Theoretically, entries are now closed. However, as I forgot to post a reminder at 24 hours and as I’m generally in an unproductive mood, there will be a 12 hour grace period. You have 12 hours to DM your entries.
4 Likes
1969 Centurion Industrial 1000 Series
A highly versatile and customizable truck, configurable into many thousands of different upfits from the factory, and many more with our massive aftermarket
Centurion Industrial H1000 Ladder Truck
For decades, Centurion has provided for the people of Araga with emergency service equipment ranging from tow trucks, to ambulances and fire trucks, to search and rescue, and we plan to continue this legacy with the 1000 Series.
This H1000 Ladder Truck has been designed to respond to large emergencies that other fire engines may not be fully equipped to cope with: it has an ability to reach higher than any other vehicle this side of a helicopter.
Centurion Industrial D1000 Mobile Crane
Aside from emergency response, the 1000 Series is useful for other industrial work, including transportation, land-moving, and construction
This particular 1000 Series chassis has been fitted with a telescopic 60 meter crane boom arm. The large and powerful V-16 engine allows cranes like this one to tackle construction projects and spaces that smaller trucks might not be able to.
11 Likes
Capable Motors New for 1965! The Capable Mover Heavy Duty Line up! A brand new van and pick-up truck capable for all of your cargo and utility needs!
Our capable heavy duty vehicles are equipped with a capable 3.6 liter engine and 182 lb-ft of torque!
A van for your heavy duty needs in the city! A cargo capacity of 6,390 pounds! With Capable’s capable easy to move power steering!
A truck for your heavy duty needs in the town! A cargo capacity of 6,280 pounds! Comes standard with mudflaps, 4x4 drivetrain, manual locking differentials, trailer hitch, skid tray, all-terrain tires, and power steering!
Capable Motors! The most capable vehicles!
4 Likes
Aaaaaand entries are closed!
1 Like
REVIEWS 3.1: BURNING THESE IS A BAD IDEA, BUT...
Unfortunately, two cars have to be binned.
Even more unfortunately, these are two cars which would actually probably cause some issues if you burned them.
On the left, we see the… Hold on, let me read all of this out… Somboy Sembra 1600 GTX Injection 2-Door Sedan (Aragan Market, 5MT) by @Restomod . On the right, we see the VMS Copae S-Econii (AMM) - a hire car by @shibusu
So, the Somboy Sembra. It uses 92 RON leaded fuel. Leaded fuel is banned. In theory, I should bin the car right where it stands, no questions asked… But eh, I am in a bit of a good mood. So, I’ll swap it down to unleaded. You did get it right on your other entries. Burning a car with leaded fuel… might not be good to breathe.
The VMS Copae, well… It’s much less clear-cut but hear me out. The Camry Dent is ubiquitous. Why? Because a lot of the people who drive Camries aren’t the most attentive, Camries are reliable enough to survive, and plenty of those drivers don’t care to repair them. The Camry Dent is located near your taped-on indicators. So, in real life, it would be reasonably likely that inattentive hire car drivers would hit right where the indicator goes, knock it off and suddenly have a car which is illegal to drive. So, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to say that nobody buys them as they are, but that you come up with an equally-cheap way to permanently affix them. At least it’s not using leaded fuel, but who knows what awful chemicals y’all use to cut corners?
10 Likes
V'Airia Manchi Saratosi
We take safety concerns very seriously. All concerns are seriously put in the ‘ignore’ bin.
Anyway, Fuck you. If you manage to break it now we’ll actually be dumbfounded.
We re-wired it to the switch in the interior instead of the rear red indicators. We already produced thousands of body shells for this stupid car and we’re not un-cutting the cutout. Just deal with it, okay? You paid like, 6800 dollars for this. You get what you paid for.
3 Likes
Am I dreaming or is this a Vento creation that looks like a real car? Damn, finally he is making up a lot in the visual part.
2 Likes
REVIEWS 3.2: 525,600 MINUTES
Let’s start things off with the rental cars, shall we? There’s a nice variety, from budget cars to, uh, decidedly not budget cars. Each review segment will come in two parts - one will be my “initial” reviews, focussed heavily on the brief. The second will be follow-ons in bold, based on aesthetics. Why? The truth is, only a small group really sat in a position where looks might matter. People renting a cheap shitbox can’t be too choosy, after all, and even the decent cars are cheap here. The fact is, hire car companies don’t care about how they look even a quarter as much as they care about the money they can make, besides outliers where it starts to hurt… But man, that’s not how I wanna run this challenge, is it? Y’all spent actual time on the aesthetics here. Maybe not a ton but what would it be if I acted like a heartless, soulless hire car company the entire time?
Left to right:
Rear row: Bazard by @Edsel, VMS by @shibusu, Minex by @lotto77, Hakaru by @Executive, Wara by @AndiD, Fykselot by @SheikhMansour
Front row: Somboy by @Restomod, Swanson by @Ludvig, Hamfa by @Ch_Flash, Somptuese by @Bbestdu28, Phénix by @karhgath, AMCW by @Madrias
Order reversed from previous; back right is Rosanda by @MrdjaNikolen
So, let’s review what the goal is here, for the companies buying these cars:
- Rent out the car to tourists and people without cars
- Make back the cost of purchase plus the cost of maintenance/repairs.
Really, that’s it. Everything here will be through the lens of “How does this impact the price we can charge?” and “How does this impact the purchase/running costs?”
Rosanda Siebin by @MrdjaNikolen
Here is a car that dramatically fails the second question there. You tried to be coy in your post, but this is just your regular entry. No, seriously, this Rosanda Sieben is just the regular old Rosanda Sieben that was submitted to the general market. It’ll be covered in more detail later, but the sticker being over 46 thousand already kills it. Let’s say we want to break even after, oh, five years? We start out by paying 46300 AMU to buy the car. Then, because it has a honking big 6.2L engine, we have to pay a bit over 2200 to the taxman every year. Then, then we pay an additional 1140 or so keeping it running. Let’s say we want to break even before we hit, oh, five years? We need to make 240 per week, not counting costs like cleaning, incidentally refilling the fuel tank, time spent not running (did I mention that the expensive interior and mechanical injection give it lower reliability than most others?)
Across those 5 years, I could have bought and run any of these other cars at least 3 times over. For the cheaper ones, make it 6 times. The profit just isn’t there. Nobody would buy this. Seriously, why would you just submit your regular car to the hire car round? What were you expecting? Especially when it costs this much and purchase cost is the most important priority to hire car companies? I have no further comments, you will get those when we review the actual car as an actual submission. I have no issues with people submitting something similar to their regular car, of course. I have no issues with the aesthetics being identical, that happens too, it’s just when it’s… Y’know, completely identical. I’m not reviewing the same car twice for the same round of the challenge.
VMS Copae S-Econii (AMM) by @shibusu
V’Airia Manchi Saratosi! Araga’s shittiest and exclusive home of the worst imports known to man. Guaranteed! Y’know, I can excuse the marketing. It mirrors a real campaign, and it’s pretty funny anyway. Really, this entry is par for the course… but those rear indicators (in either guise) are a sin that sinks this car.
See, it’s not actually the cheapest here. No, the comrades at Wara have you beat there, and both Hakaru and Fykselot draw kinda close too, just 400 bucks or so more. You do trade blows here and there with the others, but this is ultimately a car that just feels cheaper than the rest. If I was picking between this and one of the others, those indicators would make me try and push for a discount, or some compensation of some sort. It’s a shame, because they took extra effort, and I hate penalising someone for that effort but, well, here we are. Maybe if the engineering matched those indicators more, I’d be kinder but… Standard interior and radio (fancy!), no area below -2 quality (except the -3 legally-mandated-for-1965 Advanced Safety) and many at 0… It doesn’t feel like the engineering of a company that would do that. The indicators do not fit. We are left with an entry that I just cannot take seriously here, I cannot really say it’d be actually bought by leasing companies that care about their image… But I’m going to include it in the next section, because I am feeling nice.
From Left To Right: Wara Irena 2.0 SR by @AndiD, Fykselot Thunderclap by @SheikhMansour, Hakaru Carica 1100 R by @Executive, VMS Copae S-Econii (AMM) by @shibusu
I messed up the photo and will swap soon, that’s not the Fykselot
From the cheap car that feels too cheap to the actual legitimately cheap cars that feel, uh, decent.
In initial costs, the Wara and VMS are the clear winners. The Wara costs 6570 and the VMS is only a little more pricy, while the Hakaru costs 7200 and the Fykselot costs 7240. The Hakaru, however, uses a diminuitive 1.1L engine compared to the Wara’s and VMS’s 2L engine. This, plus 20 bucks less per year than the other two on servicing, actually makes it cheaper over 5 years, at 10525 to the Wara’s 10545 and the VMS’s 10760. The Fykselot looked even more promising, cutting service costs by a further 50 per year… But it has a 4 Litre engine. It pays over twice as much tax, pushing it off into the next category of comparisons. Oof.
