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

The Fleet Manager Magazine (FMM)


The Company Car - issue 09/1971

Five-door hatchback cars with FWD and a lenght of approx. 3,8 meters and a weight of under a ton are the future, at least it looks that way studying the manufacter’s portfolio. So why shouldn’t they find their way into your fleet? Their practicality is definitely a pro, as well as their rather economical size. Today we compare the

FAAL Mesaia 1.6 CL,

not even half a year available at your local dealership in its MK3 version, to the

CMT Nexus 1.4 C,

not even officially on sale yet, although we managed to get a dealer’s car today, so production must have started some days ago. GL means a mid-trim Mesaia, while the C is the entry-level Nexus model.


The Faal is some 20 kilogram heavier (921) and a few centimeters longer than the CMT, but significantly wider. A fact you acutally can not notice in the interior, strange as both are five-seaters. The CMT feels less cramped in the rear seats, as the cargo area is real short, the body is more wagon-like than the FAAL.
The interior in the FAAL has a standard level with a basic AM radio that sounds not that good, luckily you do not have to turn the volume up that much, as the engine is very quiet. In the CMT you will find exactly the same, with the difference that its engine is much louder and dominates the cabin noise.

The CMT carries respectable 344 Liters cargo (total volume: 1260L), but 308 kg load capacity are not impressive. The FAAL is able to handle 700 kg, a very impressive amount, and 587 liter cargo, but sacrificing rear seating room.
A good reason for both cars is the standard power steering, increasing the driving safety as well as their dashboards using soft materials. The steering wheels are designed to bend in case of an accident, and sharp plastic parts that cut your skin in half are eleminated where it is possible by todays standards. Both cars even offer layered crumble-glass.


Although both offer the same performance on the paper (14 seconds to 100 kph, 150 kph top speed) the CMT feels a lot faster than it is. The reason is the impressive throttle response, especially compared to the FAAL the CMT feels like it can read your mind even before you press the pedal. It is not even nervous - just responsive. This can not be said for the FAAL that feels like a tired senior. On a twisty road the FAAL reveals its terrible understeering. dangerous in wide and fast corners that become suddenly narrow. We even refuse to call this an actual handling. The CMT tends to understeer as well, but behaves much more neutral, controllable even in difficult corners without needing to brake - it is often enough to lift the gas. The difference is not comprehensible as both share the same contemporary suspension layout and even having the same weight distribution 63/37.

Even the brake layout is the same, but here the cars recieve almost identical results on a pretty good level, with a slight advantage for the CMT.
When it comes to effortless commuting, the FAAL sets itself apart from the CMT. The engine is overall more quiet, and the gearing of the transmission (both come with standard four-speed manual) is longer, revving less than 3000 rpm at 100 kph highway speed.


The CMT needs even the same amount of fuel per 100 kilometers, being thrifty with a consumption of 10,5 liter, but annual maintenance costs are $ 30 higher, mainly the fault of its complex mechanical fuel injection system while FAAL uses a rather simple carburetor system. As these cars are contemporary in many ways, they manage to run on 91 RON unleaded fuel, although it is not mandatory yet. But it is hard to understand why the CMT with a 200ccm smaller engine and injection accellerating the same mass is not thriftier. Yes, the basic engine design is a 1964 carryover while FAAL uses a completely new engine, but the variant is all-new for 1971.

So far, so good - looks like there is no real winner - until you calculate the price. Fleet purchases are mainly a question of the price tag, and the FAAL is yours for a 7.666 $ - not too much for a city car with decent utility. The CMT requires a hefty 10.000 $ to add your company’s fleet - too much even for a modern hatchback, mainly a fault of the use of fuel injection and rust-resistant materials both for chassis and sheetmetal. Those engineer’s quirks are a boon for enthusiasts, but for a preferably as-cheap-and-simple-as-possible fleet car that needs to last at maximum five years until it’s written off those things are a rather unpopular choice.

If you plan to keep your car as long as possible AND you put emphasis on fun and handling, the CMT Nexus 1.4 C is definitely the better choice. The rest may be better off with the new FAAL Mesaia 1.6 GL.


