It’s not actually that far fetched an idea, there is plenty of room as the early GDI engines had the injector to the side, not at the top. Of course this is much less effective than modern engines where both the spark plug and injector are at the top in the middle of the valves and that probably wouldn’t fit with 5v, but I wouldn’t even consider 5v Di a realism issue
3 Likes
i said this on main, but physical improbability would be a more apt term - to fit all of the necessary parts (the injector and spark plug, namely) you would likely need to make the valves smaller, which would render the core benefit of having 5 valves in the first place moot.
i stand by my original judgement, and maintain that it’s an unrealistic engineering choice.
Ah rip…. gg my first submission ever, learned a few things after submitting the car that i wish i had known beforehand, but tis a learning experience
Porsche, Toyota, and Subaru have mass-made 4cyls that big. No cheese there IMO.
Auto and Motoring Hot Hatch Comparison Test - Results (Phase 1 - Part 2)
Auto and Motoring Review Department, Day 2
Coming back in early the next day, the interns picked back up on selecting which cars they’d be handing over to the review editors - but to do that, they have one more pile of cars to go through..
@happyfireballman - Morisumi Yato S
The first car of the day that the interns start researching is the Morisumi Yato S. Looking over owner reports and reviews from other automotive outlets, the interns find that the Yato unfortunately doesn’t feel very sporty despite being very quick, real world reliability has proven to be very poor, with service costs proving to be extremely high for the segment. Additionally fuel economy has been very poor across multiple reviews and multiple owner reports, and design has been remarked as “too simple”, and not feeling particularly sporty visually. Knowing it isn’t something that the review editors are likely to pick, the interns agree to add the Yato to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Yato makes multiple mistakes across engineering and design - namely that it fails to look particularly sporty, the whole car sits too low on too big wheels, and it lacks a lot of depth or additional shape to make it seem less like a normal hatchback that erroneously had a spoiler strapped to it, and more like a well intentioned hot hatch. Engineering is an issue too - raw sportiness is well below average, it’s way too fast for the segment, and other stats don’t fare any better; drivability is above average but other cars best it quite easily, reliability is well below average, and fuel economy is among the lowest in the challenge. Combine this with a high purchase price and astronomical service costs - the Yato fails to secure a place in the semi-finals.
@titleguy1 - Kimura Auburn KR/R
Next on the interns’ list is the Kimura Auburn, submitted for contention in the KR/R trim. Researching real world experiences, the interns find that the Kimura is a pretty handsome car, but has flaws elsewhere - it isn’t the sportiest experience in hot hatches today, the normal driving experience has been described as “less than ideal”, and lower than expected real world reliability. While reviews may praise the design, some have also found the Kimura to be a little tall and square, which makes it seem older aesthetically against some of the more contemporary cars in the segment. With some reluctant deliberation, the interns decide to add the Kimura to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. This one hurts, won’t lie. The Kimura is generally well designed, but I find the very upright and square greenhouse make the Kimura seem taller than it is, and I’m not a huge fan of the taillight shape nor the clear glass over them, but generally speaking I don’t find anything too majorly bad about it. The bigger issue, unfortunately, is the engineering - in your pursuits to make a more realistically engineered car (which you did do), many of the other lower priority stats took a big hit, with well below average drivability, reliability, and above average service costs being particular standouts. While the Kimura does get a few key areas right (impressive raw practicality and cargo capacities, good comfort, safety and fuel economy), its flaws aren’t overcome by things like a more flawless design or a low purchase price either, and for that, it doesn’t move to the semi-finals.
@SheikhMansour - Oryn Misaki RS-R
Next on the interns’ list is the Oryn Misaki, submitted in the RS-R trim. Immediately the interns know that the review editing team is unlikely to accept it on an aesthetics basis, with an overly simple and mashed together design that feels more like a selection of ideas than a cohesive design. Real world usability has been approached better than the design, with owners remarking that the Misaki is easy to drive, sporty (though perhaps unnecessarily quick for the segment), decently practical, but reliability has been up and down for different people, and overall the Misaki hasn’t been the most popular choice in the segment, leading the interns to move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. There are a few key things wrong with the Oryn, but design is the first, immediately obvious issue - proportions are strange, the front is oddly constructed and lacks depth, the rear is too simple, and the sides are a mash-up of ideas and fixtures, with senselessly done body moulding (why did you do two smaller fixtures when you could have just done one larger and more sweeping moulding fixture), vents that have no business on the sides of the car, body color B and C pillars for some reason - overall the worst scoring entry purely on design. Engineering was an issue too - high sportiness does not make up for being unrealistically fast - not even super hatches like the RS3 and A45 accelerate this quick, a full alu body and SSF chassis are weird and out of place, a sequential turbo setup feels cheesy, and overall it feels as if the engineering decisions were approached with the same amount of thought as the design was. Many of the lower priority stats are good, but you make too many mistakes everywhere else that it really doesn’t make a difference.
@ddgs002_56056 - BWD ST240 DiT 4Traxle
Next on the interns’ list is the BWD ST240, submitted in the DiT 4Traxle trim. Reading through some owner reports and Auto and Motoring’s own first drive review, they find that while the BWD is a pretty handsome, if slightly busy looking entry to the hot hatch field, and feels relatively sporty to drive - some buyers have found it to be quicker than they were expecting, and while it’s fun to drive enough, other cars are better still while also being significantly easier to drive under more typical circumstances. The interns also noticed that somewhat weirdly, the BWD runs a 5-speed manual, and has an engine that reaches 10,000 RPM. Other real world uses don’t paint a rosier picture - real world practicality and cargo room is suboptimal, ride comfort is very poor, and it’s right at the max vehicle price for the comparison test, and so they add the BWD to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Design wasn’t really an issue, but I did find the front and rear to both be a little overwrought, some editing of the lower front fascia and rear bumper would have done you some good. Engineering however left a lot to be desired - sportiness is good, but it’s a little too quick, a 10,000rpm redline is crazy, a 5MT is very out of place for the current era, and the other stats don’t paint a better picture; drivability is well below average, raw practicality is fine but the cargo capacities are well below average, reliability is average, and comfort is stunningly low at 15 even. Putting all of the other cons together with a nearly maxed out purchase price - the BWD’s appeal quickly loses steam.
