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

Generations II: The Full Line Challenge [LORE][FINAL SCORES]


Hakumai’s terrible time-1989-1991
The company hasn’t gone well in the shares lately, Owners sold the company to the government to keep it running, Company being given 2.8 Billion by them to stay alive, but still didnt have enough to go back to normal, nor to keep producing cars in bulk


1991 Rocha Colorado 640

1991 Rocha Dallas 650

1991 Rocha Rocket 416 Turbo


1991 Models

RCM Labrador

Facelifted for 1991, the RCM Labrador has the popular Expedition model updated for families wanting an offroad ready SUV while the all-new Premier model offers wealthy buyers the option of a well appointed vehicle with enough towing capacity to pull their yacht or luxury travel trailer.

Solo Radical

As Solo’s first new model since the brand’s introduction in 1989, the Radical is aimed squarely at young buyers who want something both fun and efficient on a tight budget.


Submissions are closed. However, since it’s Halloween, I will not be doing full processing tonight.


OK, while I may not be doing ALL of the processing today, I am doing the base processing today.

And I’m really, really tired of something. And I’ve tried being polite. I have tried explaining this multiple times in PMs when this person submits. I am done being polite, I am done being private, and I am done putting up with blatant disregard of the rules of this competition.

@interior - I am now going to stop looking at any duplicate-class entry you provide. You provided me TWO sport compacts and no luxury or SUV. Therefore, though you “submitted” 2 cars, you get credit for only one. Starting now and going forward, that means I grade the first car in a class I open up. In this case, your 250XR gets counted and your 300LT gets instabinned.

In case I somehow haven’t made it explicitly clear over the multiple PMs and in the initial rules, YOU ARE TO PROVIDE ONE AND ONLY ONE CAR PER CLASS.

And because you keep doing this, I’m now going to up the penalty for missing submissions from a 40% max placeholder score to a 30% max placeholder score.


all this for nothing, 4 cars a round- 3 car classes, then i come to this


if you dont want me to use up 4 slots yet theres only 3 car classes, then i wont do 4 cars- simple as that, i dont want to argue, nor do i have the time to today, i dont really wanna just go after anyone, its not my fault theres no fucking economy car category because now it falls under sport compact, what do you expect me to do? put one of them under a luxury entry, @VicVictory if i even put out one car you’re probably gonna complain. if you dont want to have duplicate entries, thats fine with me, but complaining about it

TLDR: 3 CAR CLASSES Yet i have to submit 4

im done being nice to this challenge, if all this is now is just binning upon binning because duplicate classes


This isn’t a 4 car round. It’s a 3 car round. 3 categories = 3 cars. One car per category. This means exactly ONE Sport Compact, ONE Luxury/Executive, AND ONE SUV.

I get that your company isn’t quite full-line, so when you don’t submit a category you have been getting at least some credit instead of a flat out zero in the missed category.

In competitions, it is incumbent on the contestant to make sure their submissions adhere to the rules put forth by the host. And I have been very lenient on you in the past.

You’ve sent in multiple cars under one category. I asked you not to do that. You did it anyway. I tried to sort out your entries by making one of your duplicates an entry into a category you didn’t submit. you kept doing it. I asked you to resubmit an appropriate entry for a category. You refused to do that. I asked you multiple times to submit all of your cars at once, not piecemeal over the course of the submission period. You have only managed to comply with that once.

You are the only one to have any issues following the requirements in well over a hundred entries for this competition. The problem here is you. You have an issue following basic instructions.

Of course you’ve decided to make this about design and not the actual problem, so while you’re going to complain about there not being an economy car category, just know that there are 2 cars submitted as Sport Compacts this round that are very much economy cars. Their company owners are throwing the dice to see how they work. I know neither of them are going to whine if they don’t score well, because they understand that they are taking a gamble. Most of your designs so far have been very low-effort, poorly thought out designs, which is why they have scored how they have. The 250XR is actually the first car I’ve seen from you that has broken this pattern.


