REVIEWS PART 5.3
HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPIONS
Rear: Bazard BTD8 and BTA8 by @Edsel . Middle: Kontir Roxton and Cunningham by @MrdjaNikolen . Front: Pillar 2000X by @karhgath and DCMW Neyaarat (Six, type D) by @moroza
These entries should not carry this much stuff. They all carry over 3 tonnes of cargo. In some cases, they can carry an entire fully loaded Ford F-350. No. Just no. These are not made. These should never be made. Y’all have found a region of the game where things no longer make sense. Not just the heavy entries, there’s issues elsewhere, but it’s especially bad here. This segment is defined by a stat being unrealistically high. Yeah, sure, you can carry 3 tonnes, good for you. You actually can’t, but if I added the maths needed to work out how much you can carry, it’d be unfair. So, this is getting fixed next round, somehow, I’ll work it out. A lot of this was in the previous section, but this is actually the last I am writing for utility and I am just. so. sick. of. utility.
HELP ME, WOJSAWAN, YOU'RE MY ONLY HOPE
HPB Wojsawan by @Vento . Exterior by @MoteurMourmin
This is the HPB Wojsawan… And the stats it offers, on paper, are solid enough. If you want a large load capacity and you want something else, you’ll have to pay another 3000 on top of the Wojsawan. Operating costs are bang on average, drivability is a little bit low but not abnormal for the segment in spite of the lack of power steering - normal for reality, not for the challenge. It’s painfully uncomfortable, but not unreasonably so for the segment - I could definitely see someone deciding to save 3000 bucks upfront and just dealing with the basic interior and all-solid-axle suspension. It could actually carry even more weight, but the suspension has been set rather soft here, presumably to salvage some comfort. Corners were cut just about everywhere for that price, every system is towards the bottom of the barrel but hey, it’s cheap and it carries 3 tonnes.
There’s three big issues with it. First of all, there is absolutely zero rustproofing applied anywhere. This really limits the use of the chunky offroad tyres and the offroad skidtray installed. Sure, you can drive it through the mud, but only for a few months before the frame starts to rust a little. That soft suspension I mentioned before really hurts any offroad aspirations too.
The engine, meanwhile, is nothing special. It absolutely stinks, failing any and all emissions tests and belching out fumes. The redline is artificially low too, hitting right at the redline and forcing a bunch. Some cut corners in the engine and all the other corners cut make it the least reliable, but not by much. You will need to refuel multiple times per week, as the Wojsawan’s 258 km range is substantially lower than the 288 minimum for businesses. Heck, at higher rates, you may have some weeks where you refill three times. Not great, but enough for a day.
Finally, well… Just look at it. Those plates are about five eighths of an inch thick, so that’s gotta be armour, right? But it doesn’t protect the head or chest of the occupant, and it might not protect the cargo either - plus it does absolutely nothing about the front and rear. Oh, it’d also massively up the weight of the car, massively dropping the carrying capacity and upping the fuel economy as well. It’d probably up the cost too. So I’m just gonna pretend it’s not there, ignore the lack of any door handles and say it’s just a cheap, uncomfortable, disposable heavy duty van. And if you can accept that you’ll spend 30% less money for something like a 30% shorter lifetime before it rusts, it’s probably fine. Yeah, there’s problems, but you get the same carrying capacity for less and it doesn’t suck too much. If you need a big van and you need it now? You go for HPB. If you can choose and you have spare money, you go elsewhere.
BUZZARDS CIRCLING BAZARD
Left: Last Round’s Bazard BTH8. Middle: The Bazard BTA8, in its natural habitat. Right: The Bazard BTD8.
So what do you get if you go elsewhere? To Bazard, who held an empty market last round? Well… No. Bazard’s downfall this round is a sadly realistic one, something we have seen in real life. Bazard in this round is Intel of about three or so years ago. Their competitors came out with products genuinely capable of surpassing their previous generation, they looked at what the market leader was doing and said “okay, we have to be better than that by a substantial margin” - and they managed to do that. The market leader ran into issues trying to extend the previous generation’s product, which was actually the product of the generation before that, but released it. With Intel, that was the 11900K, which was often worse than the 10900K, which came as Intel squeezed the last life out of their 14nm platform while AMD took a massive leap with Ryzen. With Bazard, that is the BTD8. Like the 11900K, the Bazard does represent a step back in some very real ways - it’s less fuel efficient and substantially less comfortable, compromises made generally in the name of shaving the existing price down to remain legal. The BTD4 does theoretically offer the largest cargo weight on the market but not by too much, and these numbers are all absolutely crazy, with gross vehicle weights all above 4.5 tonnes, aka “Heavy Duty Land”. The engine is the same 100 kW unit we saw from Bazard last round, albeit carburetted… And that engine is the same engine that Bazard gave in round 3. And it was first made in 1960. It’s got grunt, yes, but annual costs are going to be 30% higher than other comparably sized vehicles. A few of those - like the Wojsawan - have lower range, but the Pillar 2000X extracts roughly equal economy and range from E70, while the Neyaarat Six still has over 3 tonnes of cargo capacity and uses an impressive 12.5 L/100 on E10 to reach even further than the BTD8. Like the Wojsawan, it is a total failure with emissions, belching the hopefully metaphorical black smoke. Is the BTD8 bad? No, not really. Those competitors don’t completely kill it, the market will still buy it, but it’s no longer the king. Their competitors moved quicker than they did, and clinging to an old architecture led them to release a slightly compromised product.