@EnCR - Saidenki Equinox NS
Next was the Saidenki Equinox, submitted in NS trim. Reading through some owners’ forums, the interns find praise directed towards the Saidenki’s design, though some wished it looked sportier than it does. Switching to what it’s like to use the Saidenki as a car, the interns learn that while performance is pretty good, there are more fun entries in the hot hatch segment behind the wheel - and much like the BWD and Kimura - those same cars are easier to drive normally as well. Reliability and real world practicality have also proven to be less than ideal according to owners. Ultimately, knowing that the editors are unlikely to select the Equinox for the final comparison test lineup, the interns move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. There are a few issues with the Saidenki - design is part of it, while I generally think it’s alright I don’t care for the shelf over the taillights, the side design lacks depth, and I find the overall car to be both messy and not look as sporty as the competition. Engineering has problems too, with odd choices like a VGT and compound turbo set-up, a very aggressive VVL kick-in that affects gearing, very low sportiness, drivability, reliability, and raw practicality. While the Saidenki doesn’t get everything wrong, the things it does get wrong combined with a very high purchase price add up to keep it out of the semi-finals.
@sutarttt - Testar Neon R-Spec Superlight
The interns turn their attention to the next car - the Testar Neon, submitted in R-Spec Superlight trim. At first glance, the interns aren’t in love with the Neon’s design - it lacks visual depth and detail, it both rides too high and looks too tall visually, lacks visual contrast, and for a car that’s supposed to be RWD - the interns don’t find that to be immediately obvious at first glance. Reading owner reports, they find that while the Neon is plenty sporty and easy enough to drive, it’s been very unreliable and expensive to fix, lacking in terms of safety technology and equipment, and less than perfect real world practicality, with little room for passengers and cargo. Finding the Neon to have too many flaws to earn a spot in the comparison test, the interns add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. High sportiness is good, but not when it’s backed up by flawed and unrealistic engineering choices like pushrod rear suspension, statistically it’s a mixed bag elsewhere with just above average drivability, below average raw practicality and cargo capacities, very low reliability and safety, plus a maxed out purchase price and above average service costs. Design is less than ideal as well - it lacks detail and moulding, it rides too high visually, and with a lack of side skirts or other visual contrast, the ride height only stands out more, and a very tall body doesn’t help things along either. Additionally, while RWD isn’t inherently a problem, the body choice does not give the illusion that it is RWD, especially not the way that the design is proportioned. Overall a mixed bag - but not one that’s solid enough to make it into the next round.
@superbiirdd - Vaire Mirana SpeedInstinct RS-II
Next up was the Vaire Mirana, submitted in SpeedInstinct RS-II trim. The interns were generally impressed by the design, though they found it to be just a little bulky, and the sharply angled greenhouse clashes a little with the rounder bodywork. Reading owners’ reports however, they find that the Mirana’s looks write checks that the driving experience can’t cash - it doesn’t feel very sporty at all considering it has 365 horsepower and strong performance figures, and the normal driving experience isn’t much better. The Mirana does counter with great real world practicality, tons of interior space for people and stuff, and it’s by far the safest car in the segment. Unfortunately, for as much as the Mirana does get right - a hot hatch that isn’t fun can’t play, and the interns move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Mirana is a pretty nice looking car, but I found it to be slightly too tall visually, and the sharply shaped greenhouse on such a round body looks a little bit out of place, and I could have done without the flat black pieces on the head and taillights. Engineering has its ups and downs, and is ultimately why the Mirana is eliminated - sportiness is significantly below average, as is drivability and raw practicality (but you have by far the most cargo capacity for both actual cargo and passengers), reliability is very low, and purchase price is at the max. The Mirana does have some wins, namely the highest safety in the entire competition - 78.8, no doubt thanks to the advanced 20s safety and significantly larger size of the Mirana. There are some other odd engineering decisions - 10mm front tire stagger, torsion beam rear suspension (not inherently an issue from a realism standpoint, but it had undue effects on your drivability and sportiness), and 365hp is way too much in this case. Overall, a strong effort, but one that needed more work.
@Lil_Cretin - Naramoto Motegi Z Final Edition
Next was the Naramoto Motegi, submitted as the Z Final Edition. Reading through some information, the interns find that the Motegi falls into the same trap that the Mirana does - the looks write a check the driving experience can’t cash, with a worse sporty driving experience than the Mirana (though under more typical circumstances, the Motegi is easier to drive), though the Motegi is more reliable, though considerably more expensive to service - likely due to packing fancier technology, like a variable geometry turbo and fully active suspension. Design was less of an issue, though some of the interns found it to be a little tall and flat, and some found it to be missing visual flair. Knowing that the editors wouldn’t go for the Motegi due to it being an unsporty hot hatch, the interns moved it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. I see some glimpses of a good car design-wise, but I found it to be slightly flat, and it could have use more detail and visual contrast (more trim, side skirts, that sort of thing) to really bring it together visually. However, much like the Mirana above - the engineering could use some work. Sportiness was well below average, performance was alright but not exceptional in any way, but some of the lower priority stats were pretty good - drivability was slightly above average, practicality/cargo capacity was pretty reasonable, reliability was good, but safety is below average, and at $33,800 the Motegi is too expensive for what it offers against similarly priced cars. With a little more design work, and some more optimization of the engineering, it might have made it to the semi-finals - but as it is now, it falls just a little short.