Send me your cars for a review if you want. It’s very silent here…


Happy to submit my lore cars, what sort of cars are you looking for?
(most of mine are either boring, quirky, or flawed, but I try to make them at least kinda realistic)


Issue 02/2019 - Tanaka Ereteca 2.0G

More and more vans are dropped for SUVs - one of the last survivors is the upcoming Tanaka Ereteca for 2020. This car is so new that we even tested a prototype masked with some white foil. A classical large seven-seater with two sliding doors, although the 4,60 meter length makes it garageable.
The interior could be larger, but the third row is surprisingly good.

The main reason why the buyers switch to to SUVs are the looks, and Tanaka was well aware of the fact, making a very sharp design for the people carrier that does not stay far behind most SUVs when it comes to coolness.


The Ereteca offers a good balance between luxury approach and affordability. The leather seats are nice as the walnut wood trim and the automatic climate control that manages to cool down the large amount of air in such a van quite quick, and the infotainment with six speakers sounds good, and the connectivity to Android Auto and Apple CarPlay works fine. The touchscreen is quite sensitive, obviously made for small asian hands - we rarely hit what we wanted in the beginning, later we got used to it.


A good van is the one that feels like an usual station wagon. Tanaka must have known that, as the Ereteca handles astonishingly well despite its heavy 1,9-ton-weight. The variable steering adapts fine to city and highway use, and the dampening is well tuned to make use of the very sophisticated construction.
It’s not only the looks that make people buy SUVs. It’s also sportiness! Yep, we consider huge cars as sporty. How could it have come so far? But the Tanaka is no worse, sweeping nimble through the streets of San Fierro, Gasmea, handling no worse than a CMT Magellan that is considered as a good-handling SUV.

The engine is state-of-the-art, but following the boring usual reciepe: A turbocharged two-liter four-cylinder, fueled by direct injection, just like all the mainstream. The Tanaka 20DI-CI is one of the better, responsive like in a sport hatch, which fits well the design but feels somehow overambitous in a van. The non-constant and up-down-up-down torque curve is bizarre on the data sheet, but allows for lagless driving without overwhelming punch. 220 horsepower feel just like the right amount of power, propelling this wardrobe to 100 kph in 9 seconds. The top speed is claimed with 237 kph, we went up to 210 and it felt still secure although the bad aerodynamic of a van caused it to be already stressed at that speed.


The Tanaka does not aim for John Doe officeworker who tries to feed four kids, pay the mortgage on the house and needs to buy his wife a few shoes each month from his average salary. The Tanaka is estimated to be offered between $ 25.000 and 27.500, clearly aiming for a premium family car, but not more than a comparable premium midsize sedan like the CMT Atlas. The rest is manageable: $ 988 servicing cost are no bargain, but all recent cars feature such complex technology that we must get used to the fact that everything below 1000 is not bad. The consumption is ridiculously low, as we needed only 7,5 liter premium gas and we were quite heavy on the pedal. The data sheet tells us 6 liter, and this does not seem unrealistic.
There is only one thing that a SUV can still do better: The Ereteca fails even on light offroad, where a CMT Magellan still gets quite far.

A thrifty, but not too large van is always a good taxi. The Tanaka Ereteca looks even so good that it can serve in a limousine service, as the ride is comfortable and the trim quite ok, offering enough goodies for a premium transportation experience. If your company has to pick up VIPs from the airport frequently, the Ereteca would make a good job. Sales representatives could take a closer look, as the long-distance comfort is good and the economy great, and the interior can carry quite a few goods.
And when it comes to cabooses - the one or other lower-to-medium-management employee with a large family might accept it instead of a SUV that is mostly even more expensive.


The Ereteca shows that the times of a van are still not completely over. Tanaka carefully studied what makes SUV so succesful and went for a daring, sporty design and put a strong emphasis on handling. As most competitors have given up, there is hardly a better van on the market. Although the name awakened sexual interest as we read “Erection” first, the E R E T E C A is a reason to look foward to 2020.