Y’know, Intel was the correct company to refer back to, because the other entry has some truly woeful efficiency. The BTA8 is a twin cab variant of the BTD8, but the BTD8 was already close to the government-imposed maximum price. So what did Bazard do? They cut a bunch of corners in the engine and just cranked everything to the absolute max, trying to wring all the power from the corpse of their 1960 engine while making it cost even less than it did before. If you want to sell this as a work vehicle, this causes issues. The BTA8 uses over 25 L/100 km. With the fuel prices we have in Araga and still using E10, that means that fuel costs for the utility segment range from 6500 on the lower end, or 13000 on the higher end. Yes, the fuel costs are higher than the maximum purchase price - and you need to add taxes and service costs onto that. Yes, it seats five, but the annual costs are almost twice as much as other entries. Yes, they offer advanced safety that most others don’t, but is it worth the money? Almost certainly not, for a business.
There is a cute thing they tried to do. The BTA8 is the most comfortable truck on the market, largely thanks to interior volume not varying as morphs do for trucks like this but also due to “luxury” features like a slushbox automatic transmission and a standard interior plus 8-track. Could it be a viable luxury car, taking advantage of the 2000 extra AMU they’re allowed? In a word, no. Your money buys you more power and some offroad ability and that’s basically it - it’s no more comfortable than the other options, and just about every other stat is worse. It’s a fun idea, but it just did not work.
ROLL FOR KONTIR-STUTION
Background: The Bazards. Foreground Left: Kontir Cunningham. Foreground Right: Kontir Roxton
So, who passed Bazard? I mentioned Pillar and DCMW, but Kontir passed them too. Let’s start with the Cunningham - which I thought was a better BTA8, but not quite. It uses a V6 instead of the BTA8’s V8, but both are similar sizes and the Cunningham has 10% less power but 10% more torque. It’s also fitted with an extra muffler and a catalytic converter, which are both nice - but the real attractive feature is the way it operates on E70, and uses less fuel than the BTA8. That makes the fuel costs of the Cunningham half of those of the BTA8. Comfort is about what you would expect for a reasonably appointed utility, with a standard interior and 8-Track matching most of the competition. Solid axle front suspension has its costs, but it has some benefits too, and it’s still better than average. It also costs less than average too, a purchase price of about 10400 saves some money upfront. Annual costs are solidly average for this heavy duty portion of utility, so it’s a nice, frugal choice - and “solidly average” means “a whole lot less than either Bazard”. On the negative side, it’s as unwieldy as the Bazards, doesn’t go as far with its rustproofing as others (but is at least rustproofed) and performs poorly offroad, but it does have a feature that only the BTA8 has, at least among trucks: Four doors. Yes, the Kontir Cunningham has a twin cab… But only one row of seats. Why? What could possibly motivate a car set up like this? Why would you want a door like this rather than a longer bed, or a second row of seats? Putting in that second row costs about 400 more, doesn’t harm most of your stats, and just makes the car far more attractive. It’s a truly baffling combination, I don’t get it.
With that issue noticed, I figured that the painted bed and trim stripe had a slight error too, they look just like default Automation Red. No, that looks fairly intentional, and it’s even in your photos, so I guess it’s intentional, like the seats.
With the Cunningham taken care of, we move to the Roxton. There’s not much to say, really, it’s incredibly similar to the Cunningham, but it’s a van. That’s the thing about utility though, some people need vans and some people need trucks. The Roxton has five doors and only two seats, similarly to the Cunningham - but it’s more understandable here, as vans need a door to be accessed from the side. Those doors are fixtures on, but it’s fair enough, really.
Range is mediocre, but at least a couple of users will be able to last a week with it, and nobody will need to fill up three times in a single week… But let’s address the elephant in the room, I’ve dodged it enough: It looks like a knock-off Bazard! Both entrants used the exact same body, and neither did anything to change the way the body looks, nothing to disguise it. Bazard was using the body first, both on the Aragan market and the challenge - look at last round. That lack of visual differentiation is definitely harmful. The rear is a bit more put together on the Kontir, I suppose, but the front lacks the cohesion of the Bazard. In isolation, it’d be fine. Next to the very similar Bazard, it’s not a great look.
PILLAR OF HERCULES
Left: Pillar 1500C. Right: Pillar 2000X. Shown from side, as that’s the important profile here - the front and rear are the same as the 1500C.