@Vanilla - Gyeong Sura G-Sport
Next up was the Gyeong Sura, submitted in G-Sport trim. The interns were immediately in agreement on the design, finding it to be oddly proportioned with very short rear overhang, a rear bumper that took up over half of the rear design visually, with front surfacing that felt thrown on and not well integrated into the rest of the design. The Sura does counter those errors slightly by being solidly sporty, though it’s way too fast for the desired segment, and while it’s easy enough to drive similarly priced cars beat it. Reliability has been below the segment average, and it’s been one of the more expensive cars to service annually. With no real exceptional strengths, the interns agree to move the Sura into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Design was a pretty big problem - I found it to be oddly proportioned with a super tall rear bumper, and rear overhang that was practically non-existent. I also found the rear lights to not wrap around enough visually, and the front surfacing comes off as clunky and not well integrated. Additionally, I found the red trim on the wheels to be odd looking and forced. Engineering had issues - high sportiness, but too fast for the segment, below average drivability, average practicality and cargo capacities, below average reliability, and just average performance in the 2-star priorities, which with a maxed purchase price and above average service cost ultimately all kill the Sura’s chances of moving into the next round.
@Ultimate_Billy - Bovos Poka TR
Next was the Bovos Poka, submitted in TR trim. The interns didn’t have a ton of negative feelings towards the design, but some found it to be oddly proportioned thanks to the tall and very upright rear end design, some found the front to be too busy and in need of some editing, and both agreed that the wheels needed more offset. Owners reported less positive experiences with the Poka as a car, with a decently sporty driving experience and good performance, but a poor behind the wheel experience under more typical circumstances, okay real world practicality but surprisingly little room for passengers and cargo, a lack of modern safety equipment, and less than ideal ride comfort. Not impressed by the Poka’s overall package, the interns add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Design was an improvement over cars that I have judged of yours in the past, but I found the front to be a little overwrought and needing some editing, proportions could have used some work with the very flat and upright rear end design, and I would have pushed the wheels out more than you did. Engineering had problems - like other cars in this round you had high sportiness and solid performance figures, but it felt as if those things came at the sacrifice of the other judged areas; drivability was below average, practicality was just barely above average, but cargo capacities were significantly below average, reliability was solid, but fuel economy, comfort and safety were all either average or below average. Add in that the Poka is at the max budget, with average service costs - it gets a lot harder to justify moving it into the finals over other, better balanced entries.
@Riley - Oni Nodachi Type R
Next up was the Oni Nodachi, submitted in Type R trim. The interns immediately notice the extreme exterior design which is generally well recieved, though some found the front fascia to be slightly dated over other cars in the segment - Reading about owners’ experiences with the Nodachi, the interns learn that it falls into the same trap that the Mirana and Motegi from earlier did - as sporty as it looks, it doesn’t provide an equally sporty driving experience - though it does better than either of those cars in that regard. Performance is good, and the typical driving experience is good - though there are similarly priced cars that do both of those things better, all while still being more fun to drive. Real world reliability has proven to be poor, as the Nodachi is packed full of modern technology that seems to break more often than not, and it leaves owners cash poor when those things do break. Overall, while the Nodachi might be a handsome and sporty looking piece of kit - the real world experiences have painted a less than perfect picture, so the interns move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Nodachi is pretty well designed, but I find it to be too extreme visually, and the front fascia is kinda dated looking against some of the top designs in the competition. Engineering leaves a lot to be desired - below average sportiness means the design writes checks the rest of the car can’t cash, you also did 5 valves per cylinder and DI, which if you’ve read lotto’s review you’d know that’s physically not probable, a compound turbo is a little weird, and statistically while drivability is solid, there are cars that beat you while maintaining higher sportiness, raw practicality is low (though cargo capacities are pretty average), reliability is well below average, fuel economy is poor, safety is below average, though comfort is pretty good. Unfortunately, the Nodachi’s flaws are not forgiven by the maxed purchase price, nor the very high service costs - and for those reasons, it ends things here.
@Kreator - ACZ Rosewood Zephyr
Last in this group of cars, the interns have the ACZ Rosewood, submitted in Zephyr trim. The interns aren’t fans of the Rosewood’s design, noting it to be dated looking, with surfacing that doesn’t help to elevate the overall design as it fails to really accentuate aspects of the bodywork. The real world experience is slightly better recieved, noting that the Rosewood feels solidly sporty and reasonably easy to drive under more normal circumstances - though some find it to be quicker than they would have wanted. Reliability has been just average for the segment, and while the annual service costs haven’t been unreasonably high - they’re still higher than most owners were expecting. Fuel economy has been poor, and ride comfort is just average for the segment, though it’s very safe. Overall, the Rosewood isn’t too terribly flawed - but at the maximum target price for the comparison test, there are simply other cars that do everything the Rosewood does better across the board - thus, the interns move it into the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Last but certainly not least, the Rosewood unfortunately suffers from both a poor design and mixed bag engineering. Starting with design, I find the front to be very dated, and there’s a lot of surfacing but I don’t really find it to do very much to elevate the overall design or accentuate the features nicely, the wheels are too small, it rides a little too low, and I found the blocking off of the exhaust tips on the rear very weird and unnecessary - if you were dead set on that, I wouldn’t have done it in body color either. Engineering had ups and downs - sportiness was high, performance was good, drivability was high, but reliability was just average, safety was low, and comfort was average. Much like the Nodachi above, when you consider that the Rosewood is at the max budget - the appeal of it isn’t there, and thus, it does not move on to round 2.
With that, the interns have selected which cars they plan to hand over to the review editors, and on their way out for the day, they hand a shortlist over to the head review editor..