So now let’s go through comparisons for the Wara, VMS and Hakaru then, shall we? The Wara and Hakaru both pair a reasonably comfortable interior with a basic but present AM radio, while the VMS somehow springs for a standard radio despite how, uh, cheap the outside is. The Hakaru and VMS both make use of a galvanised chassis and advanced safety, while the Wara is easier to drive and decently more reliable. The VMS really slips between the other two a little, in terms of reliability. It’s the most comfortable though, unless I discount points for the indicators. I was ready to call it a dead heat, until I tried to work out why the Hakaru is less driveable. See, the Hakaru is using rear leaf suspension which saps just enough rear grip to give it terminal oversteer. It’s that weird sort of terminal oversteer that looks like it’s fine but then spikes up, you know the one. I think I’d give it marginally to the Wara on that note, but really, all three of these filled the lots of cheap hire car places. How about we say that hire car companies filled the void by the old indicator and found a way to make it look nicer?
So, let’s start with the VMS. Even without the indicators, it just feels overwhelmingly cheap. No, really. The front fog lights and indicators look slapped on. A single trim strip does the bare minimum to break up the side, and only having a single wiper is the icing on the cheap cake. The wheels are basic, but the Aragan license plate is the icing on the cake. The Wara, meanwhile, feels like a cheap car that at least tries to conceal its cheapness. It’s still cheap, don’t get me wrong, but it feels like effort has been taken to make it respectable. I think that’s part of why I love Wara. The Hakaru, meanwhile, doesn’t feel cheap besides only having a single mirror. I should make that illegal. I should also make it illegal to only have your side mounted, barely visible indicators that just scrape past. It’s legal though, but not feeling as cheap as it should somehow loses a couple of points to me? Anyway… Your other cars are the Hakaru, expect more aesthetic reviews there.
Left: Fykselot Thunderclap by @SheikhMansour. Right: Minex Paceman M3 1500 by @lotto77.
So, the Fykselot got slugged by the taxman, and that made it have to compete with the Minex. The Minex uses less-durable medium tyres and costs a lot to maintain, buit it does have a 1.5L engine so… Yeah, the two end up within spitting distance in terms of 5-year cost. The Minex spent another 1300 AMU on its stats though, which uhh… Well, it buys you a better interior, helping to make up for any loss of prestige on the small engine. It’s comfortable, more than the bargain basement cars. Premium Economy? Ultimately, the Fykselot gets screwed by its massive engine - too expensive to compete with the Wara and Hakaru, but not enough upfront cost to compete with the Minex. While it loses three points in prestige and six in reliability, it probably gains back the profit by doubling the Fykselot’s comfort (a measly six to 13.6). While the running costs of the car are 25% higher, you really could make a profit with these little Minexes rather than the Wara and Hakaru.
Really, I understand what you were trying to do with the Fykselot here. It is a quintessentially American approach, making a bigger car with a bigger engine on the cheap… But with a displacement tax in place, and in the one place where that really doesn’t pay off like it should, you got screwed. Sorry about that, try again next time?
And a quintessentially American approach brings with it quintessentially American styling and proportions! The slanted back greenhouse works well on this body. The piece of trim on the door is a fun approach to negative space… But imma be honest with you, it’s just not clicking. I look at cars of the era, other hire cars, and I see two things. One, I see grilles integrated with the lights. Every other car, even the cheap-feeling Wara and VMS, integrate the grille with the lights, but here… There’s a gap between them, and zero lineflow or harmony between them. Mounting the rear plate on the bumper and having no molding above it creates too much negative space there. It just doesn’t work, it feels like it needs more. A car that doesn’t need more is the Minex. Did you know that CSVExporter needs to load up all the fixtures, due to game limitations? The car shows plenty of attention to detail, shapes playing out along the front and rear like the nicest cars of the era.
Left to Right: Swanson 217 GAF by @Ludvig, Somboy Parapet 2400L 5-Door Wagon by @Restomod, Hamfa 3000 Sedan by @Ch_Flash
Now to the middle of the pack, to the cars costing something in the middle, shall we? These all need to bring around 60 AMU per week in to break even across 5 years. The Hamfa’s basic radio and hard tyres keep service costs low, but the sedan has been endowed with a 3L engine. The Somboy has a better radio and ups the upfront cost to a grand but shrinks the engine to 2.4L and comes out in a similar place, while the Swanson is another grand more but with even smaller 1.7L.
The Somboy is actually unique across the challenge entries here. It has the most cargo volume of any car in the lineup. Remember how I mentioned that some of these cars are for people who want to move a decent amount of goods and such but don’t own a car? Yeah, this is the car those people buy. It honestly doesn’t really matter that it has the second lowest reliability of all the entries here, or that it isn’t particularly driveable. You found a market niche, slotted into it well, and succeeded. The engineering kinda sucks, but at least it’s not so expensive that nobody would take it.
So, the other two, shall we? Being smaller makes the Swanson a decent amount more maneuverable (and an automatic gearbox is useful too! The only one besides the Rosanda!), but reliability and comfort are what really do it here. Investing another 2 grand into your base stats allowed you to jump up from basic to standard and boost reliability a decent amount as well, plus being an 8-Track is super nice, the first entry to do so. It’s a hatchback too… But a 4 door one? With two doors on each side? Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Yeah, the Swanson beats the Hamfa by quite a decent amount. Big engines don’t make for big profits. Big comfort and big driveability does.
I’ll be honest with you, Restomod: I do not like the front indicators being mounted this far in. It just feels wrong, you know? Otherwise, the rest of this car is, well… A forgettable, useful wagon. It’s a pedestrian appliance. “Oh, yeah, I want the wagon.” Not the Somboy, just the wagon, if that makes sense? The other two, meanwhile, will have their aesthetic reviews saved until the actual base cars are reviewed - you both submitted stripped-down versions of your regular car.
Left to Right: AMCW AeroCoupe GT by @Madrias, Phénix Metro Twin Cam 1200 by @karhgath, Somptueuse ??? by @Bbestdu28
Ahh, here we go. When not one but three people went for the same sort of curveball, uhhh… Well, y’all love making sporty cars, who could have guessed? At least there are three different approaches to making a sporty option. The Somptueuse is a sporty sedan, the Phenix is a sporty Hatchback while the AMCW is barely legal here, as a Coupe with two small rear seats.
Let’s start with the AMCW, shall we? It surges off the line, running quickly up to 80. The 5-speed does force you to shift and lose time to 100, but you’ll still be satisfied. The choice of Recirculating Ball steering is uhhhhh… An interesting one, you could gain a lot of sportiness at a fairly minor cost with Rack & Pinion (more on that later). Honestly though… With a fairly large engine, premium components needing to be serviced and a high 16900 price tag, this is a car where a lot might have one or two to specifically sell coupes. 64 Reliability puts it back down with the other dregs of reliability, back with the Somboy and Hamfa, but perhaps that is the cost of sportiness.
Now to the Sompteuse. Five full-size seats, but we get some compromises along the way. Yes, we have a premium interior and a premium 8-track, which makes it more comfortable than the Phenix… But it relies on Hydraulic Ball suspension, making its driving dynamics ball torture. With near-identical service and tax costs to the AMCW, so we now have to decide between two things - purchase price or reliability? Being four years later and having less of an early adopter tax on that 8-track is a large part of being 3 grand cheaper, but what makes it so much less reliable than even the temperamental AMCW? Being French? I really can’t tell. Having 180mm tyres can get you in trouble elsewhere. I get that Michelin did that, being French and all… I’m not knocking you here because a hire company with enough of these to care could get the tyres then need, but I’ll add something to the next round about that.
Really, though, all of this is a moot point, because of the Phénix Metro Twin Cam 1200. Yes, it only has a 1.2L engine. Yes, it only hits 160 km/h as a result. Yes, the rear row only has 2 seats (at least they’re full-size). Yes, the interior is a touch focussed on weight reduction and yes, the 8-track is basic. But when you drive it… None of that matters. Everything just feels right. The Rack & Pinion steering feels right. The way the Boxer 4 responds promptly feels right. The brakes feel right, the handling feels right, the car is swift and nimble. The AMCW and Somptueuse are no easier to drive calmly than the other entries, but this one is head and shoulders above the rest… Then when you decide to thash it, it responds like an eager puppy, happy to play. The difference in sportiness between it and the AMCW and Somptueuse is like the difference between those and the rest of the field. The best part? It costs as much as the Swanson, Hamfa and Somboy. It’s a bit expensive to acquire, at 12.5 grand, but the low tax bill really helps. Maybe budget a little more for how drivers will inevitably wear the tyres more but… That’s why you charge more. You charge more for the tyres, for the insurance premiums, for those things and not for the base cost. Smell that? It’s profit. Among the sporty cars, the Phenix stands head and shoulders above the rest as a profit maker and as a car. If the enthusiasts don’t buy them all first, I suppose - it is THE most driveable car in this round, and you can’t find something sportier for the price. Oh, and it’s almost as reliable as the freakin’ Wara!
