Automation Legacy Challenge (LOBBYING PART TWO, AND A BONUS ROUND!)


Every truck in that Centara dealership got there on the back of a Centurion truck


shitshitshit i need to get this out


1964 Mercer Lancaster 365




Aaaaand round 2 is closed! Judging will come soon.




Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post

There are no instabins or questionable cars. You are all legal. Worst it gets is missing a space in the name. Good job! That brings us to…


Reviews for:
@donutsnail - Cabirou Bolero GT 313
@Edsel - Centara ABM8
@Fayeding_Spray - WCV MMOV V8
@Mikonp7 - Renwoo Merci Van
@Prium - Fitz C900

@kobacrashi - Reduit WK4
@GassTiresandOil - Armor Valencia Country

@Ldub0775 - Centurion 7400

(Hover over images for captions, or tap and hold on mobile. Captions read left to right.)

NB: This section is solely from the commercial, rational buyer’s point of view. Two cars here - the Cabirou and Armor - will be covered elsewhere as well.

Last decade, the biggest demon of the utility segment was insufficient cargo capacity. I am pleased to say that this has been rectified… somewhat. Let’s start at the bottom - both in terms of capacity and in terms of perceptions by the end of this era.

Let’s start at the beginning. Renwoo attempted to negotiate a deal to sell vans to the Aragan government. Here was their reaction:

Car: Renwoo Merci Van
Benefits: Low procurement cost, easy to service, easy to drive, good fuel economy.
Drawbacks: Limited cargo space, limited cargo capacity - larger fleet needed.
Key concerns: Derived from Renwoo Merci, uses same non-rustproofed chassis. Prone to crank wear and stress.

Being based on the Renwoo Merci, the inevitable rust issues of the chassis of the Merci Van were well known. This, plus the 840kg cargo capacity, drove the postal service away from the Merci - they’d need a larger, much more rust-prone fleet. The small engine of the Merci was beneficial to the average, tax-paying consumer, but the postal service already pays no tax - and that engine didn’t have any headroom for wear in the long run.

Which, of course, brings us to the average tax-paying consumer. And there, if you didn’t quite need a large cargo capacity or volume? The Merci got outclassed. It was cheap, economical and cute, but… It wasn’t quite cheap enough or economical enough to break through the competition. Or to break through its own flaws. Two basic, uncomfortable seats. No radio. No power steering. Nearly no cargo capacity. Every other car on the market offers at least a basic radio, and only the Reduit has similarly uncomfortable seats. Work cars can’t coast by on cute.

In a way, it’s lucky that the Merci wasn’t a big seller. That evaluation by the postal service wasn’t the only document written by the government on this car. The Merci was the poster child for unsafe cars, as this report from 1962 reveals.

In selling the Merci, Renwoo has been grossly negligent. By the time of its release, every other manufacturer was making efforts to test their cars for impact protection, and features such as safety glass and sash belts were present in just about every car… except the Merci. There is a flagrant and cavalier disregard for occupant safety in the Merci. In an attempt to undercut the competition, Renwoo cut corners and produced a massive risk to human life. We recommend the strongest possible actions against Renwoo for selling this car.

From one failure in the commercial segment to another, but for very different reasons. The Cabirou Bolero GT 313 also has a low cargo capacity, only 880kg. It at least manages to have decent safety features… But its features end up as an albatross around the neck, at least for a commercial buyer. It has a phonograph, a flashy premium interior and tyres designed more for spirited driving than for hard work. All of this adds up to a high price tag spent on things that don’t matter tons in your work truck - you’ll be out for 25 grand, and you’ll be paying massive servicing and tax costs thanks to that fancy interior and the big, brawny V8. Of course, I think Cabirou knew this. Why else would they put GT in the name? Why else would it look so cool and sporty? This is not solely a car for business. It’s a car for pleasure, and it’ll be reviewed as such… later.

