From left to right: The Knightwick Adventure, Cutler Adiona, RCM Yukonite, Markley Bozeman and Husar Gora
The five competitors in this class may look a bit similar, if not as similar as in the smallest class, but technically there is some variety. There is ladder frames underneath the Knightwick, Cutler and RCM while the Merkley and Husar is using the same kind of beefed up unibody as many other cars in this test. All of them are using coil sprung rear axles, but on the Husar they are mostly working as load support springs since it is running a hydropneumatic system. RCM is using double wishbones up front while Husar is using struts, the rest is running coil sprung solid axles up front. The RCM buyer has to do with an inline 4 while Knightwick is offering its buyers a V8. The rest is running six cylinder engines, but actually of completely different types. A V6 in the Cutler, a flat 6 in the Husar and an Inline 6 in the Markley.
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
The Knightwick is a good, but not great performer offroad. It sure could use some more ground clearance and more aggressive tyres to be a true offroader, and in this class size and weight are starting to become a problem in Swedish terrain. But on the other hand, we doubt that the usual customer needs anything more than this.
For its size it’s actually nimble and easy to drive, and the handling is decent, if not great. But the brakes are weak for the heavy car and shows some fade. But ABS is standard - anything else would be a shame in this class.
The Cutler offers some more ground clearance and almost truck-like tyre dimensions, and it is a great performer offroad. It’s not really as easy to drive as the Knightwick, but it has slightly better handling and brakes. Stopping distances are fair but the fading almost nonexistant. The brake balance felt a bit strange but ABS should help to even that ut.
It is obvious that the RCM is made more with rural roads in mind than the trail. Offroad performance is very mediocre, one explanation being the suspension tuning with a very stiff anti sway bar up front that is hampering the flex.
On the road the RCM feels a bit uninspiring to drive and maybe a bit “clumsy”. The handling is fair for the vehicle type, the brakes lacks some bite but we have seen worse stopping distances, the fading and the lack of ABS is somewhat concerning though.
The Markley is very much like a RCM that is slightly better at everything. Still it doesn’t shine neither on or off the road. But it is a little bit better offroad, handles a little bit better, stops a little bit better and has ABS. Only by margins though.
The Husar is among the strangest vehicles we have seen by far. True, it is a real climber off the road, even if most offroad enthusiasts probably would rather have seen a more sturdy system than the somewhat fragile (but practical) hydropneumatic system. Actually, among the best in our comparision.
But on the road it is completely horrible. The brakes are so bad that we almost would like to call them lethal, with stopping distances so long that neither the non-existant fading or the standard mounted ABS saves them from being a complete disaster. Also, the cornering abilities are a true disappointment. The power steering felt vague and inexact too.
PERFORMANCE
The performance of the Knightwick is almost identical to the Hillstrom, with the exception that the 80-120 sprint is somewhat faster at 6.96 seconds. Other than that, adequate performance with a 180 km/h top speed, 10.1 second 0-100 sprint and 17.47 second quartermile time.
The Cutler has a higher top speed of 195 km/h but feels slower overall. 10.4 seconds to 100, 7.68 seconds 80-120 and a quartermile time of 17.58 seconds.
The RCM is not much different in the performance area, 180 km/h top speed, 10.5 seconds to 100, 7.92 seconds 80-120 and 17.58 second quartermile time.
The Markley seems to have a gearing more aimed at economy and comfort than the others. Top speed is the highest in the group at 202 km/h but acceleration times are lagging behind. 11.9 seconds to 100, 8.64 seconds 80-120 and 18.67 second quartermile time.
The Husar Gora is the slowest in the bunch overall. The top speed of 183 km/h is around average and definitively high enough for a vehicle with its subpar handling and brakes, but with a 12.8 second time 0-100, 10.3 second time 80-120 and 18.78 second quartermile time, it is not only the slowest in the bunch but also among the slowest cars overall.
COMFORT
The Knightwick can’t compare with the huge and expensive MAD Ouray II, but with that exception it is one of the most comfortable cars in our test. This is not achieved by any magical features, it is just a well thought out concept with high quality seating and suspension.
The Cutler is not far behind the Knightwick. A bit simpler, a little less refined, but that’s only marginal. Overall, the Cutler is one of the better car both in this group and in this test. Another well thought out concept with no major flaws.
Going from the Knightwick or Cutler and into the RCM Yukonite is a disappointment. The drivetrain is harsher, the seating and sound insulation cheaper, and the suspension tuning is a bit on the stiff side.
Marginally better than the RCM is the Markley. Still having an overly stiff suspension tuning seen from a ride comfort standpoint, the inline six is smoother and less noisy than the RCM four.
The Husar Gora has a good concept for building a comfortable car with its hydropneumatic suspension and long wheelbase. However, it has drawbacks like non-supportive seats and an overly aggressive thread pattern that whines into the passenger compartment when driving on tarmac. The comfortable choice for short trips on bad roads - not as good for highway cruising.
ROOMINESS
The only seven seater (at least for shorter trips) in the bunch is the Knightwick Adventure. It’s also the car that feels the most spacious inside in the bunch, but at 1440 litres the luggage compartment is the smallest, even if it can’t be called “small”.
The Cutler is slightly smaller inside than the Knightwick and only seats five, but it has an advantage in its 2160 litre loadspace.