Advancing to Phase 2 -
@iivansmith and @chiefzach2018
@shibusu and @moroza
@yurimacs
@DoctorNarfy
@Texaslav and @Kyorg
@bang6111
@Portalkat42
@azkaalfafa
@Oreology
@Dragawn
@the-chowi
@NotChris07
@kookie
@Ritz
@Kanye_West
@Ne0
@supersaturn77
@Maxbombe and @Tsundere-kun
@tsarchasm
@Tragedy
@Xepy
31 Likes
First of the back pack, it seems.
Curious, but why does my car’s front end look dated, and where could I improve on the surfacing?
The front comes off as dated to me because of the crossbar design in the grille that’s also body colored - gives off an older Dodge feel that I don’t think worked very well, and mimicking that same crossbar shape in the headlights with the DRLs only furthers that impression. I would have done sharper, more angular DRLs that followed one of the headlight’s edges (the top or the bottom, dealer’s choice), and I wouldn’t have used amber indicators either - on most modern cars they’re usually white when off and light up as amber when they’re in use. As for the surfacing, I wouldn’t have made it as deep/protruding on the doors, and i wouldn’t have made it so horizontal either - angling it slightly would have made it seem sharper and more modern looking as a result.
4 Likes
Can’t wait to cache my check for round 2 very epic review
2 Likes
Honestly, the reliability stat is way too stubborn for me, despite my efforts, it would not budge per say. The win, I was trying to find something, but I couldn’t get the right wing that fit well for the body that was a bit aged as I started this off as a 2 door and I kind of felt like I was backed into a wall in regards to design
I think my benchmarks for stats are all messed up cuz I’m used to building older cars lol. But I’m happy with this result overall. I still need to learn to do more intricate surfacing without it looking jank, tend to do pretty conservative styling just to avoid weird lighting bugs and clipping.
I am a bit confused on why my car was over the price threshold, I must be looking at the wrong price statistic or something.
basically all challenges here on the forums use the approximate cost on the statistics page as the price, here’s a screenshot of your entry -
as you can see, you were almost 10k overbudget.
Auto and Motoring Hot Hatch Comparison Test - Results (Phase 2 - Semi-Finals)
Auto and Motoring Review Department, Editing Office, February 2026
The day after the interns selected the top cars to be considered for the final comparison test, the head review editor has called a meeting with the other editors and the head of the testing department to select which cars move into the full comparison test..
@Oreology - Arusa Tanto Turbo Kuro Edition
First up on the shortlist provided by the interns was the Arusa Tanto Turbo, submitted for contention as the Kuro Edition. Reading through owner reports, the editors find that the Tanto is great to drive fast and slow, and that curiously the Tanto is rear-wheel drive in a field of front-wheel and all-wheel drive cars. Additionally they find that the Tanto is among the most reliable cars in the segment, very efficient, safe, and despite having a relatively diminutive cargo area in terms of capacity, it makes use of that space very well. Design is a plus too, though some of the editors weren’t a fan of how tall and upright the rear end is, and that the cladding comes off more crossover-y than intended. Despite that, the editors and the head of the testing department are unanimous about the Tanto earning the first slot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Arusa is a strong entry - great design, solid sportiness and performance, high drivability, great stats in many of the lower priority areas - some small flaws like low cargo and passenger capacities, and high service costs - but overall, an easy shoe-in for the finals.
@azkaalfafa - Inquisitor Geed Turbo
Next was the Geed Turbo by Inquisitor, and upon doing research the editors find that while the Geed is fun enough to drive and reasonably quick, it isn’t very practical, reliability has been lower than expected with reasonably high annual service costs, and it doesn’t make up for it by being comfortable, nice in terms of build quality and material quality, or by being cheap - at $35,000, the max price that was set for the comparison test submissions, the Geed is unfortunately bested by cheaper cars, and so the editors add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Solid sportiness and performance, good drivability, and a solid design are the good things about the Geed, but unfortunately things start to come apart at the seams after that - raw practicality and cargo capacities are all below average, reliability, fuel economy, safety, and comfort all are below average - and at $35,000 - there are cheaper or similarly priced cars that do all of the things that the Geed does well equally well, and they surpass the Geed in the areas where it doesn’t do so well - so for that reason, it does not move into the finals.
@yurimacs - RetroniX Vixzta R
Next on the shortlist was the RetroniX Vixzta, submitted for contention in the R trim. Reading real-world reports, the editors find that the Vixzta is tons of fun behind the wheel and great to drive normally, very usable in the real world despite being one of the smaller cars in the segment, though it isn’t the nicest in terms of materials/build quality strictly speaking, and it isn’t the most comfortable either. However, between the handsome, if a little unconventional, design and a low purchase price of $31,000 - the Vixzta counters those shortcomings with relative ease, and earns the second spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Vixzta is a strong entry, with great sportiness and performance, incredible drivability that ties for the top score in the entire challenge, great raw practicality and cargo capacities, solid reliability, and good fuel economy, safety, and one of the lowest purchase prices in the semi-finals. Weak spots are pretty minimal, prestige is on the lower end of things, and comfort is just slightly below average. Additionally, while I generally like the design, I think you could have thinned out the DRLs some, made the side moulding less deep, and I don’t care for the dip over the rear wheels by the taillights too much. Overall, the Vixzta is a pretty excellent entry, and makes its way into the finals with ease.