The rules aren’t that hard to follow. If you needed clarity all you needed to do was ask, and if you were already informed as to how the rounds worked, all you needed to do was comply.

I’ve had that obscurity before when I was submitting the King, I had 2 trims i.e 2 cars for the same category. Vic made it clear that it was only one car per category, and guess what? I submitted the one I think would compete best… problem solved.

If you made a mistake that’s normal, but if you keep on doing the same thing over and over again that’s against the terms of the competion, to me it means that you didn’t care in the first place.


i dont spend years on my designs, not even days, i get theyre low effort, but i have more things to do other than Discourse, all i care about is the ratings and scores


@Interior, dude, if you don’t understand something and need help or clarification, PM me your problem and I’ll try to help you out. Don’t suffer in silence; PM me and I’ll do what I can.

But you do need to just stop, take a breath and apologise to Vic. @VicVictory is a long standing forum competition host and is EXTREMELY for giving and helpful. When he gets mad, you’ve crossed the line by a mile and need to get back on track. Vic still lets me compete in his competitions despite the terrible mistakes I’ve made in the past, so you can be assured that he’ll not hold this against you, just listen, learn and do better next time!

I have a bad feeling about this; My car isn’t one of these and it isn’t as cool as the sports coupes… Sheesh, did it suddenly get hot in here?


i’m sorry for trying to start an argument over duped vehicles @VicVictory, Yes text format doesnt express emotions well i understand that, i dont mean to be aggressive over it.


And yes, it did get hot in here, sometimes i cant get my way and just decide to cause something because of it, but i understand that the rules exist, and 3 cars, 3 classes


Huh? I wasn’t referring to your, ahem, indiscretion, hahahaha!!! I was making a joke about my entry most likely coming last!

I have been playing Generations II with an odd set of restrictions, thanks to watching a Killrob let’s play where he used only pushrod engines, and I think my company’s about to hit the wall, both financially and competitively, hahahaha!!!


oh no


Apology accepted.

The results should be done tonight.


My “sports compact” car is based on the chassis and running gear of an intermediate family car… go fig. :joy:

We live and we learn brother. I commend you for not blowing up even more. Let’s learn and move forward and have some fun!


Best of Sport Compact Class - 1991

Rocha Rocket 416 Turbo

There was once a time when manufacturers stuffed large, powerful engines in their smaller body sedans and called them “Pony Cars”. Popular and easily able to blend in with traffic, they were in a way a poor man’s every day performance car. But the Oil Crisis of nearly 20 years essentially killed them off.

Now come their spiritual successors. The Sport Compact. Small, efficient, usable for everyday commutes, yet packing a punch while still maintaining reasonable sized engines. Over the past few years, we have seen just about every manufacturer begin to offer some form of this vehicle. This year, we test them all in a massive free-for-all brawl.

The winner? Scrappy Brazilian manufacturer Rocha, with their Rocket 416 Turbo.

For a car with just a small 1.6 liter engine, the turbocharged Rocket crams a decent amount of power and fun under the hood. 98 horsepower and 111 lb-ft of torque is by no means best in class, but the lightweight frame is moved around surprisingly well.

But Rocha wasn’t content to just sit by and let its pint size pugilist try to slug it out without an ace up their sleeve. And that factor is its class-leading interior. When one opens the doors to a Rocket Turbo, they are greeted by a pair of well-bolstered cloth-and-leather seats. The driver’s seat includes power adjustment for seating position, and a manual lumbar adjustment. A small storage bin is located behind the front seats, and a generous glove compartment is within easy reach of the passenger. Other appointments include standard central locking, power mirrors, windows, and steering, and a top-notch 150 watt AM/FM stereo with auto-reverse cassette player. Only Courageux offers anywhere close to this level of opulence, but Rocha doesn’t compromise at all on its fun factor.

Or fuel economy, which returned north of 26 miles per gallon combined on our test loop.

It’s true that a Rocha Rocket Turbo gets pretty close in price to some smaller Executive sedans, but we do believe it’s well worth it for those whose budgets can stretch that far. Or those with a healthy budget but an eye towards economical living.