Now, for something big - the Centara ABM8. It’s absolutely massive. It chews through fuel. It carries 3 tonnes of cargo, in plenty of space. To the buyers of 1960, it seemed marginally less safe due to fewer safety features - but once reports came out, it actually proved to be safer. A big, grunty V8 ensures that the car can haul whatever you need. The biggest flaw is massive brake fade, with no cooling on the brakes to alleviate the issue. It has a massive, enclosed cargo area, and the mechanics to back it up. No, it doesn’t look elegant, interesting or good in any way… But it’s a box truck. What do you expect me to say?

Now, for a slight detour offroad. Three cars were eligible for the offroad tax credit - the Armor Valencia Country, the Reduit WK4 and the WCV MMOV V8. The Armor, however, just barely scrapes into this category. The Armor gets through largely on technicality, thanks to its 4x4 drivetrain and its manual locker… But it’s a wagon with a pretty long wheelbase and rear overhang. Trying to take it offroad will lead to issues with breakover and departure angle. If you’re buying it for offroad capabilities, you’ll probably be disappointed and should look elsewhere. If you’re buying it for the premium interior and the solid driving dynamics… Well, that’s for another section.

The Reduit, meanwhile? Well, it has some solid offroad chops… But that’s about it. For this market, it’s stuck between the Fitz and the MMOV. The Fitz gives marginally worse offroad, but equal driving dynamics, similar cost and far, far better cargo capacity. The MMOV is a little worse at driving and more expensive, but it’s so much better offroad. And if you don’t care about offroading? There’s tons of better options elsewhere. Thanks to not featuring full rear seats, and only featuring a basic interior, it’s not at all comfortable - in fact, it is the least comfortable car in this round. It’s not the cheapest though, not at all. And in a country becoming more and more urbanised, with paved, well-maintained roads? Why do you need that offroading capacity, at so many other costs?

And that brings us to the MMOV… Which is a lot like the Stovepipe from last round. Yes, it has a nice big tray… But the offroad suspension means you’ll run into issues if you try and load it up heavily. The springs are so, so very soft. They have plenty of travel, sure, but you’ll use it up quickly. It only carries a little more than the Stovepipe. Maybe they could’ve used stiffer springs to get 2 tonnes of cargo capacity at a minor cost to offroad - or maybe they could’ve used progressive springs to get 2.5 tonnes with no cost to offroad or to the consumer. But hey, if you really need to get it there? The MMOV is there for you. This made it very, very popular on the plantations, to move logs around. Having rough driving dynamics, way too much wheelspin and way too much brake fade - with no efforts to lessen it - damaged consumer opinions of the car too, expecially given how people’s opinions are from last era.

And that brings us to our final option. The Fitz C900. And this is the car that just takes the lunch of every other car in the segment. Let’s go through the comparisons, shall we?

First, we compare it to the Renwoo. Well, it only costs 3000 more - with actual stuff in the interior. Then, we compare it to the Centara. It carries more. Ok, compare it to the MMOV… It’s competent offroad, too. It doesn’t have as much power in the engine as I would’ve liked, and it has massive brake fade despite the massive cooling ducts - because it’s hard to avoid with 3 tonnes in the back. Running costs and purchase costs are low enough that it doesn’t matter that it’s so uncomfortable. It makes money.

Finally, ldub has made a car I am unsure how to judge, stats-wise. Why? Well… Carrying capacity doesn’t matter here. Towing capacity is borked. Wheelspin… I guess I can halve it? Cost should go up even more… Automation is not designed for making 6-axle semi trucks. The massive engine, at the very least, is a work of art. 7.4 litres of V8 muscle. Yes, it’s expensive. Especially when you add the duallies and the extra axle. Yes, it’s absolutely huge… But you can spot it on most highways, hauling other cars, hauling logs, whatever. It’s a truck’s truck. It’s an icon, it’s the standard for a semi truck. Centurion makes incredibly specific cars for incredibly specific markets… But when you need someone with one, you hope they have a Centurion.

