Yes.
I’m glad my car did well, I spent a lot of time on it. I also think I chose a good trim level. Wasn’t sure on the transmission, don’t really know if auto or manual would be preferred in 90s Finland, I picked manual for the reliability and fuel economy savings.
WIll a final post wrap this up?
In this class in the 90s, people (in Sweden, not Finland btw 
) 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.
There will be a final posts with a more in depth rating of every car, if that was what you meant?
THE FOURTH DUEL - GROUP 4
Mons Granite to the left - MAD Ouray II to the right.
Finally, we have the two giants in the comparision, the Mons Granite and the MAD Ouray. Both with sturdy ladder frames in the bottom, both with coil sprung solid axles in the rear. The Mons is running one up front also while the MAD is using a double wishbone front end. The MAD has a V8 while the Mons has an unusually large V6.
DRIVING CHARACTERISTICS
Cars in this class always have a drawback both in the Swedish terrain and in the cities - their size. But as long as the terrain is open, the Mons Granite goes on like a bulldozer, it is simply unstoppable. As already stated, in the crowded cities it is simply too large to work, and driving one can be a pain. But on the open road it is a surprise. The handling is not too far behind some passenger cars and despite being such a heavy car, there is no brake fade, even if stopping distances are long. ABS is standard equipment.
The MAD is still one of the better offroaders in the test even if it falls behind the Mons. As stated, this is as long as there is room for the huge beast. The drawbacks in the cities are of course the same, even if the MAD feels a bit more nimble and relaxing to drive, truth is though that the handling and brakes are very weak points. But once again, ABS and no brake fade saves it from a total failure in the braking department.
PERFORMANCE
Both of the cars are positive surprises. The top speed of the Mons Granite is maybe not very high at 180 km/h but 0-100 is done in a quite quick 8.47 second time, 80-120 in 5.28 seconds and the quartermile in 16.5 seconds - numbers only beaten by the GSI Bergsget. The MAD has nothing to be ashamed of either with a 213 km/h top speed, 10 second 0-100 time, 6.72 second 80-120 time and 17.58 second quartermile time.
COMFORT
The Mons is one of the most comfortable cars in our test. The ride is smooth with its hydropneumatic damping and the interior is nice. However, the grumbling and harsh giant V6 is the dark cloud on the horizon here, you never have to wonder if you forgot to turn the engine on, to put it this way.
The MAD is not only the winner of the two cars in this department, but in our whole test, by a great margin. The interior is kind of a living room, despite running only regular gas dampers the ride is smooth and the engine is much more quiet and relaxed than in the Mons.
ROOMINESS
In this class room shoul not be a problem. And it is kind of a tie here - slightly more cargo space in the MAD but slightly more room for the passengers in the Mons. The differences are only marginal though.
EQUIPMENT
Both cars are of course very well equipped. But the MAD has some gizmos included that is lacking in the Mons, as alloy wheels, CD player and traction control.
ENGINE AND DRIVETRAIN
One could expect a V8 in a car like the Mons, but instead it has an unusually large V6 (4.5 litres/291 hp) and we are not sure that we like the concept, since the engine is far from smooth. It features all the latest technology though, being a 24 valve twin cam with VVT. Tubular headers are another unusual feature. One thing should be said though, this is maybe not the environmentalists choice of transportation, but the emissions from the tailpipe is actually very clean.
Another unusual choice is a six speed manual with a gear spacing that seems to come out of a sports car. We think that an automatic would have been a much more logical choice in a car like this.
The 6 litre V8 in the MAD is a bit ancient with its pushrod technology, which shows in the power output, only 260 hp despite being larger than the Mons engine. But as the V8 it is, it’s more smooth and refined. The 4 speed computer controlled automatic seems to be wisely chosen for this car.
QUALITY
In this class you should expect build quality. And it has to be said that a rusty Mons is a rare sight. The rust protection is simply out of this world. The build quality is nearly bomb proof too. Yet, reliability is only around average, advanced technology is probably taking its toll in this class.