The RCM has the largest loadspace of all the cars in this group with its 2310 litres. The passenger compartment is not impressive, but adequate.
The Markley is the smallest car inside in the bunch but it still beats all the compact class cars by far. 1960 litres of loadspace is about average.
The Husar Gora is almost as roomy as the Cutler, and has a loadspace of 1950 litres.
EQUIPMENT
The Cutler and Knightwick feels more luxurious than the rest of the bunch, with things like CD player with premium sound, alloy wheels, leather and climate control. Speaking about stereos, the Husar only has a cheap and simple tape player while it sounds and feels better in the RCM and Markley. No ABS in the RCM - not good. The Knightwick on the other hand has both ABS and traction control. All the cars have power steering but Husar and Markley is still running the old, non-variable type.
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
Pushrods in 1996 may sound ancient but Knightwick manages to show that technology isn’t the answer to everything. The 3.9 litre all-aluminium 192 hp V8 is an enjoyable powerplant that runs reasonably smooth and clean. The computer controlled 4 speed auto seems to be well chosen for this car.
The V6 in the Cutler is not as smooth - but good for a V6. It puts out 175 hp from a displacement of 3.6 litres, and is running pushrods like the Knightwick. Nothing fancy, but it gets the job done. Unfortunately with dirtier emissions than most of our test vehicles.
A 5 speed manual in this class maybe feels a bit spartan, but like the engine, it gets the job done.
With only 4 cylinders, the RCM is at a slight disadvantage, the 2.5 litre 16V DOHC unit is not among the smoothest, but it works and puts out 142 hp. Also the RCM has a 5-speed manual and the wide spacing adds to the truck-like feeling.
Much more pleasant is the smooth inline six in the Markley. With 12 valves and a single cam it is slightly more dated in construction, but still enjoyable and puts out 152 hp from 3 litres. The 4 speed automatic is of an older type with no electronic control.
The Husar has a smooth and wonderful 3 litre flat six with one camshaft per cylinder bank and 12 valves, maybe a bit thin for the heavy vehicle at 142 hp, but still lovely. The 5 speed computer controlled autobox is the latest in technology, it worked well and the gearing seems to have been wisely chosen.
QUALITY
The Knightwick feels absolutely bomb proof and sure, it is a well built car. But rust protection and reliability has not proven to be any better than for the average car unfortunately.
The feeling of quality in the Cutler is not really as appearant as in the Knightwick, but it is still there, and our experience says that both rust protection and reliability is among the best on the market.
The RCM is another well built, and probably very reliable car, but we recommend an additional rust protection if you plan on keeping it for many years.
Yet again, the Markley is like the slightly better cousin to the RCM here. Around the same reliability and build quality - but rust protection is at a much higher level.
The Husar Gora is nothing but a disaster. Sure, the Husar usually doesn’t have more serious mechanical troubles than the average car, but the rust protection is weak and the build quality is among the worst we have seen. Our test car already felt like if it was falling apart. The skidpan was rattling and probably was of no use either considering the thin sheetmetal it was made of. The seats felt like if they were sagging already and there was lots of squeaks and rattles inside. The paintjob looked like if it was made with a rattlecan and we found leaks due to loose couplings in the hydropneumatic system. We can’t imagine how bad this car will feel in some years.
ECONOMY
At 32900, the Knightwick is expensive to buy and you will still lose lots of money despite high second hand value. Service costs are high at $841.50 AMU and 15 litres per 100 km means that there will be lots of time spent at the pump.
In comparision, the $23000AMU Cutler seems like a bargain. It will keep its value well and even if the costs of ownership still will be high, it is cheaper to both service and run than the Knightwick at 13.5 litres per 100 km and $803.30AMU service costs.
$18300AMU for a car the size of the RCM is really nothing to complain about. 11.3 litres per 100 km is good for this class and at 618.90 servicing is cheap.
To get a Markley instead, you have to pay $22200. Worth it? It is up to you to decide. With a fuel consumption of 13.2 litres per 100 km and service costs of 776.30 it will be more expensive to run too.
The Husar Gora is cheap at $21500AMU but there is a reason behind this and we can image that the resale value will be non-existant. 12.9 litres per 100 km is nothing to brag about and service costs of 749.40 is about average.
SAFETY
There is all kinds of the latest safety equipment in the Knightwick but the design is still getting a bit long in the tooth and american crash testing has shown average results, however, against most cars you will still have a weight advantage.
The Cutler is slightly more sparse on the safety equipment than the Knightwick and is probably also a bit lacking when it comes to occupant safety in comparision.
Despite being a new design with some of the latest safety equipment like a drivers airbag etc., the RCM has shown some disappointing results in independent crash testing. The body on frame construction has to absorb a lot of energy from the heavy car in the solid barrier test. But once again, compared to most other cars on the road there is an advantage in weight and size.
Better results have been achieved by the Markley, that probably is one of the safest cars on the road at the moment. Sturdy construction with good crumple zones and a decent level of safety equipment does its job.
In an accident, you will probably be safer in a Husar Gora than you will be in most other vehicles. But the best thing is if you can actually avoid the accident. Something that you have a higher chance to succeed with in many other cars in comparision.
) would not have been the ones caring too much about fuel economy anyway and would probably have prefered the comfort of an automatic. Not that manuals were too unusual though so I would not call neither one a bad choice.