Solo Radical 1.7

“…one of the more inexpensive models. More of an economy car in a sporty body, it’s still quite good in our view…”

Pros: Low purchase cost, great fuel economy, good drivability, decent reliability
Cons: Poor sportiness

Ardent Marathon GT V6

“…one of the fastest in the group in a straight line. It may not be quite as posh as the Rocha, but it can carry two more (small) passengers, and is easier to live with on a daily basis that many others…”

Pros: Best in class environmental resistance, good drivability, good sportiness, good comfort
Cons: Subpar reliability

Hampton Fennec Mk.III 1.8 3-door
TIE - 4th

“…a bit of a gussied up economy car. It’s way more fun to drive than a gas can on wheels, but not up to the task of taking on the rest of this field in a slalom…”

Pros: Best in class drivability, best in class fuel economy, relatively low purchase price, good environmental resistance
Cons: Worst in class sportiness, poor reliability

Bogliq Beagle 525S
TIE - 4th

“…great fun at a reasonable price. Bogliq owners should be pleased with this model’s reliability, at least once the recall for radio fires has been completed. Still, in our week-long test, it became rather “blah” over time…”

Pros: Great sportiness, great reliability, low purchase cost
Cons: Mediocre to poor in all other aspects

Earl UFO Turbo

“…very inexpensive to get into, great on gas, but also more squirrely than a Central Park…”

Pros: Low purchase cost, good fuel economy, good reliability
Cons: Worst in class drivability, poor environmental resistance

Courageux 15 Series 2 S16*

“…material quality and interior features on par with the Rocha. Surprisingly, this model tops our expected reliability chart for this model. Unfortunately that’s where any distinction ends…”

Pros: Best in class reliability, great comfort
Cons: Poor sportiness, high purchase cost, poor environmental resistance

Bambi Dominator

“…least expensive model in the class. While it was fun to throw around for a few days, our staff didn’t feel that this was something they’d go for long-term…”

Pros: Lowest in class purchase price, good sportiness, good environmental resistance
Cons: Poor drivability, poor comfort, poor reliability, worst in class comfort, poor fuel economy

Hakumai 250XR V6

“…from the perspective of pure fun, nothing matches the 250XR. It just fails to stand out in any other positive way…”

Pros: Best in class sportiness, average reliability
Cons: Poor or worst-in-class in every other category

Katsuro Prima KRD

“…frankly for the expense of a Prima, we expected a lot more of, well, everything…”

Pros: Good reliability
Cons: Highest in round purchase cost, otherwise mediocre to poor

Best of Luxury or Executive Class - 1991

Katsuro King

Hail to the King, Baby… again.

Though, as ususal, we have to warn you that you have to be as rich as a king to afford a Katsuro King.

Imagine for a moment. You’re on a long, open highway through the desert at twilight. Perhaps I-15 through the Mojave on your way to Vegas for a weekend on the strip. No, you’re not driving your 8 year old hatchback. Not at all.

Instead, there is a soft, subtle rumble from 12 cylinders as you cruise along, only barely noticeable during the lulls between songs blasting through the crystal-clear stereo. No effort to maintain speed; the computer takes care of such pedestrian concerns for you. Your car cradles you in soft, overstuffed saddle leather seats. You glance down at the climate controls, but don’t need to touch them, as once again the car’s computer holds the perfect temperature, despite the blazing sun now having gone down and the outside temperatures are plummeting.

Only one thing to worry about. What shows will you attend? What games will you try your luck at?

OK, that’s two things. But the King makes every effort of driving absolutely effortless, and in the absolute pinnacle of style.

How could we not choose it?

