that, but still very impressive.

What does the car have going for the rest though? Very little, it’s clear a lot of the budget went into the engine. The interior is subpar compared to the rest, only having basic seats and basic safety considerations. Still, the car’s engineering is almost scarily on point for the brakes, suspension and gearing. Suspension may be a tad on the stiff side, but that’s about the only of my criticism.

Conclusion: Car that lives up to its creator’s name, quite laggy turbo. Tad too modern engine design, and very basic for the rest, But it is a strong eco shitbox. Very cheap on Gerald’s money.

@NormanVauxhall - Znopresk Zap 1100E

What a lil eco bugger, it has some charm this design, the white doesn’t help it, but it’s supposed to be cheap after all.

Now, what the Legion needed to have a turbo for, the Zap does almost without, with an economy of 7.6L / 100 km. Just an naturally aspirated 1.25L inline 3. Is it smooth running and silent? oh by the gods no. Is it powerful? Still nowhere close. But it is very economical with still sufficient power, although it is getting real low with 48 horses. Still, torque is almost there at 2000 rpm, with no need for a cat.

The interior, surprisingly enough for its low 11k price, has standard seats and a basic 8 track entertainment box. It is rather cramped inside though, especially at the back. Still, well tuned suspension, although somewhat floaty, hampering how confidence inspiring it is to drive.

The biggest bane of its existence however, is its Italian nature, it likes to break down, a lot. With 55.6 reliability it is significantly below average, increasing its lifetime costs significantly, despite its great economy.

Conclusion: great eco, but still manages to be quite costly sadly enough. Very well sorted for its purchase price.

@CMT - CMT Mantra CLX
Funky 80’s styling, maybe a bit too funky and 80’s to my taste, but not bad. Still has a way to go to touch the styling of some entries here.

Now the engine, pretty torquey, not fully came on by 2400 rpm, but almost there, so again, bit of a late shifter, or makes it feel like you have to shift late. Very torquey power up top, so the 64 hp are more powerful than you’d think. It is not a loud engine, but the reverse flow - then baffled exhaust setup is interesting, could be more silent the other way round. This engine also managed to meet emissions without the use of a cat, not the leanest running either, so it could have had better economy than its 9.6 L/ 100 km.

The comfort of its interior is very comparable to the rest, maybe a bit less, lacking that extra touch, and its suspension is set almost to the sporty side. What it does have going for it though, is that it is very safe, 37.4 safe. Crash it against a tree? Almost no problemo… almost, hey everythi ng is relative.

Conclusion: Too weak comfort compared to the competition, but a very safe vehicle, which is good when carrying other people’s kids. Still, not cheap for what it really is.

Alright, so, whew, this was hard to pick in between. There were a few outstanding vehicles though, so without further ado, I’ll release the final top rankings here:


6th - @NormanVauxhall for a classic eco shitbox very well executed, asides for reliability.
5th - @CorsicaUnknown for making the sexy Sisten, very strong overall, but had a hard safety flaw.
4th - @zschmeez for making the best wildcard entry. Now a convertible is something that gives you an edge in the fierce grandparent competition, and it was pretty competitive despite the sacrifices it made to be a convertible, in the end not competitive enough, but hats off to you sir.
3rd - @donutsnail for making the cheapest option long term by a mile, the eco shitbox was strong in this one, although its engine design a tad too modern approach to be realistic.
2nd - @Oslo for making the most comfortable car that still is somewhat affordable, was too expensive in the end to win, but it was closer to some eco shitboxes in terms of cost than you’d expect.
1st - @Repti for making the strongest all-rounder, and as such the top grandchildren hauler


I like the Legion Sparrow. May it be possible for me to acquire such car?


Okay this is a suprise a big one. I said that I didn’t had much of faith for my submittion but it somehow ended 2nd. @Dragawn thanks for hosting this one it was a good one. The competition was harsh.

About the next CSR I will be able to host if the @Repti won’t be able to. Just don’t expect much from me cause I have never done it before!


Knew the Honghu wouldn’t do well submitting it, but great fun reading through the reviews. Thanks for a good round Dragawn!


Mission accomplished! I remember having a fantastic time in my grandpa’s 1979 450SL when I was little, and I thought that excitement would translate to the game and these grandkids. Thanks for an excellent competition!