The MAD is slightly inferior in everything except for the reliability that is only marginally better. Still it has to be said that it is still a car with extremely high quality.
ECONOMY
The Mons is a complete disaster to your wallet. Both purchase price ($36500AMU), service costs ($1010.50AMU) and fuel economy (18.2 litres per 100 km) has the records for being the most expensive in this test.
One can’t say that the MAD is economical either, but at $30500AMU it is cheaper to buy, it is a bit more sparse on fuel at 17.8 l/100 km and cheaper to service at $989.20AMU.
SAFETY
This is two tanks that will crush everything that comes in their way, good for their own passengers, bad for everyone else. The MAD does have some safety equipment lacking in the Mons too, like a passengers side airbag.
Next page: Final verdicts
7 Likes
Glad to hear that you have given a favorable verdict about my behemoth of an SUV - one of only two full-sized outliers in a field where nearly everything else turned out to be smaller, showing that, given the demands of the Swedish market, there is a niche, however limited, for a vehicle of this size.
2 Likes
THE FINAL VERDICTS
MAD OURAY II
The MAD Ouray II is the car that gets the highest rating in this test. But that does not necessarily mean that it is the best car, since the best car is always the one that is the most suitable for your own needs. And for many people the sheer size of the MAD is a drawback, not to mention that it really is heavy on the bank account.
It is not without its other flaws either, but sure, if you can afford the ownership and does not mind having to drive around in something that feels like a bus most of the time, then the MAD is a great car, no question about it. And for a lower price it beats its nearest competitor, the Mons Granite, in many aspects.
PROS: High safety rating, very spacious, very comfortable
CONS: Clumsy in everyday traffic, high ownership costs, lackluster braking performance
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: **
Performance: ****
Comfort: *****
Roominess: *****
Equipment: *****
Engine and drivetrain: ***
Quality: ****
Economy: *
Safety: *****
FINAL VERDICT: 34/45
CUTLER ADIONA
The Cutler is a classic example of a well thought out car that is not superior at anything but a good allrounder without any major flaws, to a price that is very competitive. It was clearly a favourite among most of our testers, and since it will fulfill the needs of most people looking for a 4x4, one that we can recommend too. But watch out for high costs of ownership!
PROS: Great value for the money, spacious, high build quality
CONS: High costs of ownership, a bit clumsy to drive, drivetrain a bit outdated
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: ***
Performance: ***
Comfort: ****
Roominess: *****
Equipment: *****
Engine and drivetrain: ***
Quality: *****
Economy: **
Safety: ***
FINAL VERDICT: 33/45
MARKLEY BOZEMAN
The Markley Bozeman is another great allrounder. A little bit cheaper than the Cutler, and a little cheaper to own too, but we feel that it is at the same time lagging a bit behind in most areas, though it has some points where it does shine, like the smooth engine and high safety rating. Test drive it and see if you think that it it worth its lower price to do some tradeoffs - it might as well be and the Markley is definitively not a bad car.
PROS: Smooth running engine, high safety rating, high build quality
CONS: Mediocre offroad performance, somewhat sluggish acceleration, low fuel economy
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: ***
Performance: ***
Comfort: ***
Roominess: ****
Equipment: ***
Engine and drivetrain: ****
Quality: *****
Economy: **
Safety: *****
FINAL VERDICT: 32/45
KNIGHTWICK ADVENTURE
We can’t deny that there is some prestige behind the words “I drive a Knightwick”, neither can we deny that the Knightwick is a really nice car - but it comes at a cost. The much cheaper Cutler Adiona does everything at least almost as well and the rational reasons behind buying a Knightwick then is probably few.
But if you feel that you would look like a peasant if you parked a Cutler in front of your mansion, we can’t blame you for rather having a Knightwick.
PROS: High comfort, very high build quality, seating for seven.
CONS: High purchase price, high costs of ownership, questionable value for the money.