OOC Notes:

  • Well, finally we have some decent carrying capacity. Both the Centara and the Fitz give well over 3 tonnes of carrying capacity. Sure, they aren’t at all comfortable, but work cars don’t have to be.
  • The MMOV just needed progressive springs to do well. I know why you ran soft springs, for offroad - but that killed the cargo capacity.
  • The Cabirou is a sports car, not a work car. It has over 10 sportiness - you know, what I used as the threshold for sports cars last time.
  • I’m not penalising the Renwoo that much for keeping the same family, untreated chassis and all… But what did you expect, making a deathtrap right before safety reports came out?
  • I’m not sure who the market is for the Reduit. Araga has dense cities and good highways. It can’t carry enough to be used for work. It’s not comfortable enough to be a good commuter car. It’s not cheap enough to be a shitbox. Why? Oh right, I remember why - you submitted then got bonked by a patch but were away from your PC. But still, why make such a basic offroader in a market where basic offroaders aren’t great?
  • I’ll add comments on aesthetics for the offroaders and Fitz later, I forgot to review those but need some rest.

Key Impacts:

  • All the entries, from both this round and last round, have great reliability. People expect good reliability in their work trucks going forward.
  • The MMOV’s worse driving dynamics and massive wheelspin have worsened the opinion of offroad cars. The Reduit and Armor aren’t helping either.

Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post


As a little bit of advance warning…

Performance intakes, currently, are rather broken. They massively increase noise; enough to the point that 2x reverse flow mufflers+perf high is louder than 1x baffled+std mid. As a result of this making certain things very difficult to judge, I am currently inclined to ban performance and race intakes from ALC3, so that I have usable loudness numbers. Sadly, this also bans DCOE. I am open to opinions and discussion here; it’s not a done deal.

Edit: This isn’t a lobbying thing, btw. This is rules discussion outside the challenge, for reasons outside the challenge.


TBH, the loudness numbers does not say much. In 4.1 they were pretty straightforward, with most normal engines in the 30s. But now, as you say, performance intakes raise them by pretty much, too much compared to what they should be.

Since there is not much that can be done to make an engine quieter more than the right choice of mufflers and intake, I would do so, that as long as intakes are totally borked, I would not care about numbers at all, just require the car to be fitted with muffler/s. Maybe a compromise could be that 2 mufflers is needed with perf. intake, otherwise only one. To me it is not much of a problem TBH so my suggestion is to not make it one. I can see the point behind making the car fit a noise regulation, sure, but IMO that needs that noise number to be somewhat reliable and not like today, just out in the blue.


Well, as a guy who produces low-revving American cars, I am not very affected - literally every performance intake is worse at my engine speeds. However, I disagree with banning them, especially with how that messes up DCOEs. The loudness stat is really just a big nothing burger, and all you can do with it is introduce a frankly boring “noise regulation” mechanic that I don’t think many people here will enjoy working with. Simply proceed as we usually would: sports intakes on high-revving sports cars are justified, a sports intake on a commuter car is an instabin.


Hmm, as someone who uses sports intakes on the Celer line, I’m a little conflicted. Yes, the numbers are borked and meaningless, so I completely agree with Knugcab and Texaslav that they could just be ignored. Banning them does put a rather large restriction on our engineering choices, which I think is not desirable in this challenge.

On the other hand, noise levels do have a noticeable effect on comfort levels, and disproportionately disadvantage the exact market I am targeting with the Celer - comfortable and sporty GT cars. In the current state, a high-revving sports engine does kill some of the comfort - more than it realistically should. And I understand that to evaluate these cars “as they should be” if the intake noise wasn’t broken, you have kinda look past the noise and interpolate a higher comfort if the intakes weren’t broken (or put in a std intake to see the difference in comfort level). This could be a lot of work for you to check each car that uses perf intakes. While I salute this option, being one of the affected manufacturers, I do understand that this is a lot of unnecessary work.

The alternate is to simply ignore the noise numbers from a regulatory point of view, and simply let the people that submit cars with them fitted to just take the comfort hit. Sucks, but that is a risk that we then take.


I agree with others that thy shouldn’t be outright banned, but rather than having to just “deal with it,” we might be able to find a way to work around it.