NAPA Vents don’t quite feel right on a coupe like the AMCW. I associate them with 70s supercars, not 2+2 coupes. The front fascia is nice though, the lights and vents working like a waterfall to pull your eyes to a wordmark, the trim and wheelcovers matching the sporty profile and the tapered rear… Well, it’s just the shape of the body I guess, not a fan either. The Somptueuse mounts a rounded grille inside another rounded grille and has technically-legal French headlights, but that’s really all I dislike. Much like indicators, I like the handles working with the trim. Having two sets of rear lights is a gamble, but I honestly like it. Just the vertical ones would seem like too few, just the horizontal ones would seem like not enough. Getting a little ahead of myself, I like this version of that better than on your actual entries. The Phénix, meanwhile? From the rear, it’s almost a sleeper. You chose a fun shape for the license plate holder, but otherwise it’s normal. On the side, though, you get a nice two-tone… Then when you hit the front, you get fun eepy headlights, indicators towards the middle (grr) and a whopper of an intake scoop! The scoop goes to the bumper! The kid in me, who grew up on NFS Underground and Most Wanted approves. Maybe spice up the rear, maybe don’t.
Okay, okay, but… If it costs me 16 thousand AMU to run a 5-seater car, why don’t I spend 27 thousand on a 12-seater car? [NB: The engineering as submitted is 21k, I have bumped it because it has 9 as submitted]. People can still run the Bazard BPH8 on a commercial license. A front bench is a little dicey, but even with 11 people inside, it’s still good value. Yes, you will be paying twice as much to rent one of these, but it’s twice the car. It loses points for, well… Glamour, Prestige, Comfort, Drivability… What doesn’t it lose points for? But hey, it presents a unique value proposition: Pay more, move more people. You want a bus but don’t want a bus driver’s license or the rest of the hassle? This is your car. Really, stats-wise, it’s nothing special… But 12 seats is special. It probably competes with the Somboy for moving cargo too!
The outside is identical to your regular car, so… Wait and see!
13 Likes
Oh my god I’m so sorry lmao.
Honestly it’s not even that complex but my game hates loading it for some reason, takes longer to load than some cars with WAY more fixtures.
2 Likes
REVIEWS PART 3.3: FUNNY SPORTS PUN
So, sports cars! Here, sports cars are classed as anything with 2 or fewer seats that’s not a van or ute. I also grabbed a couple of extras, because I have the discretion to do that. Also, most of the cars in this segment were submitted in two relatively similar trims; where this happened, I’ll treat it as just two trims of one car, similar to modern cars with two trims.
Also, an OOC note. In theory, y’all should have included headrests in every one of your interiors, that’s what this safety choice means. I’m not gonna ding you over it, but I may in future.
Left to Right: OMC x2 by @SheikhMansour, Wayster x2 by @AndiD, Mercer x2 by @LS_Swapped_Rx-7, Renwoo x1 by @Mikonp7, Superlight x2 by @Danicoptero, Asakura x2 by @MoteurMourmin, Phénix x2 by @karhgath, BSC x2 by @mart1n2005
Renwoo Tricyle 70 by @Mikonp7
Let’s start with the Renwoo Tricycle 70, shall we? Let’s start with the good. It is a sleek cigar of a car. The 3D primitives that make up the rear aren’t the smoothest but hey, omelettes and eggs and all that. It’s also legal, very technically. I included a rule where you can use advanced trim settings to make trikes, I didn’t ban French headlights, you get the idea. Really, this car is about as French as they come. It’s detailed too, with a manual handcrank for the windscreen wiper among other goodies.
Now, to the bad. Let’s start with the objective, unquestionable bad. Minus ten safety quality, I mean… What were you thinking? Yeah, it’s legal, but this is a deathtrap. Your seatbelts barely keep someone in place, that sort of thing. It’s the sort of car the government would quickly outlaw… But it has other issues, too. Let’s start at the front, your engine’s intake manifold and alternator are completely exposed. That didn’t come up in the photoscene for me, because no engines were shown, hence it not being in the pic. If any amount of gravel or debris gets kicked up by a car behind this, it’s screwed. Then we get to the stats… If I merge entries by the same person, and compare to the rest of the segment, you have:
- Worst reliability, before I even adjust it for the engine placement.
- Second worst comfort, due to a basic entertainment option.
- Worst prestige.
- Second lowest top speed.
- Second worst cornering, probably due to those skinny tyres.
- Second worst sportiness, due to those last two.
This is all as submitted, before I even adjust for being a trike. While it’s the cheapest entry in the segment… That’s all it has going for it. It’s a cheap little two-seater, but you don’t really pay with money up front, I suppose. People saw that. People saw how it was slow, people saw how it was unsafe and not particularly fun to drive… And people just didn’t buy it. Why would they?
(Right: Wayster Triumf 2.0 Roadster/1.6 Coupe by @AndiD. Left: Asakura Sparrow GT-S/GH-S by @MoteurMourmin)
Okay, so, let’s start with the cheap two-seaters, shall we? The Asakura, uh… Jeez, I really just have to step outside the reviews here for it.
In terms of engineering, this does many things wrong. In terms of naming, this did everything wrong as well. The root cause of the issues is your choice of a rear-engined configuration. It’s possible to make this work, it’s not a death sentence, but it makes it especially hard to control your oversteer. It’s easy to fall prey to it, to have your car run into terminal oversteer. There’s things you need to do, levers you need to pull. You pulled many of them - camber, sway bars, staggered tyres - but it didn’t do enough. You lose a lot of sportiness and drivability because of it. There’s plenty of other issues too. Plain steel wheels but a premium interior. Brakes that aren’t quite strong enough for the car yet still fade. You run into valve float, you lose the two thirds of your power between your 7600 RPM peak and your 10000 redline, your torque curve is rather peaky, your -6 body quality, valve float and intake choice give you god-awful reliability… This is a car filled with beginner mistakes. As is posting a review of your own car in the thread. Really, it’s not a matter of being let down by being small or twee, or by having such a small engine. It’s a death by a thousand cuts, a car that needed just a little more polish, just a little work to bring it up to snuff. It’s a shame, then, because this is a real looker. It’s sleek and stylish, fill of detail but not quite over the line to being too busy. My suggestion? Find people to collaborate with, or join the discord and get others to provide constructive criticism. As a first ever challenge entry, you did better than I did way back when. I’d recommend working on your engineering more. Incidentally, you have no mufflers. On one hand, that’s usually considered in realism… But I didn’t make a rule about it so…
Okay, so from one entry to another, shall we? The Wayster gets an actual review. Let’s compare it to the entry from last era. I complained about the lemon paint looked, and the lack of a lip on the headlights. So, you went for a more metallic orange, and added a lip around the headlights. You kept the moustache grille, but changed it up a little, which is nice. From the side, with the top down, it looks like a modern convertible… Because modern convertibles are trying to look like this. In terms of stats, it’s an approachable, drivable car in both its guises, with 52 (!) drivability. It doesn’t sacrifice sportiness though, having a great 38 sportiness as a coupe. Did you sacrifice comfort to do it? No, it’s towards the top in this segment. It’s as bulletproof as they come too, a massive 72 reliability. The potential knock against it is safety - your space frame chassis, fibreglass panels and choice of standard safety over advanced all bring that down… But it’s 14 grand and has barely any running or tax costs. Plenty of people bought the car despite it not being the safest, because it’s still safe enough and it’s absolutely worth it. It’s worth noting that the roadster gives a good few other benefits - progressive springs, a bigger engine, wider tyres…
Mercer Tarantula and Stampede by @LS_Swapped_Rx-7
In theory, both Mercer entries should go elsewhere… But you should count yourself lucky that they’re here. You shoved the most American engine imaginable in these two entries, an 8 Litre Iron Pushrod V8. Stop to think about that for a moment, if you would? Taxes here are exponential. Each additional litre multiplies your tax cost by 1.6. At 3 Litres, you pay 506.25. At 8 Litres… You pay almost 5400 per year. 450 per month. Even the Ute with its tax offset is still charging 2 grand. In the utility class, adding 2 grand to your annual costs of business is a death sentence. In the regular class, well, your car probably competes with more luxurious, more extravagant entries. So, be glad they’re here.
See, here’s the issue though, what does that honking great engine get you? That engine you are paying 5400 per year for? It doesn’t get you top speed, because they hit the limiter at 224 for the despite being capable of 255 (for the Stampede) or 265 (for the Tarantula). Rather obviously, it doesn’t get you handling - especially with the tyres solid axle rear and ladder chassis. It doesn’t get you comfort, being right at the bottom, only ahead open wheelers like the Renwoo. It gets you acceleration and good times on the drag strip… But if you plan to have your car for 4-5 years, almost anything would be cheaper. After just one year, only the various supercars by OMC and the Superlights are more expensive - and those are all faster on the drag strip! Only having a single straight piped muffler means it got plenty of complaints.
So how does the market react to this? This is a big, bold American car that refused to adapt to the local conditions. It is a car so outrageously sure of itself, so sure of the supremacy of the American way that it assumes that simply being as American as it is will sell. It is every excess, every stereotype of America. It is the every complaint about American imperialism, given form. People derided it for this, people hated it for this. The only people who bought it were people with more money than sense, people desperate to be American. It became a bad joke. It’s really a shame to be deriding a car like this, you know? Because if it weren’t for the displacement tax… Well, it’s the perfect American car. It is the embodiment of America. I love it, and it fails hard in Araga.
Left: Phénix Callisto 2000 Elite/1400 Super by @karhgath. Right: BSC 4000/4000 Roadster by @mart1n2005.