@supersaturn77 - Hokudo Jiyu Style-RT
Next on the shortlist is the Hokudo Jiyu, submitted as the Style-RT trim. Reading through owner reports, the editors find that the Jiyu is generally regarded as a handsome car - though some have remarked that the headlights are on the big side of things, and others have found it to look a little wagon-like from the side, due to the long wheelbase and short greenhouse - criticisms the editors agree with. Moving to how the Jiyu is as a car, the editors find that while it isn’t not fun, it isn’t the sportiest car behind the wheel, nor is it the fastest. It’s easy enough to drive otherwise, though other cars do better there. However, it’s very practical with tons of space for people and things, reliability has been solid for the segment, with low annual service costs and a low purchase price to boot. However, the editors and head of the testing department agree that it can’t compete at the bigger things they’re considering in the comparison test - and thus, they add the Jiyu to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Starting with the design, while I think the Jiyu is a big improvement from some of the other designs of yours that I’ve seen and judged, I find the headlights to be way too big, and proportionally it’s a little odd with a long wheelbase and short, flat roof that makes it seem more wagon-like proportionally. Engineering is generally good, though sportiness is on the lower end, performance is just average, drivability is average, and raw practicality/cargo capacities are on the higher end of things. Lower priority stats are on the higher end of things - fuel economy, comfort, safety and service costs are all solid, with a reasonable purchase price to boot. Unfortunately, the Jiyu doesn’t keep up in the higher priority areas - design, sportiness, performance, etc - and for those reasons, it does not move on.
@Texaslav and @Kyorg - Arlington Airacruiser FQ Brake
Next on the shortlist is the Arlington Airacruiser, submitted as the FQ Brake model. Reading owner reports, the editors find that the Airacruiser is great to drive on and off track, with great straight line performance, though it could grip a little harder in the corners than it does. Real-world usability is strong too, with solid practicality and lots of space, though some owners have remarked that the size of the Airacruiser has been a struggle for those living in denser, more urban areas. Additionally, the Airacruiser has been proven to be very reliable with low annual service costs, very safe, and solidly comfortable. It isn’t without weak spots - fuel economy is lower than other cars in the segment, and while the editors agree that the Airacruiser looks great - it does come off as more wagon-like. However, considering that the Airacruiser is just $32,200 - those small shortcomings are easily forgivable, and it earns the third spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Airacruiser presents as a strong value proposition, with one of the lowest purchase costs in the semi-finals, but with well above average sportiness, strong performance figures, and great stats across the lower priority areas - like drivability, raw practicality, safety, comfort and service costs. While it only makes a few mistakes - low fuel economy, a handsome if slightly wagon-y design - it makes up for those mistakes tenfold.
@bang6111 - Katami Tempesta R
Next on the shortlist is the Katami Tempesta, submitted for contention in the R trim. Reading reviews, they learn that unfortunately the Tempesta doesn’t present as particularly sporty - being widely considered to be one of the least sporty cars in the segment. It isn’t all bad - it looks good if not particularly daring visually, reliability is good for the segment, comfortable, and it’s one of the lower priced cars in the segment - however, a hot hatch that’s missing the hot can’t play, and thus the editors move it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Katami is a decent entry, but it has one big fatal flaw - very low sportiness, the lowest in the semi-finals. The other stats are a mixed bag - drivability, raw practicality, fuel economy, safety are all below average, and while it isn’t the most expensive, $32,900 is a lot to ask for a car that can’t keep up with the sportier entries, and for that reason - it doesn’t move on.
@Xepy - Lunascura Smarag SL
Next on the shortlist is the Lunascura Smarag, submitted as the SL trim. Upon reading owner reports, the editors learn that the Smarag is far and away one of the most fun to drive cars in the segment, with great performance and planted handling. The editors also learn that the Smarag is nice to drive normally, reasonably fuel efficient, safe, comfortable, and very nicely made. It isn’t without problems - reliability has been up and down for owners, it’s one of the more expensive cars to take care of annually, and while the editors like the design (particularly the mimicking of the light shapes across the front and rear), they do wish that the Smarag had a more daring front fascia design. Overall though, the Smarag is a very solid car, and it earns the fourth spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Smarag is a handsome and well constructed entry, and if I had any major notes I would have liked to see you do something more with the skirts to give them more depth, and a more unique front fascia would have been a nice thing to see. Despite those things, the Smarag has excellent sportiness, solid performance, good drivability, solid fuel economy, and good comfort to boot. Weak spots engineering wise are few - raw practicality and cargo capacities are on the lower end of things, and reliability is just average. Overall, despite the few mistakes the Smarag does make, it comes back with plenty of strengths too, and easily earns a place in the finals.
@shibusu and @moroza - Saberin Solsti Tipo N
Next is the Saberin Solsti, submitted as the Tipo N trim. One of the two rear-engined hot hatches available today, the Saberin unfortunately lacks in balance - while it’s sportier of the two RR hot hatches (and one of the sportiest hot hatches available today) - it isn’t the most pleasant to drive normally, it isn’t as practical or as spacious, and it’s been significantly less reliable based on owner’s reports. Comparing the Saberin to more traditional front-engined hot hatches, the story doesn’t get much better - and all of the aforementioned weak areas become more visible. It isn’t all bad - the Saberin is very nice in terms of materials and build quality, it’s one of the cheaper cars in the segment to service annually, and while the editors think the Saberin is handsome and well designed - it still pales in comparison to the other RR hot hatch, and against many of its front-engined rivals, and for that reason - the editors add the Saberin to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Between the two RR entries I recieved, the Saberin unfortunately was the weaker one overall. While it has higher sportiness than the Midlands, the Midlands is quicker and grips almost as hard in the corners, and performance aside - the Saberin has lower drivability, lower raw practicality and cargo capacity, lower reliability, and a higher purchase price than the Midlands. Furthermore, purely on an aesthetics basis, I don’t think the Saberin is bad, but I find the Midlands to look better. Comparing the Saberin to the wider competition, it handily beats all other entries in raw sportiness - but those other entries clear it across the board in design and 3, 2 and 1 star priorities. With slightly less of a focus on raw sportiness, and a bigger focus on balance, the Saberin would have likely faired better.