Maybe, for example, you could mentally subtract 10-20 points of loudness when grading cars with performance-intakes? Or perhaps you could switch to a standard-mid intake when grading comfort and loudness, while keeping the stock performance intake for the rest of the stats?

That’s the same problem I faced in QFC3, where one entry had a performance intake, and missed out on the top 3 due to the resulting loudness increase - a shame considering how good it was in all other aspects.

1 Like

Aww, are we talking about me? <3

The issue here is that loudness is not just some stat somewhere in the engine. No engine stat is. It has run-on effects for comfort and sportiness. So the options are:

  • do nothing and have loudness meaningless and impossible to judge
  • subtract some loudness but leave other stats as they are, cars still end up kinda borked
  • manually re-calculate what sportiness and comfort would be with different loudness, doable thanks to the details screen
  • ban it, reducing the options in one section ever so slightly

Fudging the numbers is either a bandaid that leaves some stuff wonky, or way too much effort.


I know this would put a lot of extra work in your lap, but wanting the best for Celer - I vote for option 3 if you offer it willingly.

I didn’t realize loudness impacted sportiness as well, thanks for the tip. Yeah, I’d vote for option 3 if it were a vote, but I understand why that might be implausible. (I secondarily vote for option 1 if 3 can’t be.)

Edit: Also, have the game’s devs made any statement regarding this bug? I realize it’s impractical for them to talk about every small issue they’re dealing with, but it’d be nice to know if they’ve mentioned this one somewhere.

If someone else can find an easy way to go from noise (and some other small list of variables) to how much the % modifier in detailed stats is impacted, I’ll consider it. If I can simulate it on my spreadsheet, I’ll consider it. If I have to actually toggle settings on cars to find out… Nope.


So, what we have now is that engine loudness affects sportiness and comfort - I still can’t really see it as a problem, since less noise = more comfort, less sportiness, I presume. Bumps up one stat at the tradeoff of another. And the segment where you would find performance intakes is where sportiness is a prio over comfort. Again, I don’t see the problem, or rather, I don’t see it as any worse than any other problem you would encounter by running competitions in a rather crude and unpolished beta. Sorry if I sound harsh because I don’t mean to be it, just because my opinion is that this is barely a problem at all, and it feels like thinking too much about it makes a hen out of a feather.


Just taking things at face value can also mean: there are only quite loud performance intakes on the Aragan market in the 1960s, and everyone who picks one makes a deliberate design choice.


Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post


Reviews for:

@Arn38fr - Aileron Automobiles Carcane C60
@Bbestdu28 - BMA Somptueuse Break de Chasse
@ChemaTheMexican - Garland-Varion Majesty
@Conan - Brampton 3500S TC
@Executive - Hakaru 1000 Premium
@GassTiresandOil - Armor Valencia Country
@Interior - Schnell New 3000
@Knugcab - Saarland Adjunkt
@lotto77 - P&A Sportsman Mk.III Flat 6
@LS_Swapped_Rx-7 - Mercer Lancaster 365
@Madrias - Kasivah Vyrada 2600 + VFC3
@MrdjaNikolen - Kolondra 1400
@Texaslav - Arlington Alpha S64
@TheYugo45GV - IVERA 70 (4XT)

This round of reviews is all around commuter cars, family cars and the like. More specifically, everything that isn’t a coupe, van or a ute.

So… Let’s start with the entries which didn’t hold up, did we?

These two cars ran into the same big issue. Terminal oversteer. Now, one of the two entries, the Garland, is… kinda acceptable, I guess? On the one hand, it’s a rear-engined car. On the other hand… Well, it’s clear that you got most of the way there, and then you just sorta stopped. The car has all the hallmarks of a successful, driveable rear-engined car. The tyres aren’t square. The front wheels have positive camber, while the rear tyres have a lot of negative camber. It doesn’t have a ton of oversteer until it goes terminal - but it still goes terminal. If you look past the terminal oversteer, you run into two major issues. First of all, the car could be six km/h faster if it weren’t for the gearing. Just go a tiny amount longer, and you get more speed. Not great. Second of all, though, there’s the tyre situation. See, it’s running radials… With the fronts being 140mm wide, and the rears being 165mm wide. This is generally not great, because radials ending in 0 don’t usually exist. It’s not mentioned in the post, but it’s a thing that happens with realism. Even worse, that massive rear camber means the tyres wear out incredibly quickly, and you can’t rotate the tyres. If you ran 135mm tyres in the rear - just one click down - the terminal oversteer goes away and you are using more common tyres. Not great.