Finally, two cars in this segment that actually compete with one another! The Renwoo doesn’t compete with the Superlight (being on opposite ends of the price spectrum), the Asakura is missing a little too much to compete with the Mayster, the Mercer’s engine costs too much… But these two both cost similar amounts. The BSC Roadster is more or less identical to the regular model. The Phénix Callisto adds a bigger engine, an LSD, progressive springs, alloy rims, an extra gear and a much better 8-Track over the standard Radio. so… One of these makes better use of its second trim, I suppose.
So, the advantages of the BSC are being bigger and having a higher top speed (vs the 1600). That’s it. The Phénix, meanwhile, wins on Sportiness, Drivability, Cornering, Acceleration and Economy. Comfort and Reliability are dead heats, while purchase and running costs are close enough between the 1600 and BSC. In the important stats for this segment, the Phénix wins.
The issue is, saying the Wayster doesn’t compete isn’t quite right. The Wayster is as sporty as the Phénix. It is as drivable as the Phénix. It is more comfortable than both of these cars. It corners similarly to the Phénix. It loses out on prestige, acceleration and top speed… But for the Aragan enthusiast market? For the market already known for modding their cars? Just buy a Wayster and use the money you saved tuning it. In aesthetic terms, well… The BSC feels aggressive, but the Wayster, Asakura and Phénix were all on the same body, and it shows. Y’all did similar things to one another, so they sorta blur together.
OMC California and Atomo by @SheikhMansour
Aaaaaaand back to cars without real competitors. The more expensive of the two (the Atomo) costs twice as much as the Phénix 1600 and the BSC, while the California isn’t much cheaper.Being up above 6L gives you a high tax bill… This is a car for rich people, no questions about it. The V12 agrees there.
Let’s start with the California, because these cars have a decent difference between them. The California gets a Luxury interior and an expensive Luxury 8-Track, plus Magnesium wheels and even Hydropneumatic suspension! Add in being a convertible, having power steering, and this all adds up to a whole lot of penalties to your sportiness. It’s unreliable too… But just like I asked with the Wayster, who cares? It’s a plush supercar with enough sportiness.
Okay, what if you don’t just want enough sportiness? The Atomo goes with a lighter interior, downgrades the 8-Track to save weight, ditches one of two reverse-flow mufflers and hardens and simplifies the suspension. It also makes the engine bigger, and improves the injection system, getting a massive 571 HP from its 6.5L engine. This one is comfortable enough, but… Well, the money you spent isn’t giving you anything in actual stats. The other cheaper cars are more fun to drive. If you are actually going to drive your car, if you care about that, pick the others. The OMC Atomo has one singular benefit, the one thing you buy a car with a 6.5L engine and 571 HP for: Speed. It hits 200 miles per hour, a line we wouldn’t reach in reality until 1986’s Porsche 959. This is a car that exists for the ego. It is a car for the wealthiest to prove their wealth… And that made it sell well.
As for aesthetics, y’all wanna hear a hot take? I really have to step out of “canon” again here: the wedge is the best thing to happen to supercars. No, really. The good is that your entry looks like the Ferraris of the day. The bad is that so do the others, which also look like the MG Roadster and plenty of cheaper cars. It doesn’t look like the expensive supercar which it is… Which is period accurate. It sucks that it’s period accurate, but it is, so… Not going to knock you for that, I suppose?
Superlight Zero and Aero by @Danicoptero
I started with an open wheeled car with a basic radio and no roof. That car was cheap, but it was panned for having awful stats. It was basic, offered nothing of substance, and just didn’t give a reason to buy it.
This is not that. Let’s start with the “cheap” option. The Superlight Zero. If I ignore the Aero, this two-seater is the most expensive car in the round. It uses fibreglass panels, it’s not particularly large. You used a sport interior and a basic radio, the money didn’t go their either. No, the money went into making everything in the car be done really, really well. +10 chassis quality. +10 family quality. +5 in almost every other place. It’s quality spam, no doubt about it. Like another entry, it has no mufflers, but it’s excusable here.
What does it get you? Well, it’s a handful. It has the worst drivability in the segment, although 43 isn’t particularly awful I suppose. It is less comfortable than the Renwoo, but that doesn’t particularly matter. It only has one single seat, so you can forget about taking a friend somewhere. It also goes over 310 km/h, has top-tier cornering and just feels like an absolute pleasure to drive with almost 60 sportiness. It gets to 100 km/h in just 3.3 seconds, runs a quarter mile in 10.99. It is a true race car, for certain. And aesthetically, well, it’s impressive to make something like this with just the 3D options we have in the game. It looks like a real Formula One car from the era, congrats! It is what it is, a largely functional shape with largely incidental aesthetics, but it’s not particularly ugly.
Then we get to the Superlight Aero, which adds a wing and… VVT? Electronic Fuel Injection? Wait, what?
Seriously? You stuck an engine from 1985 into the car and expect me to review this? I didn’t notice this right away, but this is not a car that could be sold in 1969. You named the engine “DFV at the club”, but the actual DFV didn’t use EFI until the 1976 DFX. So, I am left with two options. Option one, I can just bin it and move on… But where’s the fun in that?
No, I am going to work it into the lore and events. The Superlight Aero represents a spec promised to customers. It is the Devel Sixteen, it is the V12 version of the Jaguar XJ220. You promised it, but can you deliver it? No. The existence of this version dampens the customer perception of anything you actually deliver. There’s a hypothetical version with a better V8 that puts hits 100 km/h in under 3 seconds. Whatever you deliver can’t be as good. So, the already limited market for a 70k+ track toy shrinks even more. A lot of the people who put in orders were putting in orders for the version with the miracle V8… And they cancelled them when the real version came out. The Superlight is a rarity, an oddity, a story of how not to sell a car.
BREAKING NEWS - A LATE ADDENDUM
As these cars have been driven more and more, an issue has become apparent. The Mercers, BSCs, Asakuras, Waysters and Renwoos all neglected to put any rustproofing on their chassis. How does it impact market sentiment? Surprisingly… Not as much as it should. The Mercer was already a car restricted to a limited market, if you want American muscle, you end up accepting the rust. The Renwoo, meanwhile, already had such an awful reputation that it can’t go down far. What does it help? The Phénix, which was competing with the Wayster and the BSC. Advertising the rustproofing attracted people less interested in extreme levels of maintenance and checking for rust. These are the people who didn’t want to mod a Wayster. It strengthened its position, at the cost of the BSC and slightly at the cost of the Wayster.
17 Likes
Ok I know what happened with the year. I was trying stuff for a hypothetical Zero MK2 for the next round, and then I forgot to switch the year back and submitted it like that.
REVIEWS PART 3.4: ARAGA MOVING
Araga’s premier magazine for working Araga!
Reviews by @shibusu
A slight note, most of these reviews and all of these photos were by shibusu. However, shibusu ended up a bit unwell and needed to rest. So, wagon and special reviews are mine. Enjoy.
Also, the wagon reviews are “wagons as viewed by commercial buyers”. There will be regular wagon reviews too.
New vans, which one should you buy?
When you go to the store, all those products have to come from planes and trains to the businesses. How do they get there? Well, for the larger stores, with a small truck, but for the smaller ones, you get a van. Which van?
(First image: Capable Mover by @Vento. Second image: Bazard BVL8 by @Edsel)
Two new vans arrived in Araga: The Capable Mover Heavy Duty Van, and the Bazard BVL8 - both for 1965, but appear like they are in very different segments.
Let’s talk about size first. Well, the Capable Mover HDV is the smaller one, with the Bazard BVL8 being the bigger one. The BVL8 offers double the cargo and passenger volume of the Mover, with sliding side doors to boot, making it much more suited for bigger and more unwieldy cargo. Despite its size disadvantage, the Mover has a load capacity of 2900 kilograms (a mere 300 less than the BVL8’s), by its usage of live axle suspension for both front and rear, while the BVL8 settles for a slightly more luxurious double-wishbone on the front. The Bazard does tow about 500 kilograms more than the Mover, at around 1300 kilograms compared to the 800 kilograms of the Mover. On the interior side of things, the Mover HDV features a standard radio, while the Bazard has a basic unit - fair enough, it’s a work vehicle after all, so luxuries are not really expected. They both do have nicely padded cabins and durable and somewhat comfortable cloth seats.
Now, say you’re carrying a full load of whatever you need to, and someone jumps out of a driveway. Brakes! The Capable Mover HDV locks up the wheels…like, a gentle tap and the front wheels lock up. Despite these brakes, it stops from 100 in 4 more meters than the Bazard. The Bazard has more balanced brakes, which are still adequate without being overpowered for the wheel’s grip. It’ll still lock up when the vehicle is empty, but it’s definitely easier to manage. Both still have brake fade, but when you’re carrying 2 and a half tons there’s not much that’ll stop that.
Now on to the cost side of things. The Capable Mover HDV will set you back 8030 at the dealership, and the Bazard BVL8 will set you back 12600 - 4570$ more expensive. You do pay for practical extras, like those sliding doors and a V8 engine producing 135 horsepower, with plenty of opportunity to bore and stroke it out, with the engine supporting a maximum displacement of 5 liters, from a stock 3.6L. The Mover doesn’t allow for any boring out, though it is coincidentally also 3.6L, thus charging the same ~260$ of yearly tax with the tax break. You’ll pay about 620$ keeping the Mover in top shape, while that cost is 684$ for the Bazard. Where you’ll pay more is with the Bazard’s economy though, a mildly eye-watering 21.4L/100km, compared to the Mover’s comparatively frugal 15L/100km.