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: ***
Performance: ***
Comfort: ****
Roominess: ****
Equipment: *****
Engine and drivetrain: ****
Quality: ****
Economy: *
Safety: ****
FINAL VERDICT: 32/45
MONS GRANITE
We’re fully aware that you don’t buy a Mons Granite for rational reasons, but if we still try to looking at it rationally, we see no reason to buy the Mons instead of the MAD. Sure, it has offroad capacity that can’t be matched - or is needed anywhere in Sweden where you can get to with this beast that immediately will have problems with rocks and trees standing in the way. The MAD feels like a better car overall, for a lower price.
But sure, if you want to blaze through the desert at high speeds in full comfort and money is not a problem, then the Mons is the car for you. So, we bet Mons will have greater luck in the Saudi market than in the Swedish.
PROS: Offroad performance, spacious, comfortable
CONS: Clumsy, extremely uneconomical, rough running V6
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: ***
Performance: ****
Comfort: ****
Roominess: *****
Equipment: ****
Engine and drivetrain: **
Quality: *****
Economy: 0
Safety: ****
FINAL VERDICT: 31/45
FOREA HRC-4
So… You are the average family man, that is satisfied with your ordinary family car but are tired of getting stuck in bad weather conditions? Buy the Forea, it is all you need. Sure, it is on a whole different level than the others when it comes to offroad capacity, but it is because it is a completely different concept - and it works like it is intended to do. Very well, in fact, and we believe that this is something we will see from more manufacturers in the future.
PROS: Passenger car-like feeling, fuel economy, build quality
CONS: Rust protection, offroad performance, purchase price high for its class.
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: ****
Performance: ***
Comfort: ***
Roominess: ***
Equipment: ***
Engine and drivetrain: ***
Quality: ****
Economy: ****
Safety: ****
FINAL VERDICT: 31/45
ARMOR TIMBERWOLF
The Timberwolf is not a bad car in itself and if it weren’t for some really strange flaws it would score higher. But the useless rear seat in a car this size with 4 doors is a mystery. The notoriously bad brakes another serious flaw. Sure, we won’t tell you to avoid the Timberwolf since it has some good sides too - the question is why Armour couldn’t have thought out the concept a little bit better than this?
PROS: Good safety rating, well equipped, decent build quality
CONS: Useless back seat, bad brakes, low comfort
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: ***
Performance: ***
Comfort: **
Roominess: ***
Equipment: ****
Engine and drivetrain: ***
Quality: ****
Economy: **
Safety: *****
FINAL VERDICT: 29/45
FM STREETSUV
The FM Streetsuv quickly became a favourite among our test crew too. Sure, it has the classical small car drawbacks like lack of comfort and space, but it really gives the competition even in the larger classes a run for their money. A great car to drive both on and off the road - as long as you aren’t in a hurry, and really great value considering the low sticker price.
PROS: Capable on and off the road, low cost of ownership, great value for the money.
CONS: Slow, cramped, low comfort
OUR RATING:
Driving characteristics: *****
Performance: **
Comfort: **
Roominess: *
Equipment: ***
Engine and drivetrain: ***
Quality: ****
Economy: *****
Safety: ***
FINAL VERDICT: 28/45
Next page: The last 8 cars
@abg7, @Stryder237, @Maverick74, @mart1n2005, @cake_ape, @vouge, @GassTiresandOil, @Jaimz
12 Likes
Spot on review of the Granite, just what I was going for - an overpriced, overengineered, luxury off-roader barge. The car is supposed to be an oxymoron in itself, targeting the niche market of the uber-rich irrational buyer with an oil well at their disposal. I chose the weird gearing to mimic a crawl gear IIRC, so that explains that. I’m not sure what explains the V6 though!
2 Likes
You have hit the nail on the head right there - the Ouray II is not exactly for everyone, given that it was clearly designed for the vast American market in mind, but it’s just the ticket if you want a big, plush SUV and are willing to pay for it.
I swear the brakes on the Timberwolf were much better when I imported the file. Almost no fade at all… something must have happened during export:
2 Likes
I can take a look at that, however, I don’t think that they affected the final rating too much in the end.