Okay, now to the Schnell, shall we? See, this is a case I just can’t excuse as much. It runs into terminal oversteer too… and it’s front-engined. Here, its issues arise from a simple issue: The roll bars. See, the Schnell has the default “2000/2000” rollbars… Which is bad here. The car ends up with too much front grip and nowhere near enough body roll. So, this means the car suffers in terms of, well, every stat. The terminal oversteer kills cornering performance, harming drivability massively and harming sportiness more than the low body roll helps. Comfort is harmed by the issues with body roll too. Not great. It gets worse though. See, the brakes are designed with an almost 50/50 brake bias. This means there is way too much force on the rear wheels and nowhere near enough force on the front wheels. This causes major issues with brake fade, and a missed opportunity for increasing sportiness and drivability by properly calibrating the brakes. Finally, we come to the third major issue: The engine. The block is made of aluminium, and the head is made of cast iron. This combination has the lowest reliability, making the overall car less reliable than any other car - despite having standard intakes, and a standard interior. The car is replete with other strange decisions, but these are the ones which really sink it.

So, here’s three cars with a few common features. First, they all have a post-tax purchase cost above 25 grand. Second, they all have comfort above 30. They also have top-tier prestige.

I honestly have no idea how the BMA Somptueuse’s engineering was handled. That top tier comfort? Yeah, it’s a case of brute forcing it, throwing money at the matter. It’s the second most expensive car - not just in the sector, but in the entire round. Barely. However, it’s clearly a step down from the other two entries here. This comes despite using a handmade interior, in contrast to the “mere” luxury interior of the other two. No, it comes due to the reduced-size rear seats, functioning as 2+3 rather than 5 seats. This is the only car beyond sporty coupes to use these types of seats. Sporty coupes use these reduced-size seats because, well, they don’t have a ton of space. This car, though? It has so, so much space back there. It’s a wagon, for crying out loud! Indeed, the engineering of the BMA is closer to one of those sporty coupes with a wagon grafted on, from the price to the performance intakes (complete with low reliability), to the sport compound tyres… But if you want sport, why not buy a sporty GT? As we will see in the next section, there are sportier, cheaper, more comfortable options in that sector. But hey, it looks groovy, and that orange is a nice colour that really pops.

Okay, so, moving past that, where to next? Well, now we get a legitimate contest between the P&A Sportsman and the Mercer Lancaster - and I do mean a contest. The pair both came out in 64, and they have exactly the same 36.6 points of comfort. Thanks to the displacement tax, the smaller engine of the P&A allows it to come in 2500 AMU cheaper. Annual costs are a bit of a wash. Servicing is the same, and the P&A’s better economy on premium gas is outweighed by the Mercer using standard. The P&A is harder on its tyres… I’d say the taxes put the P&A a little ahead, but it’s debatable. This brings us to driving. For normal driving, the two are super close. Trying to go fast, though? Well, the P&A lives up to its name this year, bringing actual sport to the Sportsman. The Mercer, meanwhile, takes the American route by having a massive engine and hoping you have bigger balls if you wanna drive it fast - zero sportiness score. It’s only a few seconds faster than the Mercer, thanks to shaving off a little bit of time while accelerating, handling just a little better on the skidpad. The P&A edges out the Mercer, but they’re both sweet cars.

In terms of aesthetics? Well… They’re both sweet. They both have intricate, ornate front fascias. The Mercer looks sporty, while the P&A doesn’t look anywhere near as sporty as it really is. I haven’t shown the rear of the two cars, but again, two different cars - one muscle, one sporty.

