I am at 60.2 with a trim year of 2009. So lowering the minimum reliabilaty wouldn`t be a bad idea
60 and trim year 2002. I think it’s fun, being so close!
I’m at 62 Trim with a 1999 sedan, though the engine is quite boring 155hp straight 6 to get a 74.9 reliability.
Man, can you increase the tolerance of reliability values just a little bit, like 2 or 3, if it’s a sports car?
PS: It’s a fast one with loads of loading/towing capacity and very good fuel consumption. Also the service charge is very low
Edit: Corrosion Res. Steel doesn’t count as bare steel right?
In that case, it’s no resubmissions. Make sure to double check your entry before submitting to me, I don’t have the time to have to go through resubmissions since I’ll mostly be writing the reviews as the cars come in.
Edit to avoid double post: I lowered the trim minimum reliability requirement to 58, engine is still at 60.
can i just ask , is the mpg US OR UK mpg
That’s what I was thinking, because Canada was a Dominion state of the UK
…what. No we don’t. Canada uses L/100km, US MPG is used a lot in the vernacular is all. Take a minute to convert the L/100km figure and it should be obvious.
well then can you give us a minimum L/100KM mesurement then
He did. 10.7 is the highest
that is a really wierd mesuring system but okay… surley it should be KM PER LITRE not liters per 100km
@thecarlover Probably the last question from me, if it’s a new car from a dealership, does the material cost have to be below 11,000 with 20% comission or is that the final price of the car?
Also are we talking $ or CAD?
Sorry for asking so many questions in one day mate
10 mins late here, but…
Entries are now open!
@GetWrekt01 This is a used car round, and the spreadsheet is what will give you the price. You must use the spreadsheet, that’s why it’s there.
Oh shit now I get it! Yes! My car fits in within the dealership price limit. I’ll leave the styling for later because I just went through making 3 different cars lol, I’m exhausted
@thecarlover I have a question regarding safety
Before you said that all cars have to have advance safety except sportscars. And now you are saying that minimum safety is 40. So do our non sportscars have to have advance safety even if the trim safety is more than 40?
Non-sportscars have to have advanced safety no matter what, while sportscar don’t need advanced safety as long as they can achieve minimum 40 safety.
The logic behind it is that sportscar buyers tend to not care as much about safety features, more so about the overall safety rating if anything. Less airbags means a lighter car after all. The usual buyers of more family oriented vehicles will care about what safety features are included, the number of airbags, etc, as well as the safety rating.
For me as a buyer, I understand that if I buy a sportscar it might have less safety features and I’d be willing to make that sacrifice for a great car. If I’m buying more of an all rounder, I expect it to be solidly built and not skimp on safety features.
Is that really super realistic though? I would assume most cars have standard safety apart from some with more of a focus on it, like Saabs or Mercedes.
We have reconditioned cars like 2003-2012 Toyota Premio/Allion here in Bangladesh, they are basically subtle rebrands of the boring looking Corollas(E110-E170) and only found in Asian markets AFAIK.
A 2003-5 Premio X trim costs just a tad higher than a 2003/4 Corolla, but has standard CD/MP3 player, Small 4 inch display, Front and side airbags for driver and passengers, 4 Wheel ABS and Electronic Stability Control with Brake assist, Child Safety Locks, Quad disc brakes.
Now those are models that are more than 10 years old. The models that came after 2007 maintained the same price range but always kept reliable and up to date safety features.