The Company Car - Issue 01/1968

If you have some $30.000 to spend for a car, you are a lucky guy. Car companies like people like you and offer you some exclusive vehicles. The newest arrival on the market is the Saint 200L, a monumental 5,07 meter heavy cruiser. The new market leader is the still brand-new CMT Excelsior 70, and why not comparing these two?


While the CMT looks very reduced and avantgardistic, the Saint comes with loads of ornamental chrome and baroque, celebrating abundance and the good old glory days. This is still the case when taking a closer look, as CMT abandoned the classic ladder frame for a monocoque - the Saint 200 still has a frame - and leaf springs in the rear.
A different approach is also followed in the interior: The CMT is a four-seater offering more for fewer. The Saint understands itself as a fully-serving family car and offers six seats in an otherwise totally luxorious interior with power everything, just like the CMT. The latter is definitely the more comfortable car to sit in, but nevertheless it is an interessing fact that the Saint might be one of the last luxury six-seaters, as such an arrangement comes only with the base V6 engine in the Excelsior and even Candyllacs switch to front bucket seats.


Both suffer from their plus-size, the CMT even more with 30 centimeter more length. The ride in the Saint 200 is wallowy and feels like having pillows instead of dampeners, especially noticeable when dashing down the roads of San Fierro. This leads to the problem that the car lacks guidance onroad, instead of turning it moves somehow in a direction when you turn the wheel. The highway road manners are excellent, the ride is quiet and smooth and other than the CMT, no wheelspin makes the car nervous while accelerating.

The CMT combines a high ride with firmer suspension what feels a little stiff, but a hydropneumatic suspension, some latest-technology-feature only the 7-Liter-Excelsior has, conceals the awkward laxout. The CMT is definitely the more obedient car on a twisty road which might be part of its overall concept as it is designed as a world car and not only for Gasmea where a straight line is almost everything you see. The Excelsior is a little louder and does not have such a pleasant and warming roar like the Saint, it sounds more like its muscle car relative.

The engines are different as well: On the one hand a 7-liter and 16-valve-OHC V8 that returns massive 395 horsepower, on the other hand a 5-liter 32-valve-OHC with still-a-lot 340 horses, both with two four-barrel carburetors and thirst for expensive premium leaded gas. Although the quality of the automatic transmissions is almost identical, the CMT is much faster and feels like 150 horsepower more instead of only 55, mainly a reason of its better torque and massive low-end power, while the Saint has a more agressive camshaft aiming for maximum power at high rpm. The gearing of the Saint is maxed to drivability and smoothness, totally contradicting the high-revving V8 engine, and the tamed drivetrain feels a little over the top, so we were interessed in actual statistics.

Both cars go over 230 kph top speed - needlessly fast, indeed. But the CMT almost flies to 100kph in only 7,6 seconds, the Saint needs shocking 17,5! Quarter mile times are 15,9 seconds and 22,8. While the CMT is really no thrifty car, guzzling 26 liter gas with ease, the Saint needs terrifying 32 liter.


Both cars are quite expensive with $30.000, almost the price of an average apartment. The running and maintenance costs are nothing for the average man either.
The Saint has the advantage of totally rust-free materials for both frame and body, while the CMT only has a galvanized monocoque, so we expect the Saint 200L to serve ten years or more without major body repairs. The mechanical part seems solid either.


The CMT clearly defeats the Saint. The Excelsior aims for the masses that want the perfect car, fast, controllable, featuring ultimate comfort and compliant yet outstanding design. The Excelsior 70 is both a math nerd and a football ace. You can love it or hate it for that, but the CMT Excelsior in it’s three versions is definitely the best buy in the premium and luxury class in the range from $16.200 to $32.300.

The Saint 200L is aiming for those that would be bored by the CMTs superlatives. No car in this class is so contradictory, offering finest materials and latest comfort features in a six seater layout, mating a high-pitched engine to a grandpa-like gearing. The ornate and overdone chrome-style fits it like a tailored suit. We doubt you will be able to resell this too-oldschool-car it in five years when everybody sells his or her kidney for an used Excelsior 70 in mint condition, so we like its bulletproof chassis and materials as this car really looks for a long-term relationship.



