I contend that the element of the format itself replicated in my opinion piece does not and can not constitute intellectual property belonging to a single entity.
@strop and @PottoGadd you sound like you both need to shut-up about your “claims” before someone with actual intellectual claims to your writing strategy actually causes an issue.
(Besides, there are no tangible damages here.)
######DISCLAIMER: I am not yet an attorney and, thus, not licensed in your jurisdiction. Therefore, you cannot rely on me for legal advice.
I’m happy with that. The only outcome I needed was invalidation of Potto’s premise 
(and not to get sued for real by anybody else, but I’ll take my chances on that).
Alright I’ll try this one out.
The JHW Gulfstream is like it’s namesake jet in that it offers it’s occupants a very comfortable commute through long distances, and that’s where the similarities end. For one, the car certainly doesn’t look like a plane, if I had to pick the closest thing it resembles, it would be a Hammerhead shark. That very long pointy front overhang just sharpens up that I really can’t see anything else. Makes for a pretty side profile though. I do wish the rest of the car was more detailed as even for a budget luxury car it looks abit unassuming, pointy front end aside.
Ride was quite smooth and supple, the car floats through most bumps effortlessly thanks to the soft setting and air suspension. Which I must say is a bold move especially in a rather lower priced segment, as these can be a nightmare to repair. Might tank resales, but if you’re not too bothered about that it offers such a comfortable ride even high end luxury cars would have trouble matching.
Interior is rather decent, what you’d expect from a mid-priced luxury car, the standard leather and wood trim combo. And with a high quality surround sound system too. The infotainment and navigation system is quick to respond and very easy to use without any of the iDrive nightmares from the early 2000s. It seems rather safe too, with airbag tags almost everywhere in the cabin. However what’s with the manual transmission? Is this intended to be a limousine? Otherwise what an odd design choice to make a luxury car driver row their own gears. A slush automatic would’ve delivered a significantly smoother drive.
The engine however is quite over worked, making 210 hp and 266nm of torque. Tests have shown that significant power increases are possible with just a higher VVL profile with almost no real loss in fuel efficiency or low end performance. Why even bother with VVL then if you’re going to use such a low alternate profile? Also an Inline 6 motor would’ve been better suited for operating smoothness, especially in a car where space constraints in the hood is a non issue. It is quite a revvy engine however, with excellent throttle response for an economy tuned V6 (and personally I’d go with a three way convertor if I were you, really saves on costs and PUs.)
Performance is quite underwhelming if I’m honest, 0-60 in 7.6 seconds and a top speed of scarcely above 130 mph will have you outrun by Samindas on the stop light. More power would do wonders for this machine, perhaps about 300? Also longer gears might help too for economy. Which is great, 26.4 mpg for a near two ton machine is nothing to scoff at. It does handle quite well though thanks to the all wheel drive and excellent suspension tuning, possessing great dynamic response for such a heavy car on very skinny tires too. The oddly equipped mechanical LSD certainly helps with handling as well.
It’s great value certainly, but with just a little bit more improvements it could certainly be a world beater.
Likes
-Great suspension tuning
-Decent interior and sound system
-Quiet ride
-Smooth engine for a V6
-Decent mileage
Dislikes
-Engine is really lazing about here (up the VVL)
-Manual transmission? Geared LSD? Strange choices for a luxury car
-Skinny tires
-(Meta: Excess PU, this car has more PU than my Hypero coupe)
1 Like
Australian volume manufacturer Albury Motors is best known for well-built and reliable front-engined, rear-drive volume and sports cars, but in 2007 they sprung a surprise with the CMS-16 Coupe, a small mid-engined lightweight sports car designed to compete with the Lotus Elise. They took what was basically a small economy car engine, turned it into a pint-sized monster, and placed it in the back of the car for maximum effectiveness. This is a hardcore track car (albeit an affordable and economical one), no question, but it’ll deliver endless thrills on your favorite track or back road as you push your car to the limit by exploiting its incredible power density and stratospheric redline. The CMS-16 was produced until 2013 and remains a common sight at trackdays everywhere across the globe.
For the record, no mods were used in the making of this vehicle.
ahertono - Albury CMS-16.zip (94.6 KB)
abg7’s car
a review
From Redline Nation Magazine (RNM) [A fictional Magazine]
Reviews: 2007 Alburgy CMS-16
Author: Steve Wandle
The Albury CMS-16. A car from Albury Motors in Australia showed up at our door today. As buisy as we were, we couldn’t ignore the glaring sports car…
Because it was Bright Yellow! Everyone in the office took a look at it, mainly because it was so bright! So we got Bob, Harry, and myself over to do a simple write-up on the thing, and our first impressions were not good!