@Portalkat42 - Midlands Cygnus GT
Next up was the other RR hot hatch, the Midlands Cygnus GT. Reading through some research, the editors find that while the Cygnus isn’t as purely sporty as the Saberin, it makes up for it by being quicker, and more livable in the same breath - it’s easier to drive, more spacious on the inside, more reliable, and more comfortable. It does have its downsides - the Cygnus isn’t as fuel efficient, it isn’t as safe, and it is slightly more expensive to service annually. That being said, the Cygnus is better looking, and better at competing with more traditional hot hatches - and for that reason, it takes the fifth spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. Compared to the Saberin above, the Midlands has significantly lower raw sportiness, though it makes up for it with stronger straight line performance, and a better focus on balance - handily beating the Saberin in nearly all of the other judged areas, including design. Compared to other semi-finalists, the Midlands is strong, with very competitive stats - though practicality and cargo space is lower than the front engined cars, and safety is below average. Overall, a good entry worthy of a spot in the finals.
@Ne0 - Fogolin Zeta Intero Xi
Next up on the shortlist is the Fogolin Zeta, submitted for contention as the Intero Xi model. Reading through owner reports, they find that the Zeta is by far the most fun hot hatch you can buy today, it isn’t particularly easy to live with normally with a sub-optimal driving experience under more typical circumstances, a hard to use cargo area with less space than other hatches, and reliability has been very poor according to owner reports. While the editors were intrigued by the more retromodern styling of the Zeta, they weren’t huge fans of it, remarking that it needed smaller wheels, the ride height looked uneven, and they weren’t fans of the rear styling either. Unfortunately not feeling convinced by the Zeta as a complete package, the editors add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. While the Zeta puts up solid performance, and the highest raw sportiness in the entire challenge - it has a large share of flaws too, with below average drivability, very low raw practicality, unimpressive cargo room, well below average reliability, and very high service costs. Additionally, while I think that choosing to go more retromodern with the design was an interesting choice, I still don’t love it visually, with wheels that are too big, an uneven looking ride height (from the side it looks like the rear is sitting lower than the front), and I don’t like how you did the taillights on the rear, they don’t fit nicely and they don’t wrap around the sides enough either. In a very close field, high sportiness alone is not enough to save the Zeta, and so it does not move into the finals.
Continued in Part 2
14 Likes
Auto and Motoring Hot Hatch Comparison Test - Results (Phase 2 - Semi-Finals - Part 2)
@Ritz - Norrsken Felid Ludo 2.5S
Next up was the Norrsken Felid, submitted in the Felid 2.5S trim. Reading through some owner reports, the editors find that the Norrsken is solidly fun to drive and decently quick despite only packing 230 horsepower, and that the Norrsken is very easy to drive, seemingly just as easy behind the wheel as the RetroniX from earlier. It’s also very practical with plenty of room for people and their stuff, and reliability has been excellent with very affordable annual service costs. However, it is one of the more expensive cars, and while the editors like the design, they do find it to be a little bit dated looking and not as sporty as the Felid’s performance would suggest. Despite those flaws, the Norrsken is an excellent car overall, and earns the sixth spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Felid is an impressive showcase - great sportiness despite one of the lower power outputs and with only an open diff, solid performance, sky high drivability (though you do tie with the RetroniX), and many of the other lower priority stats are excellent - service costs are exceptionally low, thanks to not using forced induction, reliability, fuel economy, safety, and comfort are all great, and the only major weak spot would be the design - while I don’t find it to be bad, I think it’s just a hair dated, and you could have done more to make it seem sportier than it looks. Despite that flaw, the Felid is overall an excellent entry, and easily makes its way into the finals.
@Dragawn - Dragotec Rhino Apex
Next up was the Dragotec Rhino, submitted as the Apex trim. Reading reviews, the editors find that the Rhino is fun behind the wheel, though too quick for the desired segment, and under more typical driving scenarios it isn’t the nicest car to drive, real world practicality isn’t the best despite having plenty of room for people and cargo, reliability has been somewhat below the segment average, and it’s proven to be one of the more expensive cars to service on an annual basis - likely due to the Rhino packing higher end but more fragile componentry - like a compound turbo. Design was better recieved, but the editors were in agreement on the projectors in the taillights being way too big, and that there were too many of them. The biggest issue with the Rhino is that at $35,000 - there are simply better, more well-rounded cars from sportiness and performance to real-world usability - and for that reason, the editors add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. Not a bad entry, just one that was bested. Sportiness and performance stats were solid, though I would argue that the Rhino is slightly too quick for the desired segment. Other stats were good, but unfortunately many were both below average and behind the competition - drivability, raw practicality, reliability, and safety - just to name a few. The Rhino however has very solid cargo and passenger capacity figures, good fuel economy, and I found the design to be good, but not perfect - it was well proportioned, but I found the front to be just the slightest bit busy, and the projectors in the taillamps too big and too numerous. There were a few realism concerns too - a full alu body and alu SSF chassis, a compound turbo setup, and less egregiously - the 7-speed manual, all of which either don’t have a place or don’t exist in this segment. Overall, a good entry, but not a perfect one.
@NotChris07 - Flash Zera XRS
Next up is the Flash Zera, submitted in XRS trim. Upon reading some research done by the interns, the editors find that the Zera is very sporty behind the wheel, plenty quick, though it isn’t the grippiest hot hatch ever. Real world usability is good, with a pleasant driving experience off the track, a smallish cargo area but one that makes great use of its size, solid reliability - though it is on the more expensive side of things when it comes to annual service costs. Design is generally solid, though the editors did find that the DRLs and taillights are slightly too thick visually, and that the design needed more visual contrast than just a blacked out D-pillar. Despite those flaws, the Zera makes a strong impression, and earns the seventh spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Flash is a solidly engineered entry, with great sportiness and performance, solid drivability, raw practicality, and good reliability. The weak points are all pretty minimal engineering wise - all of the 1 and 2 star stats could have used work, with service costs, comfort and fuel economy all needing the most work. Design was a weaker point too - while it isn’t bad, the details could have used some refinement. The DRLs and the taillights are both too thick, I wasn’t a fan of how you placed the rear reflectors and the side markers, and you could have done more than just the floating D-pillar to introduce visual contrast on the design. Despite those flaws, the Flash gets enough right elsewhere to get into the finals.