The Company car - Issue 03/1965 - F.S.A. Aetna 1600 vs CMT Familia 2000 SX

The 90-horsepower midsize sport sedan class is definitely a wise choice for young entrepreneurs - these cars are representative enough, but they show you’re a modest man wisley spending the money your customers pay you. You started a succesful business, but you keep your feet on the ground. Many cars to choose from, the latest comes from Southern Frunia - the FSA Aetna. Its rugged design tells your customers you’re a higly individual personality, and you put emphasis on what you drive and how you drive.
Next to it we have one of the most solid choices, the CMT Familia, that recieved a new 2.0 liter engine last year, allowing for 90 horsepower - the former entry level SL trim had 75 coming from 1600ccm.

The Familia looks a lot simpler and smoother than the Aetna, but you might consider it dated, as the car is from 1959 and had no design change since its debut. It is the conservative choice among sport sedans - and so is it’s engine. The 2,0 liter OHC is made of cast iron, has cast iron internals and 8 valves. Fuel comes from two single-barrel eco carburetors- boring usual stuff, the tubular manifold and performance intake seem like a desperate try to conceal that CMTs latest four-cylinder engine lacks real innovations and hardly differs from the old one.


The CMT Familia might be an entry-level car engine wise, but the interior is fully premium. The materials are excellent, the stereo has a clear sound and brilliant reception even in rural areas, and power steering is also standard as well as progressive springs. The safety standard is as high as possible, soft materials on the dashboard, a breakable steering column, reinforced door locks that even work when dented and a laminated windscreen are more than just state of the art.
The five-seat interior is quite spacious, fitting four adults well on long trips, and it is fully usable as family car if not in duty to get you to your customers.

The Aetna has a much tighter interior with only four seats. The low load capacity also disqualifies it as serious family car. The materials are on the same quality level than in the CMT, but workmanship is not as refined, but this is actually belonging to the DNA of Southern Frunian cars. The stereo is not as good as in the CMT, but not bad either. You don’t need it very often, as the CMT sounds like a vacuum cleaner, but the FSA engine yells for flooring it with a sporty noise. A car that wants to be driven hard would need a good safety as the CMT, but sadly there is nothing standing out. The glass will break into sharp pieces, the steering column will crush your torso, at least the door locks seem quite stable even after an accident. We don’t want to try it out. CMT wins here.


The Aetna keeps the promise the look makes and offers latest innovative technology. It comes with all-independent wheels, front and rear double wishbone suspension - miles better than the CMT with front McPherson struts and rear coil spring solid axle. The engine is also derived from race technology. Aluminium head, forged internals, two overhead camshafts - this is a lot more sophisticated than almost all competitors in this class. We miss a little the four-valve-per-cylinder layout from the race engines as this would have been the ultimate addition. A two-barrel carburetor and a race intake help performance even more, so that the car has the same power (92 hp, so even two more) as the CMT with only 1600ccm displacement.

In terms of smoothness and response the Aetna clearly sets apart from the CMT - as well as in handling. The CMTs front wheels struggle with harsh and quick steering maneuvers, and the rear axle lacks tackiness on a twisty and bouncy country road. Countersteering is quite easy on the CMT due to the firm suspension and you do not need to be Jim Clark to conquer back control, but the competitor is just miles better. The F.S.A. stays mostly neutral and does not know neither stubborn understeer nor a suddenly breaking out rear. Braking is another advantage for the F.S.A, as it has four disc brakes, needing a shorter distance to standstill and having less locking on the brakes.

If you thought it would be a harsh ride, we might surprise you. The CMT setup is stiffer, as the engineers tried to allow engaged driving with the simple suspension layout. The F.S.A. that is even a lot more comfortable on bad roads might be the new benchmark here and is highly addictive, especially when driving in its home area.
On a straight line, the CMT does not catch up, as the acceleration is 12,8 seconds to 100 compared to 12,1. The top speed is identical with 158 kph. Not that the CMT is bad, it is acutally quite good, but it does not set the benchmark here. Not at all.