So, let’s go to the Pillar 2000X. It costs 11920, just 80 bucks from the cost cap, but there’s a big caveat there. Phenix was presumably left with a surplus of spare engines after they had to pause sales of the Helios, and some of those 4-cylinder, 2 litre boxers somehow found their way into this truck, bored out a little and producing 75 kW. Not the most powerful in the segment but passable, and that efficient basis means that it uses just 18.5 L/100km. Of course, the engine here does have one major difference to the Helios we saw before. It runs E70, and this brings its fuel costs really far down, under 2800 at the lowest end of the market. It could be even lower, but the 2000X is one of the only trucks on the market with an automatic gearbox. Annual costs are anywhere from 500 to 1000 less than the Kontirs and the overall average around here, which includes that DCMW I mentioned. Handling is shockingly car-like for such a heavy-duty truck, and running vented disc brakes all around makes brake fade a thing of the past, and advanced safety features bring it close to the Bazards - a nice feature to boast about, but mostly a tiebreaker. Somehow, those aesthetics that seemed instantly dated work better on this one. Perhaps it’s the way the van is clearly meant to be a proto-SUV with panels added, an unseemly addition that’s halfway between wagon and SUV and not really a van - whereas the ute has no such qualms, an open bed avoiding the need to style the car there.
The engine is perhaps the worst on offer, in terms of what it can do. The 2000 in Pillar 2000X means around 2 litres. That means the lowest peak power and the lowest peak torque - and that peak torque comes later than the competition. The other big heavy entries have serviceable acceleration when empty, but this lack of both torque and power translates to a relatively low 17.8 seconds, making it cause issues when loaded up. That low displacement does give you a low fuel bill, but that’s really it.
A NEYAARAT ONE
DCMW Neyaarat (Six, type D)
And now we come to our final heavy duty truck. The Neyaarat (Six, type D) - for brevity, the Neyaarat Six - carries 3 tonnes and not much more. Like the Pillar, it uses a boxer engine - this time a six cylinder one with around double the displacement of the Pillar, higher than the Kontirs and Bazards and really everything else in the entire utility segment. It’s substantially down on power, because the engine is incredibly lazy and designed for monstrous low-range torque. This gives it a lacklustre top speed, but tremendous acceleration - especially when heavily loaded with cargo. Somehow, in spite of its manual gearbox, the Neyaarat Six is just as drivable as the Pillar. That’s largely due to the solid axles being firm and responsive, which has an impact on comfort. 12.5 is still serviceable, but it’s a tad low. Annual costs are about the same as the Kontir duo - while the Neyaarat Six’s fuel costs are a tad lower in spite of running E10, the service costs are higher thanks to the boxer having less room to either side of the engine and the taxes are marginally higher too. You’d think that the firm suspension and high torque would make it good offroad, and it is - but not the best. The Pillar is a little better there, largely because of a far, far lower first gear.
The Neyaarat Six has a few nice tricks up its sleeve that make it really worth paying attention to. While the Kontirs came with catalytic converters that allowed them to pass WES5, the Neyaarat Six passes that bar without a catalytic converter. Despite the pushrods and cast iron design, the six-cylinder engine is incredibly lazy and lean, and that allows it to avoid polluting that much. It also utilises a unitary chassis for the cab but a traditional ladder construction for the bed, providing best-in-class safety - not best in utility, but best for heavy duty. It’s also nearly bulletproof, with DCMW having put in a massive amount of effort into overbuilding almost every single part that can break. Both the engine and the chassis are up above 90 reliability, and the least reliable components are the easiest ones to replace or tolerate, like the lights and radio. That’s a big plus for a work vehicle, where breakdowns have a serious financial cost. It can also travel a little short of 400 km on a single tank, which is healthily more than all of the other entries in this 3+ tonne bracket.
At the very least, it looks distinctive. The cabover shape is a nice difference to the other utes in the segment. The assorted metal trimmings provide a nice contrast to the dark red paint - a paint that will coincidentally do well to hide the dust and dirt. Not really an easy-to-find shade, but a utilitarian one nonetheless, at least until it fades. The rear lights are a spartan cluster shoved in a cube, but at least the front looks nice.
CARGO VOLUME, VOLUME TWO
Well, the previous segment was filled with mainly car-derived utes and some vans, where the car-derived utes had similar bed sizes. This round, the car-based utes are gone, replaced with utes on dedicated platforms. There’s some variance here, but it’s not much. Widths and lengths are all mostly the same. The BTD8 has a really long wheelbase, giving it the longest bed which helps it claw back some of the ground given up, I suppose. The BTA8 and Cunningham both have the same wheelbase (as they’re on the same body), but they both use a longer cab that eats into the bed, placing them right alongside the shorter 2000X. The Neyaarat Six has a bed almost as long as the BTD8, thanks to being a cabover - which should maybe attract a higher service cost, but I have to take what the game gives me. That really tilts things in DCMW’s favour, a 5% shorter bed is easily made up for in fuel costs and improvements to all stats save for the already outrageous cargo capacity. There’s a slight elephant in the room around all this cargo stuff though, and I’ll bring it up later. Wait and see. Probably a lot of wait.