@Tragedy - Carson CR Cruiser SRD6 “Sendoff Edition”
Next up is the Carson CR Cruiser, submitted as the SRD6 “Sendoff Edition” trim. The editors find that the Carson is fast, but not particularly adept in the corners or otherwise fun to drive, and the normal driving experience isn’t much better. Fuel economy is the lowest they’ve seen at 18mpg, and comfort has been sub-optimal for the segment. The editors praised the design, liking the quirkiness and how clean it looked, but found it to ride a little low. However, the Carson’s looks aren’t enough to send it to the comparison test, and thus it’s added to the rejection pile.
End Result - Eliminated. A quirky and uniquely American entry, the Carson was surprisingly good - until the last few entries came in. The Carson has decent straightline performance, but below average raw sportiness and 20m cornering grip, very low drivability, the worst fuel economy in the semi-finals, and below average comfort. I did like the design, even as someone who owned a PT Cruiser irl and hated it, though the black lines around everything could have been removed, and it could have ridden a little higher. Overall an interesting entry, just not a competitive one.
@Maxbombe and @Tsundere-kun - Spander SC SuperPiste
Next up is the Spander SC, submitted in SuperPiste trim. The editors find that the SC is very fun to drive, but note that the design doesn’t reflect its sporting nature particularly well, wishing it had a more aggressive fascia, a different color, or even different wheels to make it seem sportier visually. However, the Spander is very easy to drive on the day-to-day, very spacious while still making good use of that space, solid reliability (though it is more expensive to service annually than some of its competition), and great fuel economy to boot. After some further deliberation, the editors and the head of the testing department are in agreement, and give the eighth spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Spander is a great entry, with above average stats across the board, all while maintaining a low purchase price and a focus on balance. Weak spots are minimal - service costs are on the higher end, and while I like the design - I find it to not look as sporty as the engineering might suggest. A different, more aggressive fascia, different wheels, and a color other than appliance white may have done more to make the Spander feel sportier visually. That being said, minor flaws aren’t enough to keep the Spander from moving into the finals.
@tsarchasm - i.DOLL GTX 2.0 Performance 250
Next up was the i.DOLL GTX, submitted as the 2.0 Performance 250 model. Reading through some information collected by the interns, the editors learn that the GTX unfortunately isn’t very sporty, and much like the Katami from earlier, is regarded as one of the least sporty hot hatches available today. That being said, the GTX gets more right than the Katami, with a great real-world driving experience, excellent reliability and low annual service costs, and a very reasonable purchase price too. It’s also handsome, but like the Spander the GTX could have gone further design wise and been made to look sportier, rather than just a standard hatchback with fancy wheels and some aero bits. In agreement, the editors add the GTX to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The i.DOLL is a solidly designed entry that looks plenty sporty, but I think you could have done more to give it visual contrast and break up the flat white exterior. The bigger issue however, was sportiness. Like the Katami, the i.DOLL unfortunately has among the lowest sportiness in the field despite putting up respectable performance figures, which is a shame as many of the other stats are excellent - drivability, reliability, fuel economy, purchase price and service costs, just to name a few. Had the sportiness quotient been wicked up, and the design worked on just a little more - the i.DOLL might have gotten into the finals, but as submitted I just can’t make a case for it.
@the-chowi - Bilancourt Mirage BSt 285
Next up is the Bilancourt Mirage, submitted for contention as the BSt 285 trim. Reading through some of the research provided by the interns, the editors find that the Mirage is plenty sporty and puts up solid performance, though the driving experience under more regular circumstances does leave something to be desired. Real world practicality is strong, with plenty of room for people and stuff, reliability has been proven to be very strong, and it’s the most efficient car here. The design is generally good, but the front protrudes slightly oddly from a side angle, and the editors wish that Bilancourt had done more to the sides of the Mirage to up the interesting factor. That being said, the weaknesses aren’t enough to sink the Mirage, and thus it takes the ninth spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Mirage has strong sportiness, good performance, and a handsome if slightly 2000s retro design, though some of the lower priority stats are on the lower end of things - drivability, comfort, and prestige in particular. However, it puts up a strong effort across the board that more than makes up for any shortcomings, and so the Mirage earns a spot in the finals.
@DoctorNarfy - Shromet Appalachian Advantage
Next up is the Shromet Appalachian, submitted for contention as the Advantage trim. Reading owner reports, the general consensus on the Appalachian is that it seems not to excel anywhere - it isn’t the sportiest driving experience, it isn’t particularly quick or the best handling, the normal driving experience isn’t as good as other cars in the segment, and real world practicality has been less than perfect, with cramped quarters for passengers, though cargo room is surprisingly good. The design is handsome and modern, though some of the editors found the rear to be slightly chunky visually, and at $29,000 - it’s one of the most affordable cars here. Unfortunately, a handsome design and a low price aren’t enough to keep the Shromet in contention, and thus the editors add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Shromet unfortunately just gets bested in this crowd, with low sportiness, below average performance, and well below average stats across the other lower priorities - namely drivability, raw practicality, cargo and passenger capacity, reliability, and safety. While it does have the dubious benefit of being the cheapest entry in the semi-finals - affordability matters little when the Shromet can’t compete with the other cars anywhere else. Design was good however, and I appreciated the focus on making a very true-to-life entry in terms of engineering decisions - though I perhaps would have added launch control.