The looks:
The first (and only) thing that stands out about this car is its attention-clawing color. That bright yellow is screaming out, “Look at me! I am Here! I want attention!” It’s not my, Bob, or Harry’s forte, but our editor would sure like it! Now, upon closer inspection we found the simple headlights were well placed, the front valance well designed and overall the look was very agressive. The side scoops were well molded into the curves of the body, and because it was also well molded into the body lines, we almost couldn’t find the door handle!
Edit: Here’s some pics
While the front was agressive, and the sides were a little plain, the rear just didn’t make any sence! Bob even asked out loud, “Did the designers just give up after the work on the front?” The single pair of tailights with reverse lights inside are so understated, it makes the otherwise sporty car look Fat! In the rear we have just these two little lights, a badge, and lots of body-colored empty space. Sure there’s a deffuser on the rear, but it’s body-colored so it all bends in like a bowl of soup. The huge, molded in body-color wing doesn’t help the massive empty feeling between the taillights. And there’s also some body-colored vents to help cool the Mid-mounted engine.
Mid-mounted engine? Yes you heard that right.
The Engine:
The mid-mouned engine happens to be an inline 4 that comes in at less than 100 cubic inches in displacement: That’s 1.6 Liters. With such a small engine, we really expect it to be something of an engineering marvel. And it may be. The inline 4 is a DOHC 16 valve motor (with 4 valves per cylinder), built in an aluminum silicon alloy. It comes with VVL and VVT. That’s some high tech stuff! We asked our engines expert to take a look at the engine, and boy is it built! She told us the engine came with a Billet Steel crank, Titanium conrods, and LF pistons! We wondered if maybe all that was for a future turbo, but it’s actually due to the high rpms this engine can see! The engine has a redline of 9200 rpms! So the next logical question was how much power?
Just shy of 200hp, from a 1.6L NA engine!
But to achieve that, the high VVL profile was a race-spec deal with a race-spec ignition timing to go with it!
So I asked the question, “What about the rest of the engine?” My answer was this: A direct injection system with a throttle per cylinder, 11.2 compression, long tubular headers with an exhaust that goes through a high flow cat and duel reverse flow mufflers. It, of course, had a bypass valve for those wot moments.
So it’s basically a race-spec engine built for high-end power. So, how does it actually do on the street?
The Drive:
So we took this beast of a “Sports” car onto the streets, and it is sorta drive-able. I say sorta, as I would never use this as my daily, or for long road trips. It has nice sport seats and a little touch-screen for the GPS. The 6-disk CD player is slightly better than what’s found on most premium cars right now. The safety seems very advanced… to the point of annoyance. I hate all the modern cars with their dings and beeps when the seat belt is not buckled in, and this car is no exception. At least the CMS-16 has a nicer warning tone than most.
Anyway, we got this thing onto the street, and I was immediately greeted with a gear change! The 6-speed manual constantly reminded me this is a sports car, and not anything else. While tiring to constantly row through the gears in the cities, I felt like the final gearing was slightly off. Sure 5.6 seconds to 60mph sounds good on paper, but I had to go through 3 gears to get to it, and even then I was at the redline in third! This is not helped by the narrow powerband the car has due to its race engine, as it really doesn’t take-off until 6,000rpm where the high end VVL profile takes off. Luckily the transmission was built to keep it in that power band when at wot. While I was battling the 6-speed with my hand, my back was battling the suspension on every bump.
The suspension is definitely tuned more for the track than the streets. Make no mistake about it. That’s why we are rating the comfort at a 32.3, including the sport seats and premium satnav. Even more, the brakes were so good, I would even say they were too good! In the worst part of the city drive I had to get onto a freeway, and just as I got on the traffic stopped! I instinctively went to the brake and left four huge black streaks without even trying!
So we decided to take the CMS-16 to the track to really test it’s limits. We were able to fly to Fuji Speedway and test the CMS-16 to its limit. We had a professional driver, only know by the name “Gits”, take the CMS-16 on the track and tell us- err, he wrote down for us, how it did.