And now, for the cars you can actually own without a seven figure sports contract…

Rocha Dallas 650

“…it may not be ‘have your own vassals’ kind of comfortable like the King, but we wouldn’t complain about any time we spent driving one of these. Well, except for the possibility of being stranded on the side of the road…”

Pros: Great comfort, great drivability, good safety, good environmental resistance, decent prestige
Cons: Worst in class reliability, high purchase cost

Hampton Vanguard Mk.V V12 Elite

“…another elite luxury car, who unfortunately gets beaten pretty badly in the value category by Rocha…”

Pros: Great prestige, good comfort, great safety, decent drivability
Cons: Poor reliability, high purchase cost

Ardent Chancellor Limited

“…if road manners are as important as creature features, the Ardent is your best bet. It isn’t quite as prestigious as other competitors, as it is the same basic car underneath as the pedestrian Chancellor DL…”

Pros: Relatively low purchase cost, decent comfort, good environmental resistance, best in class drivability
Cons: Poor prestige, subpar safety

Hirondelle Galahad 350

“…the cheapest way to get into the Executive class. Surprisingly well designed inside and out, though suffering from image problems…”

Pros: Lowest in class purchase cost, great reliability, decent comfort, decent safety, Engine of the Year
Cons: Poor prestige, worst in class environmental resistance

Bogliq Baller 258L

“…manages to undercut Ardent in price while still projecting a good image. Unfortunately, it seems Bogliq cut corners with road manners and interior quality to get there…”

Pros: Low purchase cost, best in class environmental resistance
Cons: Poor drivability, poor reliability, subpar comfort

Deer and Hunt Tines Base

“…a sharp, glamorous model that should last a long time. There have been concerns over seat belt anchors…”

Pros: Good prestige, good reliability, decent environmental resistance
Cons: Worst in class safety, poor comfort, subpar drivability

RCM Labrador Premier

“…the mechanicals should last forever. We wouldn’t recommend keeping it beyond your lease expiration though…”

Pros: Best in class reliability
Cons: Worst in class drivability, poor in all other aspects

Courageux 100 GLIe

“…inexpensive, reliable, and uninspired…”

Pros: Low purchase cost, decent reliability
Cons: Worst in class comfort, worst in class prestige, poor in all other aspects

Best of Sport Utility Vehicle Class - 1991

Hampton Braemar 2.8 4x4

Hampton is continually proving they have the formula for Utility vehicles of all sorts. This year, our Sport Utility Vehicle of the year is their Braemar 2.8 4x4.

For a no-frills, inexpensive utility, it oozes capability.

Locking hubs in its 4WD system guarantee traction in the worst muddy and rocky terrain. Plenty of ground clearance means little chance of high centering and damaging critical components. And yet another bonus of the Braemar is that it is expected to have reliability best described as “bulletproof”.

If a formula works, why change it? Hampton understands this well.

Earl Pioneer LE

“…much more comfortable for long trips than the Braemar, and with a little more cargo space. It would have gotten our nod if it weren’t for some instances of shoddy rustproofing, and a 4 wheel drive system that’s just not quite as robust…”

Pros: Low purchase cost, great practicality, good reliability, decent drivability
Cons: Subpar environmental resistance

Katsuro Land Climber

“…can go farther afield than even the Braemar. That’s what five thousand extra dollars can buy you, in any case. What it can’t buy you is a car-like ride on the highway…”

Pros: Best in class offroad, best in class practicality, best in class environmental resistance
Cons: Worst in class drivability, highest in class purchase cost.

Courageux 15 Series 2 4ALL

“…not a tall, tough truck-based utility like its competitors. Still, quite capable on forest roads, and possibly the finest overall on-road ride of the group…”

Pros: Best in class drivability, great comfort
Cons: Worst in class offroad, poor reliability, poor environmental resistance

Rocha Colorado 640

“…more capable than the Courageux, and similarly divine on-road. We just felt there were more shortcomings…”

Pros: Best in class comfort, great drivability
Cons: Poor offroad, worst in class environmental resistance, worst in class reliability

Ardent Ozette GL 4WD Soft Top

“…still our favorite smaller lifestyle vehicle, but it can’t compete with the larger models as far as comfort or usability. We’re anxiously awaiting the release of the larger Ardent Hood…”

Pros: Lowest in class purchase cost, good environmental resistance, decent offroad
Cons: Worst in class comfort, poor practicality