However, I am more curious why there was 2+3 seating in such a large 4 door SUV? 
I was basing it off of the XJ Cherokee I used to have. The rear bench was a normal size, but you could fold it flat to add cargo space. Even in the old full-size Wagoneers, the fold-down rear bench was standard, and useful. I know Automation scores +3 seats as less comfortable than fixed ones, but in real life I’ve noticed the difference to be negligable.
Well, I’m glad where I ended up, this was a fun competition! The detailed reviews were very helpful and the format is less restrictive and arbitrary than a CSR.
Maybe the facelift of the Adiona needs a new powertrain though…
Ah, OK, I guess that’s all about how some things in the game is up for interpretation then. I have never seen the (+3) seating as a fold flat bench (that is in any station wagon more or less), rather the bench you can find in some 1½ cab fullsize pickups (wide enough for 3, but uncomfortable due to lack of space), while the +2 seating have felt more like the jump seats in a Chevy S10 or Nissan 720/Hardbody, or the so called “back seat” in many sports cars.
I guess your view have been different, and since I haven’t been able to read the thoughts of the developers, I don’t know who is right here TBH.
1 Like
That’s ok. I have often wondered about what exactly constitutes a +3 seat or a folding bench. lol no worries.
I am wondering about the ABS and traction control comments directed at mine. I realise most other entries had at least ABS but it was rather uncommon to have that in SUVs at the time, much less traction control (at least on the North American market).
From what I remember when I was reading car magazines at the time, vehicles sold without ABS and/or airbags was starting to recieve heavy criticism around maybe 94-95, at least in Sweden. Now, the SUV segment wasn’t actually huge by then so maybe they were less equipped in general and went “under the radar”.
By the way, I never criticized any car for not having traction control, because it really wasn’t common standard equipment in the mid 90s (a couple of years later the scandal with the Mercedes A-class forced in standard ESC in many cars quite quickly, but that’s a different story and before that most cars was sold without anything), it was just something that I noticed on the cars that actually had it.
1 Like
Sweden was definitely more serious about safety than other countries, much earlier. (I mean… gestures at Volvo). The US? Not so much.
There was no ABS on the Ozette because it was not common in the US on SUVs (except the very top line ones) until after 2000 or so. I was a salesman at a Ford dealership in 2008-2009 and YOU COULD STILL BUY BRAND NEW FOCUSES WITHOUT ABS. And we did. A lot of them. Because of the 4 trim levels, it only came on the top one standard and the 2nd from top as an option.
2 Likes
Oh wow, tied for third? I honestly wasn’t expecting that. I figured forgoing an advanced automatic and variable power steering would have hurt the drivability too much. Coupled with the mediocre fuel economy compared to everyone else I was thinking it would be far lower. I guess the fact I chose to keep the safety above 50 really helped.
Congrats to abg7 for the overall win! Thanks for hosting this challenge Knugcab!
The Markley was, as I think I stated, not excellent at anything except for maybe the safety rating. But it was a great allrounder that lacked any serious flaws, for a price that was sane. So, I think that you had a well thought out concept after all.
And by the way, the aftermath of this test is not “you should have all put in ABS, suckers!”, having some vehicles without it represents the market as a whole, and what I try to do when writing the reviews is to reflect what actual car magazines probably would have written back then (and that’s a reason why I almost always completely leave the aesthetics out of the question, for example, they are rarely reviewed IRL because they are highly subjective and because the reader can judge his/her opinion out of the pictures). And if I should write a list about “top 10 hot topics in car magazines in 1996”, ABS would relly have one of the places on that list, so…
The only things that was outdated on the limit of being unrealistic IMO was the 4 speed manuals in the BOG and Meixian-Hinode. I don’t remember any car that still had one in 1996.
2 Likes
I’m surprised that I was the only V8 in the particular segment, I guess if the game had diesels it would have all been different anyway. Glad with how I did anyway, still some life in a body on frame SUV