It did OK
When asked for further comments, Gits wrote down this:
Brakes too grabby
So, we compaired the flying lap time Gits was able to achieve to some other cars. The Albury CMS-16 got a 2:10.16 flying lap time at Fuji Speedway. While Albury Motors has stated this car is to compete directly with the Lotus Elise, so, we got a basic Elise Sport and had Gits take that around the track to compare lap times. The Elise Sport got a flat tire.
So without a lap time to compare to, is the Albury CMS-16 better than a Lotus Elise? Maybe…
The Comparison:
The Albury CMS-16 has 199hp and a curb weight of 2463lbs (due to the glued aluminum frame and aluminum body).
The Lotus Elise has 190hp and a curb weight of 1975lbs (with a 1.8L I4 DOHC 16 valve engine)
CMS-16 claims a 0-60mph in 5.6s and a quarter mile time of 13.98s.
Elise has a 0-60mph of 4.8s and quarter mile of 13.6s
Not a direct comparison, but Elise braking from 70mph took 162ft. The CMS-16 braking from 62mph took 104ft. This is probably due to the insanely big brakes the CMS-16 has.
Now the big question, what does an Albury CMS-16 cost compared to the Lotus Elise? Well, we were given some data from Albury, and it may shock you! They would sell the CMS-16 at production costs! That’s about $13,000 usd per car [in 2007 using the gold method] compared to the $45,000 base price of the Lotus Elise. There is no way they would make any money, let alone break even with that pricing! As Albury Motors claims to build this car in “volume” the chassis and body materials say otherwise [limited production flags]. There have been no definitive numbers given by Albury about how many CMS-16 coupes they plan to build, but, either way the material costs and manufacturing times coupled with the glued aluminum chassis and aluminum body mean this is not a mass production by any means.
Now if Albury Motors wants to make a profit, they could markup the cars from the factory say, 70%. The CMS-16 Coupe would still be very competitive in the Gasmea markets, at about $22,000 usd per car. With a 50% markup (at $19,500 usd) they would be very competitive in the Fruinia markes.
But that does not include the fees for exporting the car from Australia.
Is the Albury CMS-16 better than the Lotus Elise? Depends on who you ask. Bob and I prefer the smaller, lighter Elise over this, overly-bright beacon.
Harry is caught up in the cost differences, and our editor would love the “burn-your-eyes-yellow” CMS-16 for its color alone!
Sorry, had to wrap it up, as I got carried away with writing this review.
Edit: Added pics
3 Likes
Strop, this thread needs pictures, STAT!!!
Just one shot of the car so we know what is being talked about!
2 Likes
You have hit the nail on the head with that review. However, the CMS-16 has satnav as standard, while an Elise doesn’t, and I expect Albury to sell the cars with a markup. I should have put more effort into the rear fascia’s design, though…
As for Albury being a volume manufacturer, that only applies to anything not using a glued aluminum monocoque chassis - they’d been profitable for well over a half-century by the time the CMS-16 had been launched. Funny thing is, the engine used in the CMS-16 actually started life as an economy car engine and, for this application, was turned into a high-revving sports car powerplant. Who doesn’t love an engine with a redline of at least 9,000 rpm, especially since it’s increasingly difficult to find one on sale these days? For the record, 9,200 rpm is just 50 shy of a LaFerrari and 200 more than a 458.
Here is a car that I am working on. Working on. It is not finished, for multiple reasons. One is that I am not great at creating luxury cars so I am working on this one for a while to see what I can do. I want feedback on what I should improve. That is why I came here.
I called it the Woodley WS3.
Woodley is a Canadian luxury car manufacturer that was started in 1909, and originally made high quality metals and other materials until 1934. Woodley started to produce luxury cars and sports cars and competes with other manufacturers like Infinity, Lexus, Audi, Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, etc.
Now how about the car? I will tell you about it. The WS3 was brought to the market in 1984. A performance version was brought out in 1987. The second generation came in 1990, and a third in 1998. The sixth generation, was introduced in 2015 as a 2016 model, and runs alongside the WS2, WS4, WS5, WS6, and WS7.
Note that I have not increased the profit in the markets tab. I have done that because I want to wait until the next update which will have more competitive cars on the market. So I will give you an estimated price of around $33 950. Again, this is a car I am working on. Not finished.