Really, these two vehicles are very well matched to each other, with similar numbers to both of them - it’s a matter of if you want the bigger one and are willing to pay extra for it. But perhaps the smaller Mover has some additional competition to worry about…
(Right: Somboy by @Restomod, Centre: Hamfa by @Ch_Flash, Left: Swanson by @Ludvig)
What happens when everyone is buying new cars? What happens when demand goes through the roof? Supply takes a hit and dealers can’t keep units on their lots, that’s what! Okay, so if you can’t get a van, maybe you can go get a wagon? There’s a few of those on the market, and they have some cargo space. Pull out the rear seats, swap in some new springs and such… If you can’t find a van, it can do a decent job! The issue is that there’s no perfect wagon for commercial buyers. You could buy the Hamfa 3000 Kombi… and pay 500 per year in tax, double the actual vans. Or you could buy the Somboy Parapet 2400L… if you can convince a hire car company to part with it, or Somboy to sell you one. Lastly, you could buy the Swanson 225 PW… for fifteen grand. The Hamfa and Swanson are both much plusher cars than any van on the market, and the Swanson and Somboy still have decently higher tax bills than the actual, proper vans. In a pinch, maybe you can go for it, but you should probably consider it to be temporary, you know?
We’ve got some stuff to pick up and haul - Pickups
All Aragans have stuff to move sometime. Whether it be the shopping, a newly-acquired television or just some old furniture, everyone’s got experience getting a thing from one place to another. Some people have to move more and sometimes more unwieldy cargo however.
(Bazard BTR8 by @Edsel)
The Bazard BTR8 (Yes, BTR8, despite the badge on the side saying BRT) is well-suited to hauling big things, being based on the BVL8 that we discussed earlier. It shares the chassis and many of its traits; the heavy-duty suspension, the nearly 4-ton load capacity and the 3.6L V8 (which can be bored out to 5L). It’ll carry whatever wherever, with little fuss. Big disc brakes get those 5.5 tons stopped, and with remarkably little fade, with the support of large brake cooling ducts. While it isn’t exactly raised high, it does have a skid plate underneath to keep your oil pan un-punctured in rough environments. A standard interior keeps you padded inside, with an upgraded radio from the BVL8 keeping you entertained while giving a communications option, so if you’re ever stuck in the rut, someone can at least hear you scream.
As for the cost side, converting to a pick-up truck and installing a better radio will cost you 13,300, with servicing costing you a bit more than the BVL at 741$. Tax remains relatively low at 260$ yearly. We can recommend the Bazard for people looking for a reliable, capable and relatively comfortable utility pick-up.
(WCV Packer by @Fayeding_Spray)
Meanwhile, the Walsh Commercial Vehicles (WCV) Grand River Packer also sits in the heavy utility market. How heavy? 4443.3 kilograms. About 500 kilograms more than the Bazard BTR8, thus the highest of the utility segment. It comes with a 5-liter V8, and has the shortest gearing of all utility vehicles, resulting in a 2000kg tow weight, again the highest of the segment by some 600 kilograms. Now, this all comes at a cost. Not financially, barring the 5-liter V8 costing you 500$ of tax yearly, but with the chassis engineering. You see, unlike the Bazard and the Movers, the Grand River uses leaf-sprung live axles for both front and rear. Combined with relatively hard front suspension, it makes for an uncomfortable, nearly painful ride, combined with rough cloth seats, no sound deadening of any kind, and a radio of pretty poor specifications. This does make it cheaper than both Bazards, but do you really want to sit in this every day? And a damper is put on that cheapness by the aforementioned 500$ yearly tax (which is break-inclusive) and a 25.2L/100km fuel economy figure. You can get a Grand River Packer for 11,100$, but unless you really need those extra 500 kilograms and are willing to replace your front brakes often from them fading to death, we really can’t recommend it over the Bazard BTR.
(Capable Mover by @Vento)
Now for the Capable Mover Heavy Duty Pick-up. Despite its smaller size and wheelbase compared to the other utility trucks, it is still capable of carrying 3 tons in the bed, and can tow 1 ton. It comes with a 3.6-liter inline-6, with a five-speed manual transmission. It shares most of its characteristics with the Heavy Duty Van, including the bad ones. Like the bad brakes. Really bad brakes. Really really bad brakes. The Bazard stops from 100km/h in 47 meters. The Mover stops in 58 meters. It’s unsafe. Now, you might think that you could get away with just installing better brakes on this… But you can’t, we have looked. The brakes are ridiculously overpowered, especially on the front - shiny two-piston brakes with pads that just barely fit within the rims and a compound that’d be more at home on the racing circuit than a commercial carrier. No, you’d need the tyres to have more grip, so you’d need to replace the skinny stock tyres with something wider - the Bazard and the WCV both run on 215mm tyres, while this one runs on 155mm ones. In fact, when we swapped on a set of 215R14s we had laying around, we got the stopping distance to about 43 meters… The first time we tried. When we loaded up the tray with some barrels of water, well, the brake fade was worse than the Packer! So you’ll be working on that too… At what point do you just bite the bullet and spend more money to get a decent car off the lot?
Very Special Episode - Special Vehicles
(Ironclad C-C Series 3000/5500 Liquid Transporters by @Madrias)
Okay, okay, but what if you have more to carry? Like, a lot more? Let’s say, oh… 3000 litres of petrol? Or even more? Well, Ironclad has you covered, with their C-C series. In fact, Ironclad has you covered with a lot of things, or so your local Ironclad representative may claim. But let me let you in on a little secret… The tankers are the best ones for business. See, the Ironclad comes with a massive 10.8L V8 engine. Believe it or not, these fuel tankers actually get a deeper tax break than usual for being “extremely specialised super-heavy duty vehicles”. So, that makes these massive engines sensible here - putting a smaller engine wouldn’t exactly be drivable when fully loaded, mind you. If you want to use it for lighter duty, however, you won’t get this tax break - and you will pay through the nose for it. But that’s not the only issue.
See, unless you’ve been living under a rock, you might have noticed a bunch of standardised containers around. A bit over 6 metres long, a bit over 2.4m wide and a bit under 2.6m tall. For logistics, these have been a godsend. Rather than taking a bunch of goods off of a train and loading up a van, then unloading the van at your destination, you can just take the container off the train and put it onto a flatbed, then unload the container at your destination. Less work, less time, less hassle and damage. The issue is that the Ironclad is substantially narrower than these dimensions. It can’t really fit a shipping container that well, at only 2 metres wide (even with the tank upfit).
(Centurion D1000 by @ldub0775)
If you want to move shipping containers, you’d be better off going with Araga’s finest - a Centurion model, any model almost, with their legal-maximum 2.5m width. The Centurion being great for cargo isn’t new news, of course… But the Centurion doing plenty, plenty more is! Centurion has recently introduced two models, with the first being unveiled at a ceremony at City Hall in Iroport, the nation’s capital. It was an absolutely titanic model, articulated in the centre and painted in red, filled with storage and fire extinguishers… Yes, it was an all-in-one firefighting command centre, with everything you could ever want as a firefighter. Truly a gem of Aragan engineering, especially with its hydraulic ladder. The second model removes the hose connections and the extinguishers, and replaces the red paint and ladder for a highly-visible yellow and a crane. A truck being this long would normally be a drawback, but it’s the only way to get a ladder or crane to reach up 30 metres, high enough to reach into a high-rise - so you’ll need to get a lot of permits and approval to run the crane, but it’ll be worth it if you’re in a business where you need one. If you need the fire engine, well, you’re the one giving out those permits, aren’t you? Thanks to those permits and how specific the model is, these Centurions receive similar tax breaks to the Ironclad, which is a relief given the fact that it’s a 21.7L V16. The fire engine, in fact, is tax exempt - who would tax public safety? Mechanical fuel injection and Centurion’s standard attention to detail keep the engine from using too much fuel, and it is much the same in the Ironclad.
(Centurion H1000 by @ldub0775)
[OOC: Modern shipping containers started gaining adoption around 1960, with the ISO standard being codified in 1968. Accordingly, with Araga’s massive investment in trains, cargo companies are expecting to move shipping containers. A truck being 2 metres wide ends up hurting, rather than helping. Yes, these two are for fuel transit, but the flatbed mentioned in the ad copy isn’t selling well. The Centurions are derived from your previous entries but are a fun tweak - and the detail on these are really nice.]
14 Likes
Yay what cool vehicles this round! Nice reviews!
I did have no idea that increasing tire width decreases braking distance though haha. I’m really impressed with how Bazard managed to get such little brake fade with 4 ton cargo capacity though wowsers!
1 Like
Braking distance from a given speed is a factor of two things: Applied braking force and mass.
The basic equation are straightforward: F=ma, where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration. Applying more force means more acceleration, having less mass means more acceleration. More acceleration means lower stopping distance. Here’s the catch though: Applied braking force is limited by the traction of your tyres. You could apply all the force in the world, it’ll only cause your tyres to lock up. Insufficient grip means your applied braking force is limited.