A fun fact is that both cars are offered for the same price of $15.200. So which one is the better purchase?
The consumption is almost identical, 13,6 liter for the CMT and 13,7 for the F.S.A. so if you’re driving a lot this does not count for a descision. The mainteance cost might be more interesting, but definitely not deciding. The F.S.A. that is a lot more technologically advanced requires a hefty $ 840,60. The CMT 769,30 which is also not cheap.

The CMT is by far more reliable, especially the complex engine causes the F.S.A trouble. But this might not surprise you as it’s a car confirming all stereotypes of Southern Frunian cars. Except one. While the CMT is a steel-only car, the F.S.A. seems to be far more rust resistant with galvanized chassis and panels. Which does not score as it could if the car dies early from engine failure… But neither does the reliability help the CMT when rusted to pieces.


The F.S.A. wins for us… It is by far more fun, has a lot more individuality and all that for similar costs. The CMT might be the better choice if you’re up to use your company car as family car and you do need to trust on a good reliability, maybe because there is no train station near you and/or your customers. The much better safety might also be a reason for the CMT, but the better handling of the F.S.A. might avoid the one or other crash.

FSA (closed topic)

I am looking for early 90s vans - feel free to send me some until August 15.


Fleet Manager Magazine - Issue 05/1984 - Silver-York Sovereign vs CMT Regent 3000ti

Looking at a parking lot of a five-star hotel, there is clearly one car dominating: The CMT Regent, the current benchmark as “boss-car”. Sometimes you’ll see a Silver-York, a brand with excellent reputation among luxury enthusiasts.
Why the businessmen preferred the CMT? Lighter, more economical, faster, a lot more agile and a modern design. We all remember how flashed we were when it came out in 1975. Now, nine years and two since it’s mild facelift, it still looks great.
But in our opinion, the car next to it looks no worse. It is the new generation of S-Ys Sovereign.

So, our latest poll showed us that most Gasmean companies spend around $ 30.000 for cars for their leading employees. The Sovereign for $ 30.600 offers a brand new 5,8 liter V8 with 188 horsepower, the CMT for $ 30.300 only has a 3 liter V6 engine. But it is turbocharged and delivers 210 horsepower. Looks like a balanced competition.


Both are landyachts with a length of over five meter, so there will not be any complaints about interior space. The trunks are giant, and so is the standard equipment.
Wood decor, finest leather, modern computers, good workmanship - both cars have the same level of luxury and refinement. While the CMT still has a rather futuristic interior with “wrap around” wood bar, additional digital gauges in the center console and a giant armada of vents, the S-Y features a very conservative layout that is not less fascinating. But such things like opening the door by pulling the armrest, that’s pure CMT stuff. The S-Y avoids such futuristic stuff and sticks to a massive chrome door handle. This has worked for decades and will always work.

Both cars are five-seaters, as electrical adjustable rear seats with heating and venting are only available with the V8 model in the Regent.


The Regent is the much lighter car, as its panels are made of aluminium. As it was developed within the oil crisis, saving weight had been one of the objectives. You can feel this on the road, as the Regent is nimble like a midsize. Since 1982, the Regent comes with a computer-controlled four-speed automatic (except 2500 tiS). The gearbox is quite fast considering it’s an automatic, avoiding long breaks. Turbo engines are poison for luxury cars, and a V6 isn’t the smoothest. We got this engine as answer to the second fuel crisis. Knowing this, CMT gave it a slightly reduced throttle response, as waspish behaivour should be killed.
Nevertheless, the car is fast. 8,7 seconds to 100 kph, 201 top speed and 15,6 liter consumption keep what the brochure promised: “V6 consumption, V8 performance”. The Regent has a suspension of DW in front and Semi Trailing Arm in the rear - nothing special, tuned for understeer which is rare on a RWD vehicle. Sometimes this is annoying as you don’t expect that from that large sedan.