Mods used (Workshop):
Raz:
- Square Stripes
- Square Ts
- Square Is
- Square Gs
el chasco:
- VMO’s non-jaquar XE vent
Pyrlix:
- BBS-LM-Style Rims
- Plastic and Chrome stripes
Norman Vauxhall:
- Exhaust and lip materials combination
- Grilles and Vents materials combination
The car also has a door handle that I believe is a mod but I have been unable to find it in the workshop so I will simply post a picture here:
And here are some pictures of the car:
EDIT: I didn’t add the file… Here is is: Woodley WS3.zip (152.4 KB)
4 Likes
Just because we don’t need it wasn’t an instruction to not post screenshots! I would have thought people would consider, you know, presenting their car or something 
2 Likes
Its ok, I updated my review with pics of abg7’s car
2 Likes
I agree with that last edit you made. My plan is to include the CST-16 in my company thread about Albury Motors, and flesh out its backstory and development as usual.
Ok let’s see…
I take a look at this car hot from reading Jeremy Clarkson’s recent column on top ten stinkers of the year, bemoaning that cars have lost their excitement, identity and whimsy beyond their purpose of being a transportation box on wheels, yet more importantly revealing the advancing age of his creaking body habitus when driving cars that are, by some accounts, too exciting. It’s not a great primer for looking at possibly the most anonymous premium sedan I’ve ever laid my eyes on. Actually, that’s somewhat unfair: when your car is as anonymous as a JHW Gulfstream, it’s not particularly easy to tell them apart, so there’s no grounds for me to declare this as the most of anything. From a first impressions point of view, the main standout feature from the quasi-classic sloping lines that most cars in this class now adopt would be that the designer forgot when to stop and to make a feature out of the bonnet. The nose slopes all the way to the tapered end. I didn’t know what to think, if more had been made of it, I might have.
The other thing I notice is that this is what appears to be quite a hefty car. For that, the wheels are tiny. I’m immediately convinced that this is not a car for driving, but a car for transportation. Jezza would be tearing out his frizzy greying hair. Yet, lo! I’m told that it has independent double wishbones on the front and a multilink rear, which in this competitive era of practical cars, usually is a buzzword for ‘see, we are keeping up with the Joneses’ but it spells some kind of potential for the driver among us, which is to say, most people who would bother to write more than a single Tweet to describe any one car. We’ll get to that later.
The powerplant sets the tune. It’s an economical 3L V6 DOHC tuned for, well. Economy, practicality, comfort. It has a decent powerband for low to midrange driving, which is to say, the stop start of traffic, slowly flowing traffic, and maybe even the occasional decently flowing traffic. It might even let you put a little boot in for getting on the freeway but it’s no plant for pushing to the rev limiter. It’s whisper quiet and bullet proof and the efficiency figures on the spec sheet are fantastic. The output figures are not. You get better on a regular basis from turbo powerplants barely half the size.
So imagine my confusion when I discover three things: 1) it’s available in manual 2) it’s AWD 3) it has a Torsen diff. At its heart, a Subaru this is not. So are we expecting the primary market to be climates with Icelandic winters? Furthermore, one must question whether the subset of consumers who are interested in buying a car like this, and the subset of consumers who are interested in rowing their own, intersect at any point whatsoever. I would wager not.
Furthermore, the six ratios are short, and closely spaced. Again this implies a certain eagerness to, you know, drive the car. And not drive it efficiently. In fact, the fuel consumption suffers quite markedly from it. In a car like this for the purpose it serves, I would expect an automatic. Or maybe, even maybe, a CVT, if it was a good one, but that’s just an idea. As it is, since at least 30% of the car is begging for it, I’m going to try and get as good as it can give, even if it runs out of puff.
With that done, I decide to read the review left earlier by Deskyx and realise that my opinion on the dynamics and characteristics of the ride and handling are exactly the same. For this car, that’s also a good thing. Not so good is that we also agree on where the main drawbacks are. The one other thing I must mention is that when turning off the driver aids, stomping the brakes produced a rather disconcerting slide as the rears locked up. Of course, most people who would think to own this as their daily wouldn’t be turning the driving aids off, but the strong rear bias will create uneven brake wear and surprise premature service requirements.
Overall, this car most reminds me of a Mazda6 GT. It’s similarly priced, it’s also similarly equipped. But it’s also a lot heavier owing to its (perhaps unnecessary) AWD system. And a lot thirstier thanks to its odd gearing (and, as I learnt later, odd amounts of also wholly unnecessary brake ventilation… the kind of thing that usually only exists on race cars). It also has a V6 which generally belongs to a performance class up where the rest of the world is moving to 4 cylinder powerplants with that kind of output. Don’t get me wrong, if this were a Mazda6 GT competitor, that kind of power is appropriate. But with a 3L V6 buyers were probably expecting something else.