RCM Labrador Expedition

“…very capable and relilable. But the price just doesn’t justify the rest of the package…”

Pros: Good offroad, good reliability
Cons: Worst in class practicality, poor drivability, high purchase cost

Bogliq Bushranger 750 AT-R

“…the Bushranger is more glamorous than useful, but at least that means you’ve got great seats…”

Pros: Good comfort, decent practicality
Cons: Poor drivability, poor offroad, high purchase cost, poor environmental resistance

Deer and Hunt Hawg Base

“…just fails to stand out from the crowd in any meaningful way…”

Pros: Good environmental resistance
Cons: Mediocre to poor in all other categories

Best Engine (TIE) - 1991

*Katsuro 12V52-EFI and Earl Goddess Six 3.5L
+5 point RR bonus for both manufacturers

The King is back, but this time battling a Goddess. And they both top our favorites list for engines for 1991.

Katsuro comes to us with their 5.3 liter 12V52-EFI engine, found under the hood of the Katsuro King. This motor has a mind-blowing 48 valves, actuated from just a single cam in each head. While 218 horsepower may not sound like a lot from this size of engine, our engineers say… you’re right. But that’s not the point. What Katsuro is aiming for is a sublimely smooth and whisper-quiet motor to give adequate power to its biggest luxo-barge. It does all that it is asked, while maintaining a healthy dose of Katsuro’s reputation for reliability, despite the motor’s complexity. The only real downside we see is a rather exorbitant maintenance bill that the owner can expect.

Earl, on the other hand, has brought to the table their Goddess Six, a 3.5 liter straight-six found in their top-marque Hirondelle Galahad. Not quite as potent as others in the class, its 152 horsepower still gets the job done with enough punch to keep it from falling into the “boring” category. And while it doesn’t do it with the absolute buttery smoothness of the Katsuro, it is still one of the smoothest motors on the market. And due to its more simplistic design, our staff engineers predict that it will be even more reliable than the Katsuro.


Bambi 2.2 Liter Engine

Once again the target of our gripes with respect to engines is Bambi, this time with the 2.2 liter naturally aspirated engine from their Dominator.

Frankly, the biggest issue in the short term is that it’s a flat-out obsolete engine. Over the past couple years, what few remaining competitors who used carburetion in their models here in the States have phased them out in favor of modern fuel injection. Bambi is the lone holdout, and it just leads to a coarse engine with temperamental throttle response. It was not helpful by any stretch of the imagination that one of our test cars had a bad choke when it was handed over to us, making cold starting an absolute bear.

While vintage enthusiasts and racing applications still use carburetors, the everyday “civilized” world has moved on. It’s time for Bambi to do the same.

Visual Design Honorable Mentions

Hakumai 250XR V6
The entire Earl lineup
Bogliq Baller 258L
Bambi Dominator
Solo Radical 1.7

1991 Reliability Rankings

RCM - 67.03
Earl - 66.73
Katsuro - 66.13
Courageux - 66.1
Bogliq - 65.43
Ardent - 65.4
Hampton - 65.2
Deer and Hunt - 65.2
Rocha - 62.77

1991 Relative Ratings

Hampton - 100.00
Earl/Silverhare/Hirondelle - 97.40
Rocha - 93.46
Katsuro - 88.43
Ardent - 86.17
Dominion/RCM/Solo - 78.21
Bogliq - 78.08
Courageux - 77.51
Deer and Hunt - 65.67
Hakumai - 50.86


I sort of expected that. Yikes. Choosing the Princess platform was a bad idea lol


You definitely have gotten the screenshot for the Utility class winner wrong - you used a picture of the Vanguard (my Luxury class entry) by mistake. The correct picture for the Hampton Braemar is as follows:

Anyway, I did not expect my little warm hatch to trouble the podium places in the Sport Compact category, considering its lack of sportiness - but surprisingly, it did just that. I did, however, expect a strong result in the Luxury and Utility categories - and that’s exactly what I got.