The S-Y can not deny that the CMT had been an inspiration. Four independent wheels on double wishbones, smaller dimensions, less weight. The brand-new engine is indeed slower that the CMTs, needing 10,3 seconds and making just 186 kph at 18,8 l. But you need to see it in comparison to the predecessor that was dull and thirsty. The power of the Sovereign is sufficient, and if there is something to blame then it’s the slowly and soft-acting three-speed automatic gearbox.
While the test-drive we convinced ourselves that it is still a true Silver-York. Although the CMT has a totally new and innovative air suspension, the Silver-York defeats the rival without using such complex features. The ride is pillow-like, the interior noise is quiter, the steering more dampened but still a lot more precise than before, and on a twisty road cornering isn’t too far behind the Regent. In fact, S-Y transferred the feel of the old landyachts perfectly into a contemporary shape. Oversteering is rare but can easily be caused on purpose, but the car stays controllable even for unexperienced drivers. We were truly surprised how well it handles considering its setup is ultra-soft.


The $ 300 less for the CMT are nothing to consider, as the hightech loads the Regent features cause more need for service. In fact, the CMT isn’t cheaper anymore after the first service, which could kill it in this comparison if it’s intended to buy a car in larger amounts for a fleet. The consumption might be lower, but the Regent urges for premium, the Silver-York accepts regular, so you save money with the CMT only if you drive giant distances with it, like a leading sales representative.
Considering the high level of latest electronics, the CMT is surprisingly reliable, although we see an advantage for the Sovereign as it’s less complex and offers the same excellent workmanship like the CMT:


Hard to say if the Silver-York passes the CMT. We would say it does not, but they drive in the same league. THe Regent can already feel the hot breathe of the Sovereign in it’s neck. The level of comfort in the Sovereign is just miraculous, and the giant expertise of S-Y in luxury car building can be seen almost everywhere, especially in refinement and reliability.
The CMT can carry more load, got stuck later in our offroad course, handles overall better, has more power and pleases us by having a slightly larger interior.

As the Silver-York gets very close to our old and new benchmark, its much lower long-time owning cost might be deciding for private buyers, and your car policy might exclude the CMT for its gadges that are difficult to maintain. Not to forget the fact that the Sovereign saves taxes with a three-way catalytic converter. The Regent does not need one to go below the allowed maximum, but in a few years the owers might add a converter the car isn’t used to, while S-Y buyers do not have to care at all.


Did you just make an inferior knockoff of the Sovereign and call that better?


This is just you reviewing your own cars. I would never do that, especially if there’s little to no criticism.


My guy this is one of the most BIASED reviews I have ever seen. Get someone else to hold this comparison, and how the results will differ, yeah?

Oh yeah I highly doubt that the S-Y took inspiration from you. Do us a favor; never bullshit us again.


Needless to say you aren’t gonna get any takers for your reviews if you just use them to prop yourself up over other respected designers. I hope you can change your mind and just stick to reviewing others. There aren’t many car reviews in general anymore.


This is honestly hilarious, really… It fucking is. My naivety in even bothering to send you a car really has shown.

I don’t see how one can say the design took inspiration from yours… And god seeing the Sovereign without any of the mod fixtures is just a shame. The character is lost, the design flair etc… But still the Silver-York was tuned predominantly for realism. Even its current power is pushing it slightly.
But again… How you can state the Silver-York took inspiration from the ‘regent’ is honestly the biggest piece of piss I think I’ve ever wrote.
A magazine review is meant to be a review… Not someone promoting there own car with false fallacies such as…

Ermm… So apparently your know telling me what my car has inside? Not saying it wouldn’t have something like that, but comeon…

Ahah. AHHA… Ahah…

I suppose next time I’ll use some commonsense and not bother to send anything to someone that’s just wanting to write a review that bashes other companies cars and promotes there own bland boxes sooo :man_shrugging:

I’m not really fused about the shitty review, just the fact that your tryna say the York took inspiration from the Regent… Now that… That’s actually hilarious.


Sorry if this review was … not bringing the community an advantage.
I did NOT build a knockoff of the Sovereign as the Regent model is already very old as you can see in my company thread.

I used to tell fictional facts from the interior to make the reviews more “Real-life-like”.