Overall the car’s elements are, for the most part, competent in themselves. What the car is trying to be, and trying not to be, however, is not so clear and in real world terms, that’s where buyers will be confused. That said, with the car looking the way it is, identity isn’t foremost on its mind, nor, I suspect, the minds of any of its buyers, but in a relatively crowded segment, maybe lacking that is what will make it slip under the radar where it should excel, should it address its split personality issues.
Deskyx’s Likes and Dislikes cover everything already, so I will instead make some recommendations:
- Better to use an auto gearbox
- Leave it either RWD or even better, just go with FWD since as fat as it is, it’s not really a driver’s car
- The game recommends 245 tyres. I would agree. You could also up the profile to 55, that wouldn’t hurt.
- Go easy on the rear brakes
- Higher VVL profile, to mitigate the disappointment of anaemic V6
4 Likes
Thats called clicking the heart icon at the bottom of the post. You could try it sometime… Its free…
2 Likes
@findRED19 has already just written a review for the 2007 CMS-16 Coupe, a fairly comprehensive one at that. I’m going to therefore take a closer look at specific elements to see just how well the car achieves its purpose of being an Elise competitor, and also examine each of the manufacturer claims.
First things first, this is indeed a surprise car from the company named after its location. Inland Australia is generally a land of utility vehicles, real offroaders and Ford vs Holden, so no surprises that Albury Motors specialised in essentially decent Ford Falcons. It was therefore understandable that one would raise eyebrows about the surprising move to make an Elise competitor, because while Ford has an illustrious list of legendary budget and small sports cars and their more recent focus of making world cars has really put them at the fore with their winning formula in the Fiesta and Focus… small mid-engined Fords? Well, there was the Mach 2… from 1967… that never made production… and then there’s the GT which is amazing but that’s not small in the least.
Anyway, Albury Motors is not Ford, but the parallels are certainly striking. As for the car itself… well, for starters, when it comes to the powerplant per price point, one might say this is a bargain, particularly for Australian car buyers where the foibles of the somewhat clunky taxation system would waft right over this pint sized model. Furthermore, when it comes to performance, the car definitely does deliver. 199bhp from its 1.6L naturally aspirated inline-4 with revised internals that rev all the way to 9200rpm is nothing to scoff at. The diff is advanced. The shifting is crisp. The ride is taut, and the handling is surefooted. It does rather decently on the track, carrying good cornering speeds and shifting directions without complaint.
So, looking at manufacturer claims: Small economy car engine tuned for maximum effectiveness, check. Stratospheric redline, check. Hardcore track car?
I wonder about that. First things first, comparing, again, to the Lotus Elise, the car’s nearly 300kg heavier. Part of that is the fancier and heftier valvetrain. The other part was the inclusion of a strangely fancy SatNav unit. In a hardcore track car. Why? Until maybe this year, inbuilt SatNav (especially in Australia), is the stuff for people who don’t know how to work a portable GPS unit, or who own an iPhone (especially an iPhone 5, good luck to you poor lost souls). It belongs in BMWs driven by people who wear suits to bed and dark glasses indoors. It, and all the speakers and climate control and all that other jazz, has no business being in a self-styled Elise competitor. It’s more reminiscient of the pork-barrelled disappointment that was the MX-5 NC, before they realised that somewhere after the NB, they fucked up and repented with the rather glorious ND.
Furthermore, the gallery will see some furious eyebrow action from purists and enthusiasts when they see this car comes with the full bevy of driving assists, and semi-active dampers AND swaybars. There’s no doubt such advanced technologies improved the ride predictability, especially over bumps and with rapidly changing forces. But it will no doubt set off raging debates over whether such interventions enhance the driving experience, or they remove the driver from the sharp bracing edge of the car’s limits, whether they are a welcome safety net, or whether they mollycoddle the driver. Perhaps the easiest way to explain it would be to ask WWCT (What Would Clarkson Think?) A younger Clarkson would probably praise the performance but criticise the driving aids. The older Clarkson would probably express relief that such grabby brakes are mitigated by ABS, but his gut wouldn’t fit behind the wheel, his knees the wheel well, and his back the seat, and he’s six foot two, so he wouldn’t fit in the car anyway.