I swear this isn’t going to be a pattern, but we once more run into the same “two cars good, one car bad” pattern. We’ve swapped from the high end to the low end.

Ohh Kolondra, where to start? How about with the, uh, interesting seating layout? It’s modelled with staggered seats, which honestly would be less comfortable than a conventional bench, with the models’ legs clipping into one another. Not great, but hey, it seats six? Like the Schnell, it has nowhere near enough body roll. Also, the suspension is way too stiff for this category. The brakes are way too strong as well, which doesn’t help either. It’s also less reliable than the other two here, which really matters at this end. Crucially, though? Besides being bigger and seating six, it doesn’t offer much for the extra… Two grand? Oof. Where did the money go? Making the car lighter, way lighter. The sound insulation is stripped out and lots of work has been put into making the car light. Why? If you kept the weight slider in the middle, you’d have a cheaper, more comfortable and more interesting car.

Okay, so, battle of the bargains. Both these cars are the cheapest outside of the commercial sector. The Saarland is the most reliable entry… by 0.1 points. The Hakaru just barely gets beaten. Entertainment in the Saarland is cheaper and the seats aren’t quite as well-made, but it has such better suspension and such that it’s probably more comfortable. Indeed, if you only care about a car which gets you from here to there, well, the lower purchase price and the marginally better fuel economy probably wins for the Saarland. Of course, if you want fun or safety? Well, the Saarland is a slug with rather basic safety options, while the Hakaru has advanced, cutting-edge safety, and performs so well on the skidpad that it’s well and truly enjoyable. Cheap fun, or just cheap? Take your pick!

And aesthetics? They look cheap, to be frank, and I personally do not like the Saarland and Kolondra. Setting aside the rather boring colours which aren’t too popular in Araga… They both use the cliche, early 50s jet-inspired rear flares, in cars nowhere near the right shape for them. The Kolondra makes them extra flat and mounts the lights to them. Both these cars were made in the early 60s. The rear flares do not belong. The Hakaru, meanwhile? It’s cute cheap. Just simple enough to look like an inexpensive little car from the era.

Okay, now we come to the part where I have issues dividing cars into nice, easy chunks. Prices are all similar. They all use premium interiors, and all but one entry uses a premium AM radio. The big difference, though? Three are “sporty”, three are more comfortable. So, the sporty ones first. No, not as sporty as the P&A, but not zero. So, let’s start with… The Arlington.

The Arlington has some good elements. It’s the best to drive… if you know what you’re doing. If you’re going nice and fast, it comes as alive as a car in this segment can. Going slower? Well, even those budget options are easier to drive. It’s incredibly thirsty and uses premium fuel. It’s the sole car with a standard AM radio… But, due to using sportier tyres, it doesn’t quite need to rely on harder suspension to get decent sportiness. This makes it just a little more comfortable than the other two entries here. It’s blisteringly fast around the circuit, faster even than most of those sporty coupes. If you need two rows of seats, plenty of speed and you don’t want to spend tons of money on a high-end GT? The Arlington may be what you need. In terms of aesthetics, meanwhile? Maybe it’s the split grille. Maybe it’s the hood’s slope and scoop. It looks nice and sporty. It’s a proto-muscle, in looks and performance.

Okay, so we have the fast car… Now for the slow cars. Wait, what? Wasn’t this meant to be sport? Well, these cars are legitimately fun to drive fast… once they get there. Neither car is high on power, thanks to smaller, low-tax engines. The Aileron, thanks to weighing less, accelerates better - but even premium fuel can’t help it hit a higher speed from its tiny 1.2L engine. Throw hard tyres onto both cars, and they have issues on the track.

The Aileron, however, has a saving grace. See, that tiny engine has a couple of key benefits. Service costs are somewhat low. Tax is even lower. Tax and servicing is as cheap as those budget buys… While fuel consumption is positively modern, at just 6.7 L/100km. If you are fine spending a bit more now for a more comfortable car, it keeps all your other costs super low - and it costs roughly as much as all these other premium sedans. The Ivera, though? Well, its somewhat high purchase cost renders the low running costs a little moot. Being a hatchback is nice though, as it makes it nice and usable.