@kookie - élysée n.3 esprit
Next up for contention is the élysée n.3, submitted in esprit trim. Reading through owner reports, the editors find that the n.3 is lots of fun behind the wheel despite not being the quickest in a straight line, the normal driving experience is excellent, and real world practicality has been proven to be very good, with tons of room despite the n.3’s relatively diminutive size in this field. The editors all love the modern and uniquely French design, with specific praise being directed towards the mimicking of lighting elements across the front and rear, and how well integrated the overall surfacing is into the entire design. That being said - the n.3 isn’t without weak points - it’s on the expensive end of things, it’s lacking in terms of safety equipment, and it isn’t the most comfortable car here. Despite those flaws, the n.3 does more than enough right to take the tenth spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The élysée is my favorite design in the challenge, and more than design it has very strong engineering, with great sportiness and impressive power figures given the power output of the élysée, and mistakes are few - it’s on the expensive end of things, safety is on the lower end, and comfort is just average. Despite these flaws, the élysée comes out swinging, and makes it into the finals with ease.
@Kanye_West - Hoffsman 4U EVO2
Second to last on the shortlist, the editors move to the Hoffsman 4U, submitted in EVO2 trim. Upon reading reviews, the editors find that while the Hoffsman is expertly designed (though they weren’t fans of the chunky bars of black plastic in the grille, and found that the cladding over the wheels made the 4U seem crossover-like), but unfortunately it isn’t the sportiest driving experience, it isn’t the quickest or the best handling, though real world driving it does well, it’s decently practical with plenty of room for cargo and people. Reliability has been less than optimal, and it’s one of the more expensive cars to service. Ultimately, after considering that the 4U costs $33,900, and it doesn’t make up for its other shortcomings by being safe, comfortable, or good on gas - the editors agree to add it to the rejected pile.
End Result - Eliminated. The Hoffsman is a solidly designed entry, with tons of depth and cool surfacing that helps to set it apart from other entries visually - though I find the grille detailing to be a little thick and overdone, and the cladding makes it seem sorta crossover-y. Engineering is decent too, though sportiness and performance are below average, drivability is above average, raw practicality and cargo capacities are good, though reliability is well below average, fuel economy and comfort are below average - and at $33,900, other similarly priced entries best the Hoffsman across the board. With a little more engineering work, I think the Hoffsman could have made it into the finals, but as it is now - it just falls short.
@iivansmith and @chiefzach2018 - Homada Mocha HMR
Last up on the shortlist was the Homada Mocha HMR. Reading through owner reports, the review editing team find that the Mocha is a blast behind the wheel, solidly quick, very competent to drive more typically, and real world reliability has been proven to be excellent, with low annual service costs to boot. On the flip side, the Mocha isn’t as practical as some of its competition, nor is it as comfortable or nice to live with. However, the Mocha more than makes up for those flaws by being excellent to drive in any scenario, and the design is a big plus too, a clean and modern take on the maximalist hot hatch designs of today - and for that, the Mocha earns the eleventh and final spot in the comparison test.
End Result - Finalist. The Mocha excels across the board, with far and away the most realistic looking design visually, great sportiness for FWD, solid performance, the highest reliability in the challenge, and it’s relatively affordable and cheap to service among the entries in the semi-finals. It isn’t without its problems though - raw practicality is somewhat low (cargo and passenger capacity are good though), lowish comfort and low prestige. That being said, the Mocha gets so much else right, its shortcomings are easily bypassed.
Advancing to Phase 3 -
@iivansmith and @chiefzach2018
@yurimacs
@Texaslav and @Kyorg
@Portalkat42
@Oreology
@the-chowi
@NotChris07
@kookie
@Ritz
@Maxbombe and @Tsundere-kun
@Xepy
21 Likes
Ok this makes sense, thank you for the clarification, I had used material costs as a basis.
1 Like
Thank you to Vero for hosting and for delivering a quick and quality write up for this challenge.
To all the first time entrants, I noticed there were quite a few of you in this challenge. You did a good job! The standard has definitely risen a lot since I’ve started playing. Keep at it, and don’t be discouraged. Best of luck to the finalists!
12 Likes
I’m legitimately surprised that my quasi-shitpost made it as far as it did lol. It’s pretty much just a fun-sized Hellcat, but in all the worst ways: overweight, expensive, stupidly thirsty, nose-heavy, and it can’t corner to save its life … but who needs that stuff when it goes fast (in a straight line) and can (probably) rip some sick donuts (in reverse).
I don’t really do modern stuff. In fact, the CR Cruiser is the only post-2000 car I’ve actually finished, which probably explains the … questionable engineering decisions.
the "thought process" (minimal thinking involved)
“Hot hatches, hmmmmmm… Y’know what’d be funny? A modern PT Cruiser.”
“Y’know what’d be even funnier? If it had a Pentastar V6 for literally no reason.”
(after finishing like 95% of the car)
“Wait, actually, y’know what’d be hilarious? If it had a supercharged Pentastar with a Hellcat blower. Some sort of mini-Hellcat monstrosity … a Hellkitten, if you will.”
. . .
" w h y d i d i m a k e t h i s "
Top-tier judging as always, and congrats to the finalists!
9 Likes
If I may ask, I’d love to know what the Solsti fails in regarding the styling. The rest of the review - and the rest of the rounds for that matter - are excellent, and deserves praise, but I haven’t gotten any idea what specifically to improve in the future in the building process or in the concept phase, which I did read elsewhere in the round
the main things I think you could have worked on were the taillights, which were a little too thin and didn’t wrap over the sides enough, and I would have liked to see you add more detail to the upper fascia, the blanked out grille wasn’t inherently bad but it felt a bit like a copout. also, less importantly, I would have moved the wheels out a little bit further than you did
2 Likes
It was cool to see the write ups for the other entries.
But yeah I realized way too late that my engineering was terrible and I didn’t really have time to make it more competitive since I spent most of my time on the design (though I am glad you like it since that was one of the strong suits of the car although everything else is um quite bad).
Although, I am known for my terrible engineering skills but decent ish design.
Anyway I am excited to see the other finalists and how well they fare since it’s quite stacked lol.
1 Like