That’s the rub of this car. Any car that tries to claim it is a “hardcore” track car and then says that it’s useable as a daily is either compromising, deluded or a flat out liar. Fortunately, Albury Motors never made any claims that they were making this car actually useable as a daily, rather, they said that this car would be fun on a back road outside of the track, and well, I’m not going to disagree with that claim, because I can think of several passes, especially ones not too distant from Albury, that this car would love to carve. But my protest is, if compromise wasn’t the intention, then why… compromise? Why incorporate extra banks of cams for lower end driving because the top end profile is so aggressive the idle would be mega lopey? Why muffle the exhaust note so aggressively? Why include suspension components that intervene in the transmission of forces from the wheels through the body? Why have power steering, TSC, ESC, ABS (well ok ABS maybe, I’ve had the displeasure of hitting a rather sudden surface and aspect change at speed in an NB and locking up while rushing towards the barrier is not the best thing ever). Maybe you can turn it off… but that just means the car isn’t hardcore. But I think my main objection is that bloody satnav. And all that weight. I’d personally be looking to slash about 200kg of junk off that.
Let’s put it this way. Today, I had the rather spine-tingling pleasure of sitting in a Renault Megane RS 275 Trophy R. Yes, that onetime King of the Ring with Akrapovic exhaust and special setup and absolutely stripped. Now, that was hardcore. As in, no radio, no aircon, no bloody satnav. Rear seats? Bitch please, the boot partition was a steel brace and a net (and the brace was actually there for body rigidity, obviously, you wouldn’t be stupid enough to leave stuff in the boot when giving it the boot.) There was no sound insulation whatsoever. Every shift was a clunk. Even releasing the goddamn handbrake, you could hear the vibrations from the rear calipers letting up reverberating through the bodywork, that’s how taut and hardcore this thing was. Every move the car made was translated directly from your hands and feet to the car and then from the wheels through the chassis and directly through the seats into your arse. I wanted to go back and buy some proper driving gloves so I could grip the cloth wheel properly. 100% engagement, 100% attention. And you know, that stuff is tiring, but that’s the whole idea. Wring you out while you’re having fun.
So that’s my big beef with this car. On the spectrum of how compromised it is from Trophy R to Elise to MX-5 NC, it’s closest to the latter and that does take the shine off it rather than adding to it. That’s not to say it’s crap, at all. In fact, it’s still very well put together for the most part. It’s just, in a segment that punishes you if you don’t put in 100%, it’s hard to hide when your car was built for 85% instead. Who would buy it? The young guy would love the price tag but the extra weight and hardcore-ness mitigating factors are a boner killer. The older mid life crisis guy would be attracted by the safety net but likely wouldn’t be able to fit let alone explore most of its potential. The cool chick (the main drive behind sales of NCs) wouldn’t see enough cool factor in this car and its agenda is still definitely track performance, and it’s a very rare subset of ladies who would spring for this.
Tell you what though. As it stands it’s still well good enough and excellent value that it’d be an attractive buy. But if I were to buy one, you can bet I’d strip it out and possibly put in a few more struts. I’d be willing to keep the driving aids, since maybe conditions are unpredictable, the weather is terrible. I’d prefer it if the power steering wasn’t there, but that’s only if I could shave the weight under 1 ton. Then it’d be a total Elise slayer.
3 Likes
I’m gonna take a chance and enter something a bit older here.
Madrias - Storm Gunslinger.zip (94.5 KB)
1990 Storm Gunslinger. A rare move from Storm Automotive, placing the engine behind the driver’s seat.
Storm Automotive is an American car company, centered in Chicago, Illinois. They’re known for AWD, front-engined cars, ranging from mild to WTF?! in horsepower. Up to the 90’s can be found in my company thread here: Storm Automotive - (2016)
The car itself is a M-AWD platform, designed to be fun and sporty, yet still safe.
SymTrak is our 90’s era name for our 50/50 AWD system.
NOTE: I don’t remember exactly which mods I used in this car, but I do know I have most of the Steam Workshop mods other than VMO’s mods. I do have pictures of the car in my company thread, so if that helps anyone figure out what they need, then do, please, do so.
As for available colors, Storm Automotive has always offered it as a $500 option to get the car painted in whatever color you want.
(And yes, I know, I’m ready for the car to be eaten alive by everyone who can tune Mid Engine better than I can.)
Strop is reviewing here?
With that in mind, I am planning an even lighter version of the CMS-16 to show in my company thread. As @strop suggested, satnav will be omitted from that variant and straight-through mufflers installed.
And don’t be surprised if I decide to review another user’s car…