This is what is shown on the “braking vs grip” chart. The solid lines are your braking force, and the dotted lines are the limits of traction on your tyres. Whichever is lower of the two will dictate your ability to stop. In your case, the solid lines were way higher than the dashed ones, indicating that your braking is limited by traction.
1 Like
Why is utility score increased by having more brake force than grip, it doesn’t seem like that would do anything to help?
Being fully loaded affects the weight of the car, so increasing force or even reducing utility fade can help the score I believe.
The grip line assumes an empty vehicle; when fully loaded your car will be significantly heavier, and thus will produce more grip. This means you need more brake force to lock the tyres, thus more brake force increases your utility score, up to a point.
REVIEWS PART 3.5: THE SAFE, SIMPLE SOLUTION
All reviews by @Edsel, with limited edits
I noticed some issues with the Hakaru and Nerruci after publishing, and amended those reviews
Now it’s time to look at the mass market- the “standard” segment. Anything under $20,000 that doesn’t fit into any other category, Note that the word “standard” is used here in heavy quotes, because the late 60’s Aragan market was not your standard market. First of all, Araga’s economic boom had made it wealthy even by first-world standards, and the people were interested in flaunting that wealth. So Araga’s standard for what was considered “Standard” drifted into cars that would have been “premium” anywhere else.
And we must also address what the safety scare meant from a market perspective. With literally every extant car abruptly ripped off the road, the entire motoring population suddenly needs a new car at once! And sure, Araga’s excellent rail network and booming rental-car industry have reduced the size of that population, but the remainder was still more than enough to overwhelm new-car supply chains.
(Hamfa 3000 Kombi by @Ch_Flash)
To unpack how all this plays out, let’s start with the only 2 cars that would’ve truly been considered “standard” in any other market. Both were released in 1965.
At $10,700, the Hamfa 3000 Kombi was one of the cheapest new cars on the entire public market. And for being the only affordable wagon at all in 1965 (unless you had $51,000 to splurge on a Rosanda), Araga was quite fortunate that it turned out to be a good one, with well-rounded stats across the board. It didn’t feel like a “cheapest car,” either, thanks to its premium interior + radio and medium compound tires. Looks wise, the car was mostly pretty mundane, but it had just enough accents & chrome to at least blend in with the more expensive traffic around it.
A 3m wheelbase also gave it both the most passenger and the most cargo space for its segment. But all that space was kinda rendered worthless by the one thing Hamfa had cheaped out on; standard springs. Soft, low-load standard springs… in a wagon! The car barely had enough load capacity to hold the 5 people in its seats! Performance was also sub-par; its size and 3L I6 gave it “only average” acceleration figures, in exchange for disappointing fuel economy (15.3L/100km) and a somewhat-high $504/year tax.
But hey, in this economy, most could easily afford to handle those costs, and Araga’s flourishing aftermarket scene was quick to offer suspension upgrades. So in spite of these issues, the Kombi’s competence, well-rounded nature, and lack of true competitors made it one of the most sought-after cars in the entire Aragan market- and by proxy, one of the hardest cars to get a hold of. Even a high-volume manufacturer like Hamfa couldn’t hope to keep up with such a surge in demand, and those who buy this type of car generally intend to keep them quite a while (unless you count the scalpers), so not everyone who wanted a Hamfa actually managed to get ahold of one.
(Nerruci Phantom by @04mmar)
That’s where the 1965 Nerruci Phantom fits in; it’s main demographic consisted of people who’d failed to get a Kombi, since it was the only other ‘65 car priced and sized competitively. And while that doesn’t sound very good, that’s actually about the best thing that could’ve happened to it, as the Phantom would’ve never done well otherwise. It was rife with problems, rooted in what appeared to be an identity crisis in its engineering: Is this car supposed to be a comfortable cruiser, or a sports car?
See, the Phantom looks like a sports car: big lips, quad exhaust, just general muscley-ness. And it has some parts of a sports car: limited-slip, 4 wheel discs, and a performance-tuned engine with - get this - mechanical fuel injection?! Pretty-fine performance tech for '65! …Except, there’s nothing sporty about the Phantom. That fuel-injected 2.5L Boxer-6 only made 137 horsepower, just 12 more than the carburated Kombi- and not enough to incur wheelspin, invalidating the LSD. The car also came with a washy 3-speed automatic that made it slower than the Kombi (despite being slightly lighter and more powerful), and too slow to make much use of its aero fixtures. The brake tuning was also off; the rear brakes locked before the front, making it prone to spin out in hard braking. And while on paper the handling was ok, you couldn’t enjoy any of it thanks to its soft, comfort-tuned suspension and soulless ball steering (it has the worst sportiness and drivability in the segment!).
Now, the Phantom did sort of succeed on the comfort front. Its standard-but-spacious interior was the cheapest of its time to offer an 8 track, and with a great sound system at that. It was also the cheapest car with an automatic by a wide margin. All that high-performance tech in a low-performance car did nothing but drive up its purchase and repair costs, and drive down its efficiency and reliability… And there’s another big, dirty secret. Nerruci applied zero rustproofing to their cars, unlike every other commuter car on the market. The result is a confusing car with an identity crisis that doesn’t particularly hold together well.
(Hakaru 1100 B and S by @Executive)
Now, onto the only true budget car in Araga in this era, and the by-far cheapest car that hadn’t been reserved for hire-car service: The 1965 Hakaru Carcia.
While most manufacturers were pushing further and further upmarket, the only luxury Hakaru offered was standard seats/radio; other than that, the car was basic even by international standards. You didn’t even get the luxury of choice; besides than a selection of muted, earth-tone colors, the only options were 2 dealer-installed extras (hubcaps or a passenger mirror), and 2 variants of the same engine, which only differed by 100cm³ of displacement (1.1L vs, 1.2L). Their difference in performance was so minor, it’s not worth distinguishing between them.
For most Aragans, this was just too basic, too devoid of features and comforts to be worth buying. It looked cheap, too; it didn’t look like a flat out lemon, but in a market full of flashy, premium cars, it was an embarrassment to have to explain that something that simple, that un-decorated and function-over-form, wasn’t a rental. And then consider the lack of power: remember when we derided the Phantom for being slow? That one took 12.5 seconds to reach 100kmh. The slowest Carcias needed over 20, which was almost dangerously inadequate in highway traffic!
Speaking of danger, there was another one waiting once you got to speed; terminal oversteer! Remember, one of the issues that started this whole safety scare, with the Garland and Schnell a few years earlier? Right in the first year of a radical new safety policy, a car had already come out with the same problem! It was fairly subtle, admittedly; it only seemed to occur in sharp, emergency maneuvers, when stable handling is most vital. Also, urban legend said it somehow happened more in 1.1L models than 1.2L ones, though this was never formally tested.
Once word got out about this, it quickly ballooned into a major scandal and huge embarrassment- not just for Hakaru, but for the government as well. See, the new safety-rating system only tested crash performance, and the Carcia’s monocoque structure did perform well once in a crash, so the government gave it a good rating. But people quickly realised crash performance meant little when the chance of crashing in the first place was so high, causing a great many debates about the system itself. The issue was, this wasn’t the only issue with the Hakaru. See, the quality of fuel can vary from batch to batch, and the effective octane rating of fuel goes down at altitude. Some manufacturers make sure to set up their cars with looser tolerances to accept worse fuels and higher altitudes. Hakaru… did not do this. They did the opposite of this. Take it up above sea level, get anything other than the absolute batch of fuel the service station has received, it knocks. It really wants 94 RON fuel, and even then it’s on the edge of knocking.
It at least manages good fuel economy, but purely by virtue of being gutless, heartless and depressing. The pushrod engine reportedly gets below 5% in terms of thermal efficiency, while the worst other engines outside of the sports segment are all above 11%. It’s so impotent and low-powered that it still doesn’t use much fuel, but it could still use less.
You could potentially soldier through the issues. Drive it slow and the terminal oversteer doesn’t come up. Retune the suspension, swap out the engine for something that actually cares about efficiency. After you do all that, if you didn’t value your time, you probably still spent less… So everyone who could avoid buying one did, but the people who couldn’t afford anything better - or who couldn’t afford not to have a car, and couldn’t find anything better - suffered through it and tried to make it better.
(Hamfa 3000 Coupe by @Ch_Flash)
Now we start with the cars that are only “standard” in the context of a fairly premium market. At $16,300, the 1966 Hamfa 3000 Coupe was about in the range of what Aragans thought of as “normal.” While based on the already-popular Kombi wagon, this coupe version followed a very different philosophy to its practical and utilitarian sibling, being a well-appointed and comfortable commuter for individuals or couples living alone.
The coupe carried the same 3L engine as the wagon, but fitted with dual overhead cams (a segment exclusive) and a carburetor upgrade to earn it 170hp and a theoretical top speed just over 200kmh. An LSD and 4-wheel discs were also provided to help control that power. But to be clear, this was not a performance car; this was a personal luxury coupe, with a stable-but-soft suspension and a Luxury grade interior, with a luxury-grade sound system to match! It was by far the cheapest such interior in Araga, and without any cut-corners in build quality.