For aesthetics? Well… The Aileron is… fine? It certainly looks like a premium sedan. Yes, everything fits together well. It’s well made. It certainly looks like a 60s sedan. I guess I just don’t like 60s premium sedans, because it isn’t clicking for me. Perhaps my modern, hot hatch sensibilities are why I like the look of the IVERA so much. Bright, bold and oh so orange, with a boxy hatch shape that was snuffed out oh so quickly by CFD. What can I say? I’m biased.

From one too-expensive car to another, we come to the Armor Valencia Country. You know, the offroader that’s only an offroader for tax purposes. Except for the fact that, you know, it’s heavier due to being a wagon, so the engine is larger… Fuel eco suffers too, wheelspin isn’t too fun, but that nice powerful engine does help around the circuit, so… Good job, if you need to store stuff in your car, there’s really nothing like it. You’re paying an extra few grand, and paying more to run the car, but you get something legitimately good for your money. For aesthetics? Well… It feels a lot like a Volvo. It’s, uh… It’s a boring, sensible wagon for boring, sensible people who want a boring, sensible, practical wagon. What can I say? It looks like what it is. Good job.

Now, we compare the last two cars. Anywhere else, the Kasivah would be more expensive - but hey, displacement taxes make it cheaper to buy. That higher tax cost, especially with worse fuel economy, makes the Brampton more expensive to run. Why does it have worse fuel economy? Well, it’s squeezing out more power from its engine. This makes it a bit faster, sure, and medium tyres do help it around the track… Just watch for wheelspin. The Brampton is a nice and drivable car, it’s a little more comfortable than the Kasivah. If it weren’t for the Kasivah, it’d be the easiest of our 5 seat sedan-like cars to drive, at 43.3. The Kasivah? 51.6. Yeah, I know. That’s a pretty high score, don’t you agree? Especially for 1962. Add in cutting edge safety, and yeah. It’s selling like hotcakes. It’s easy to drive, and both these entries are the most affordable premium cars.

Remember what I just said about not liking how I don’t love the Aileron because it’s a premium 60s sedan and it looks like a premium 60s sedan? Well, what do you know, there’s two more premium 60s sedans that look like premium 60s sedans. I like the way the Kasivah wraps its trim all the way around the car. I like the hood bulge and the vinyl roof of the Brampton. I just don’t like 60s sedans, I guess. What can I say?

Okay, so, OOC notes:

  • Holy cow, I hate how safety works. I have written a complaint elsewhere but, to summarise:
    – Larger cars are given a massive safety bonus, with both weight and footprint contributing heaps. I want to re-configure and re-score safety, but that’s be unfair, so… Safety score is kinda irrelevant.
    – Decades don’t give enough benefit to safety score. Another issue here.
  • The Schnell and BMA were actually sporty, better than the Sportsman. They were good there… But the Schnell disqualifies itself by virtue of its terminal oversteer. The BMA, well, those plus seats really hurt too.
  • You know that phonograph option? Well, you should have used it more. Phono is more like “Luxury FM Radio”. It has the same engineering time, weight, reliability, production units… Yeah, it’s weird. No, I didn’t comment much because the game doesn’t really explain that because the name is weird and it’s a weird option. This brings me back to the Schnell. It uses a standard interior… and luxury entertainment. Weird.

Ok, now onto the changes to market sentiment:

  • Hey, so, remember how I mentioned a lot of cars were close to the rev limit? How that was an issue before? Yeah, that was still too common here. It’ll tie into an issue later - and I will explain why it wasn’t mentioned here in a later review portion.
  • Wow. Premium cars are back, and in a big way. There are actual, real benefits to comfort around premium and luxury cars, much more comfortable than the cheaper options.

You may notice I haven’t mentioned modifications. Yeah, that’s coming too.

Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post