Be sure that I will think about re-writing the review in a style that doesn’t offend anyone, as this was definitely not my intention and I must say I did not see such harsh reactions coming.


You still had the audacity to call the Sovereign a knockoff Regent, and the reviews are so biased it’s not even funny. There isn’t a single bad review on any of your cars, and each and every one of them are always superior to the car you’re comparing against regardless of whether they actually are or not.

Either review them fairly, or don’t review your own cars.


Rather than adding needless fictional facts, I’d rather advise you to read from what Automation gives for you and add some twists to it, but don’t overdo the twists and make it somewhat REALISTIC, and ofc, be honest and don’t always put your cars as the superior ones.


So to prevent a double faux pas from which you may not recover, you should be quite clear that it’s not so much the style of your writing as it was your content. Maybe you meant that anyway.

The golden principle here is like that of anything with roleplay elements: never assume anything about any other player’s content that they haven’t explicitly said or given license to interpret (and if you must at least be accurate about it). Especially do not make any presumptions about the fictional world which content inhabits that has persistent ramifications beyond your own lore unless you have uncontroversial evidence for it (e.g. you can call your car a bestseller if it won a forum contest about being popular or good in general or something).

Plenty of players have copped flak for breaking that last rule by calling a bad car a “huge success that sold 5 million units” or some bullshit that bears no roots in reality. You copped particularly fierce criticism because in doing this you also somehow managed to imply that a player well known for showing their working in their highly regarded design process (on Discord at least) was derivative of your own.

I’m assuming you didn’t actually mean to say that but it’s best to steer well clear of any comments of the sort unless you’re convinced someone is actually imitating or plagiarising you.


Thanks for bringing it totally on point.

Unfortunately I am very busy today, but I think this evening I can give you a better statement on what happened and if and how I will proceed.

Maybe this has been necessary to improve the review quality here. Even if I am propably one of the older users here, I can’t deny I still can and still must make errors and learn from them. I refuse the accusation of abusing the Sovereign for my own lore, but the fictional part was over the top here and surely there will be changes if I decide to keep it up.


Personally even if it was my car, I would definitely hand it to the Silver-York, I don’t like bias and I can admit when I’m wrong :joy: but the bias in this review is definitely strong


So, now I am having the time to give a statement this discussion deserves. As I am having trouble with multi-quoting, I have to do it different but I think it should be “readable”.

Did I request the S-Y to do a ripoff for my company?

No, my car was older and done waaay before. What I did was adding a few fixtures as it looked very bland next to the Silver-York. It was said that the Sovereign was missing fixtures on my pictures, and after a little research I can confirm this. This has not been done on purpose, a re-importing showed that I was missing mods.

Do I really accuse that the S-Y is a copy of the Regent model?

No, this was purely fictional. I did not see it coming that it sounds like a wrong accusation. I apologized via PM to the Professor as this is really something messed up by me. I do take note of that and avoid it for the future.

Am I biased and glorifying my own cars?

I thought not. The Faal won against my car, and so did the F.S.A. The RAM Saint was a little panned by me, yes. But this car did have bad gearing and strange engineering choices. Market stats confirmed that. Nevertheless I pointed out the good design of it.
In case of the S-Y I still think I wasn’t unfair, but when more than three persons independently tell me I am, then there must be something true about it. I will definitely be aware of this and do after every review a proofreading myself considering this aspect.

Do I only do these reviews to present my cars?

Asked this way: No. But surely I do include them quite often to give them attention, yes, I am guilty in this case. But its mostly about checking how good my cars are. And yes, I could do these checks without writing reviews every time about it.

When continuing, will I still include my own cars?

Yes and no. There will be definitely more single reviews than comparisons for the future. If I think it would be a good idea to see what I did with the same or a similar body, I will ask the person who’s car I review and let him or her proofread before publishing anything here. In no way I want over-the-top fictional interpretation that offends anyone or implies things that are an unwanted slight.

So, this was my point of view on that. Again my apologies to ProfessorP3pp3r that my good intention has been implemented in a very bad way.

Please let me know if the changes are reasonnable and give the car tests a better feel and make them what they should be.