Unfortunately, not only had it inherited the Kombi’s poor fuel economy and high taxes, but it also proved costly to service thanks to said top-spec interior. It was also a bit space-inefficient; a 3m wheelbase is a bit much for a 4-seater car, and yet Hamfa’d only been able to fit jump seats in the rear? At least the trunk was fairly spacious; and you could actually put stuff in it, since the coupe had the progressive springs that the Kombi should’ve had.
When you take the rest of the Aragan market into account, though, the ownership costs weren’t actually too bad. And for the average buyer, who often just wanted simple, point-to-point transport, this car’s build quality, comfort, and balanced nature made for an appealing, sensible choice- if you had somewhere to store it, and didn’t need the rear seats too often. Thus, while buyers weren’t quite as eager for them as they’d been for the Kombi, this coupe sold out fairly well and came to be a staple of the Aragan market.
(Swanson 225 PW by @Ludvig)
Though as it happens, the flood of Kombi demand began to ease in 1966, as it was no longer the only affordable wagon in Araga; the Swanson 225 PW had finally arrived to ease the critical shortage of family cars. It was unfortunately almost $5,000 more expensive than the Hamfa, at $15,300, but it certainly justified the extra cost.
Riding a 2.6m wheelbase - 0.4m shorter than the Kombi - the PW already fit better inside Araga’s dense cities. And despite being 0.5L smaller, its 2.5L boxer made the same amount of power, in a lighter car. So not only was the PW cheaper to own than the Kombi, with lower fuel costs and taxes, it was also significantly quicker- 100kmh in 8.7s is pretty good for the 60’s! Its handling was good too, being almost sports-car nimble for its time while still being easy to handle.
But the thing that really stood out to buyers, more than anything else, was just the sheer build quality of the car. That lower-displacement engine didn’t rely on expensive, fancy tech to source its power, just a whole lot of refinement and overengineering (its fuel system, in particular, makes engineers jealous to this present day). And the rest of the car was the same story; The steering was so smooth and easy to operate, you barely noticed it wasn’t power-assisted. In the already-premium interior, all the buttons and controls were intuitively placed and satisfying to use. Everything was well thought-out, everything fit together perfectly; and as a result, everything lasted a long time. Reliability reports at the end of this era put this car as the most reliable auto in the entire Aragan market.
Now, the Swanson wasn’t a complete replacement for the Hamfa; namely because, being smaller, it just didn’t have as much cargo space. The PW’s sporty handling was also firmly specialised for clean asphalt, which meant on gravel/dirt roads, the car jostled around unpleasantly. But those flaws were pretty situational in Araga with its well-developed roads, so the PW immediately proved a smash hit in Araga. And with its strong presence in the market helping ease the wagon shortage, it started to free up the Kombi for the people who specifically needed its advantages - proving a win for the Kombi, too.
(Swanson 225 SF by @Ludvig)
Perhaps the most impressive thing about the PW, though, was that it wasn’t the best Swanson could do. Sure, the PW is a great family car, but… what if you could have a family sports car?
Yup, the Swanson 225 SF; a sports sedan. A hard recipe to make even today, and yet Swanson aced it in the 60’s. Compared to its sensible sibling, a 5th transmission gear helped it gain speed faster, rear discs helped lose it, and better sports-grade tires helped maintain it. It had been weight shedded with a sport-focused interior, and its engineers had used dark magic to materialise some even-higher quality parts.
Now to be clear, in raw performance this car was outclassed by most actual sports cars. But for a Boxer-6 with 4 doors, 7.4 seconds to 100 and a whole 1.0g cornering (in the right conditions) was still insane! And when it came to subjective driving feel, it actually beat most of the cars faster than it; even today, the SF’s controls are compared favourably to game controllers in how responsive and satisfying they were to use.
So what’s the catch to this one? …20,000 dollars. Well, $19,500, technically. Still over $4,000 more than its regular version. And still loitering pretty close to premium territory, even by Aragan standards. You also had to be careful where you took it, since it struggled to handle even most potholes. And at the time some of the design elements, such as the colored star rims or rear-window louvers, were a bit divisive among buyers.
Really though, that was it. The SF just about matched the PW in most all of its strengths, being just-about as efficient, reliable, comfortable, and safe. Its real accomplishment was being a competent, practical sedan that met general market needs, while offering such a high fun factor, all at once. So while a bit too expensive to truly achieve mass-market appeal, this car gained strong popularity among driving enjoyers and enthusiasts across Araga.
(Nerruci Phantom GT by @04mmar)
And now, from the segment’s most refined vehicle, to one of its least. Nerruci also came out with a performance model in 1967. …Well, actually they’d intended to release it for 1965, but had had production delays with the engine (OOC: you had your engine variant set 2 years after your trim year. Tsk-tsk…).
The 1967 Nerruci Phantom GT, this time a coupe, had inherited most of the problems of its sedan sibling; actually, most of them were worse now. Despite shedding the rear doors and bench (in favor of 2 jump seats), the GT was even heavier and less efficient. While ownership costs of the sedan had been disappointingly high, the costs of the GT were flat out outrageous. And the Phantom had always been an unreliable car, but the GT turned out to be one of Araga’s most unreliable cars (beaten only by the Asakuras)!
Except this time, Nerruci had found a way to justify its car’s problems; with a 6L V8 making 369hp. Yeah, now that LSD actually had some traction to control. Now, this Phantom was good for 100kmh in 5.8 seconds. Now it was good for 200 in 18 seconds, in a price range where 200kmh was usually “wishful thinking at best.” Now, the brakes had actually been calibrated correctly, and now with manual steering & transmission, you could at least feel some sense of control over this unrefined beast. Now, you didn’t mind the lack of refinement anymore, because it meant you could get this bonkers battleship for $16,800.
The Phantom had finally become the hardcore-American muscle car it’d always wanted to be. Such a shame that, as we learned from the Mercer Tarantula in the Sports category, Araga wasn’t the place American muscle cars. And bad news for the Phantom; the Mercer was easily the better built, better performing American muscle car. The good news, though, was that we aren’t in America…
The Mercer was 60 points more powerful, at 430hp- but because it had gotten most of its power from old-fashioned displacement instead of prestigious fuel injection, it had comically-terrible economy & tax figures (29L/100km, $5390/yr) that made even the Phantom’s awful costs seem reasonable (17.6L/100km, $2072/yr). The Tarantula was also heavier and had a lower top speed, negating its performance advantage; in the Traditional American quarter-mile, their times were nearly identical… But the market for big American muscle cars just wasn’t there. Ultimately, the choice between the two came down to personal taste. The Mercer was built better and was a better platform for upgrades and tuning, but it was more expensive too. The Phantom had four seats, but most tuners stripped them out anyway. Just mind the rust, on either car.
15 Likes
REVIEWS 3.6: LOVE DE LUXE
This segment was initially assigned to @mart1n2005. Martin didn’t manage to get it completed to my personal writing standards and some cars were completely missing from those reviews, so I decided to rewrite it right here and now rather than waiting longer, because I wanted to get this done within 4 weeks of the round closing, it’s 4 weeks now, I can do it all today, let’s go.
(Each Column front to back. Left column: Kensington and Somboy by @Restomod, Somptueuses by @Bbestdu28. Middle column: Swanson SF by @Ludvig, Ilarises by @shibusu, Rosanda by @MrdjaNikolen. Right column: Minexes by @lotto77, the other Rosanda by @MrdjaNikolen)
So, with even the “standard” segment getting Luxury interiors and Luxury entertainment options, what is left for the actual luxury segment? What is left is cars costing about twenty thousand or more.
*(Left to right: Somboy by @Restomod, Swanson by @Ludvig, Somptueuse by @Bbestdu28)
Let’s start at the cheaper end of things, and here’s where I, as the host, need to admit I messed up. There was some miscommunication, the Swanson SF belongs here and not in the last part but hey, Edsel did it well. See, the Phantom GT is 16800, the Swanson SF is 19500, the Somboy is 19900 and the Sompteuse is 20500. In price terms, where does the Swanson belong? Here, that’s where. I think it was due to sending the wrong .car file to Edsel or maybe due to marking something in a spreadsheet wrong, shit happens.
So, what happens when you put the Swanson SF up against other premium cars? When it’s not being compared to cheaper cars? Maybe such a refined car can’t hold up without the advantage of price, maybe it loses out. Nope, not even close. Let’s assume that I made a bigger mistake and put it with the 2-seat sports cars. Lighter, less material, can it still hold up there? Yes. Only four cars are better in sportiness, only one of those has better drivability, the Wayster. That, everyone, is what we are dealing with. That is the car we are dealing with, that is where the standard has been set. The one thing which Edsel didn’t mention about the car was the god-awful checkered pattern on the seats, it’s ugly as hell, but you can put a cover on those seats.
So, let’s look at that Somboy and Sompteuse I mentioned. Let’s go with the Somboy first, shall we? Much like the Swanson, it does not belong here - but not because of any mistake on my own part, but because of a mistake on Restomod’s part. Let’s start with the good. It has a sport interior, done in black with red accents. The black hood adds to this sporty image. It’s a looker, a really sporty sedan and probably looking the part better than the Swanson. Now, however, for the bad. I can rattle off a laundry list of immediate issues here - not a lot of overdrive, not a lot of gap between peak power and redline, terminal oversteer at high-speed but this is burying things a little. Your car costs 20 grand, where did the money go? Everything seemed fairly routine and even cheap - standard radio, no quality, stuff like that. This is massively overbuilt, your engineers spent over seven years polishing a simple all-cast bottom with balance shafts, making an engine that takes a lot of effort to make to the tolerance. You used the full +15 quality here, and zero quality elsewhere. Why? The redline is low enough that it’s not impacting reliability at all, even with negative bottom end quality. You gain a little power and efficiency but not 4000 dollars worth. I have commented elsewhere about how bad prices sink cars more than anything else, and it’s true again here. Maybe the Somboy would be genuinely compelling if it was at 16 grand. Here, however, it’s slow and underpowered, cheap and uncomfortable despite having the price tag of an expensive premium car. It’s a product at a bad price, but at 20 grand, you aren’t getting away with “everything else is sold out, you just have to buy it”.
Okay, the Somptueuse, shall we? What does your 1000 bucks get you over the Somboy? Well, it gets you a luxury interior with a laundry list of features… and you get a numb hydraulic ball steering system that saps any and all joy out of driving. Rack and Pinion would almost certainly be cheaper better overall but hey, that’s what you get. The car packs a lot of features into its price point, like a flashy per-cylinder fuel injection system, aluminium construction on a large V8, disc brakes with 2 pistons in the front. If you just looked at the feature list, it’s great but there’s a cost. How do you fit all this into the budget? Well, there’s something you’ll never find on any feature list, but which is indeed a feature nonetheless. Quality and polish. Some other cars like the Swanson spend time polishing critical components like the fuel system, valvetrain, body… Really, the Swanson polishes every single area that needs polish. The Somptueuse polishes nothing. Every idea is almost certainly as it would have sprung from a designer or engineer’s mind. Spending time polishing parts is expensive, but it makes sure those parts work. Not spending that time polishing parts, well, it makes a car that is incredibly unreliable. You also cut corners and ended up making the car super rust-prone, which isn’t helping things. I’m going to take the high road and avoid the French jokes, but any buyers would find themselves disappointed by how unreliable it is. At least it looks very French, I suppose, I’m not particularly a fan of how the rear lights are set up, with some extra protruding lights, way too many rear lights tbh. And while it is cheap to buy, it has the running costs of some more expensive competitors, and a large 5.5L engine means a large tax burden, 1600 bucks. And, well, we’ll get to what that means after a quick detour.
(Left: Kensington by @Restomod. Right: Somptueuse by @Bbestdu28)
The Somptueuse Coupé “la jamais Contente” is basically a trim level over the Somptueuse Coupé, with all the criticisms thereof. A larger 7L V12 is used, but it uses a different bore and stroke to the regular one so you wouldn’t be able to share many parts. Just about every complaint about the regular model is still there, like the lack of polish and that hydraulic ball suspension. What does your money (almost 50% more!) get you aesthetically? A couple of extra vents and that’s it.
It’s a similar story with the Kensington 3700i Premier Saloon. It has more differences to the Somboy, don’t get me wrong - it offers exactly the sort of difference in stats that I would expect between two different brands sharing a platform. It just shares the crazily overbuilt bottom end. This massively blows the cost out of proportion, making it compete unfavourably with other cars. Aesthetically, the Kensington looks like it shares a platform with the Somboy… But it’s the more reserved and refined version. The Somboy is a great sports car aesthetically, the Kensington is a great premium car aesthetically, and the two complement one another. If it wasn’t for the expensive bottom end, the synergy would benefit the cars and make them do far, far better. It’s a shame. The interior resembles the Somboy too, but brown with white (and wood!) accents is more premium than black and red, it’s a nice choice.
(Left: Ilaris Injection. Right: Ilaris PowerStar)
But what do the regular Somptueuse and Kensington end up competing unfavourably with? The Swanson partially, and the less expensive cars, but Ilaris made a local division which built cars for the local market rather well. The PowerStar Sprint was their sporty model, and the Injection S was their more comfortabnle model. They were both five thousand more expensive than the Sompteuse upfront, but tax costs are 1200 cheaper per year, and level service costs mean they end up equal after 4 years. The Kensington, meanwhile, is about 2500 cheaper, with tax and service costs ending up as a bit of a wash. They are perhaps a little harder to drive, but the Injection completely sacrifices sportiness in favour of maximising comfort. It’s a worthwhile trade, the well-made Luxury interior feeling better than the unpolished handmade in the “la jamais Contente”, and far above the other cheaper cars. For the many, many, many people who don’t want to drive their car hard and just want to be comfortable, why not?
What about the PowerStar? How does it compare to the Swanson? How are the stats? It’s rear engined, what do you think? Yes, the Swanson has better sportiness and drivability, but that’s what rear engine will do to you, I suppose. It’s a little less comfortable too, which isn’t great. It’s equal with the Somboy in drivability and sportiness but far more comfortable, worth the money… But you knew what you were doing here. Really, it’s impressive that the Injection does well in spite of being rear-engined. One of two isn’t bad, I guess.
But the PowerStar is at least a looker. The Injection is effectively the base model, aesthetically. The fins on the rear are a nice throwback which will attract the people who miss their old car. The headlight covers are at least unique, I think I like them, I’m not sure if they make the car look sleepy or like it’s challenging you. It’s a sleek car with a foot in the past and eyes on the future, just what you want. The PowerStar, meanwhile, adds a black hood and roof, black rims, and just looking sportier. I don’t normally like black hoods but it looks kinda good here, and it definitely achieves the connotations on the market. Being honest, if rear engine was buffed already, it’d be great. I’m gonna use my powers and ability to overrule stuff and say that tuners managed to work out the kinks, alleviating the issues with rear engined cars and the PowerStar still sold well, but was best as a halo car for the injection. The marketing towards safety helps people to accept the rear engined issues as well.
(Left: Minex Danazine F6H, Right: F6L)
Okay, now for the Minex Danazine F6H. We step up another nine grand above the Ilaris, only about three grand above the “la jamais Contente”. Trying to compare the Injection to the Danazine is about as clear a case of apples and oranges as it gets. Yes, it’s more comfortable, it’s more drivable, a little less sporty. Reliability is decent, it is in a class of its own. And it’s in a class that, well, the “la jamaise Contente” should occupy. But using a 4.2L F6 engine brings with it a lower tax burden, meaning it ends up cheaper after about one or two years. The Minex is also somehow cheaper to maintain than the other cheaper premium cars but not cheap enough to cost less over the lifetime of the year. It’s more comfortable than the Somptueuse, more Drivable than it, and it’s not a lemon either. The sole complaint is using a phonograph rather than an actual 8-Track, making the bumps in the road impact your music more, but that’s it. The hydraulic ball suspension kinda sucks too, but this is nitpicking. What more could you want?
How about something, uh, bigger? The F6L is a stretched, lengthened version of the F6H. It comes with an even better, more expensive interior and better suspension. You get an actual 8-track, hydraulic rack and pinion suspension, better dampers… And it costs 50% more. Is going from 57 to 65 points of comfort and a couple of other minor improvements elsewhere? For a very, very small number of people, yes. There are a very small number of people who have bought one of these, but it exists as a status symbol. These people generally want to spend even more than 50 grand, they want to spend on a hyper-custom car… And Minex is probably willing to provide that.
And as a status symbol, how does it do? It oozes refinement, it oozes luxury, it oozes money. This is the car you aspire to, this is the car you dream of. Sleek, elegant, extravagant, special. The cream interior fits well, the whole thing just fits. I can imagine the dealership experience being as good as the car itself too.
(Left: Rosanda Sieben Combi. Right: Rosanda Sieben)
They weren’t the only company selling a massive, hyper luxury car for a massive amount of money, no, Rosanda sold two, the Rosanda Sieben and Sieben Kombi. The Sieben Kombi adds a third row of seats in the rear… By making the car look like it has a tumour. The growth on the back ruins the car’s proportions, which is just not really acceptable at this price point. I thought you had a morph reset, but it looks the same in your screenshots, so I don’t know. The two are overall incredibly similar, with only minor tweaking steps to account for the extra weight. The issue with the car is that, well, it just makes some mis-steps that the Minexes don’t. Hydropneumatic suspension is a nice gadget, but the rear suspension using semi-trailing arms is a headscratcher that hurts comfort. The interior is less polished than what you can get from Minex, and that makes it less comfortable than the F6L. It’s a little than the F6H, but the F6H costs 75% as much as the regular Sieben.
Aesthetics are where it falls down. Most of the entries in both this segment and the one below are delightfully sculpted, with parts generally interacting and working together. Here… Not really. The taillights are slapped on, the grille doesn’t quite fit the body, the headlights are filled with jank and the car just doesn’t have enough. It feels, well, cheap. Cheaper than the Hakaru tbh. You know, the car that Edsel called out for feeling cheap. And it’s right up this end of the budget, the one spot where you cannot afford to be cheap. So why would you buy this and not the Minex? Why would you spend this much money on a car that looks and feels this cheap, when another car does everything it does better? I don’t know. The concept is there, the aesthetics just don’t match it. And the combi is even worse, with its humpback and awkward boot.
12 Likes