THE TOP TWO
What’s interesting is that the top two cars here are honestly somewhat different takes to one another. They go down different routes, and can be proud of what they have wrought. Coming in second, we have…
Munot Diamant by @Quneitra - 177 Points
Hi’s Review: This car… I don’t even know where to begin. It somehow manages to both look and act like a perfectly plausible ‘90s European car while also making you ponder just how many drugs were consumed by Munot’s team during the creation of this vehicle. The proportions on this body from the start are godawful, which is only accentuated by the inwardly mounted dual headlights, with a circle and square motif that somehow reminds me of the wooden building blocks toddlers play with while giving the car a bugeyed look. The rear is just a slab of white paint with some taillights and a license plate shoved on the bottom like an afterthought. Did I mention the side vent that doesn’t match up quite perfectly with the window line, only one windshield wiper, the door handles being 1/6th the height of the entire door, and the gas cap being in the front quarter panel? Oh yeah, I almost forgot: this is a rear engined car, with an extra wacky surprise up its’ sleeve: RWD! As for what engine was shoved back there, I’ll give 2 guesses… did you say a cast, naturally aspirated inline 4 that makes no power? Ding! Ding! Ding! Did I mention that it requires 95 octane? Surprisingly, the decision to make the 911 of compact cars (but without any of the exciting driving dynamics and all of the issues that format brings…) also managed to wind up with (nearly? Kinda?) decent stats, if you ignore cost! The part that is seriously “bad” is that this compact somehow manages to meet the price barrier with, in some cases, worse components than some of the $16k cars here. It has a standard/basic interior, for crying out loud! So, where did the money go? It went towards a fancy body: partial alu panels, an AHS steel chassis, and, well, also the unique engine layout. And therein lies half the reason this car is so bad: the average consumer couldn’t care less about those things in a commuter car to get from point A to B in! 94 Points
Crypt’s Review: Funny story, this car made me physically sick to look at. No, really. At first glance, nothing here is sensible, and nothing fits. Why is there a vent on the rear quarter panel? Why is everything proportioned so weirdly? What’s the deal with those door handles? What were you smoking? The vent makes a sick, perverted sort of sense - it’s a rear-engined car, and this is how you cool it. It’s a car of nightmares. A lot of unrealistic elements have been added in the pursuit of the ugliest car possible. Plenty of stuff doesn’t fit together. The lack of realism and cohesion honestly end up hurting the car, in a challenge where so much of the judging is based upon realism and cohesion. That said, there is not one single part of this car which actually looks good. Everything is ugly. This car is repulsive. Get it off my screen. 83 Points
So, that means the winner is…
Mons Revolution by @cake_ape - 184 Points
Hi’s Review: So, you might be wondering after reading the previous review-how on earth could the Diamant be topped? This car is a shining example of exactly what we had in mind when the rules were set up. It’s a compact ute, which is a typically remarkably useful bodystyle, but would sell horrendously badly outside Australia due to either unibody stigma or the lack of a second row for kids/friends/occasional use. With the inward facing, ribbed and cladded front bumper, this ute does a remarkably decent impression of a miniaturized Duck Tours amphibious vehicle! The rectangular headlights that could pass for sealed memes, the oddly small grille, the triple set of vertical taillights- this car has weirdness down in spades! However, the detail is there, unlike the Diamant, and the end result is even more convincing. The result makes perfect sense- a ute meant to appeal to an active lifestyle, with a design that clearly started off strong and was halfassed in the end. So, you might be curious- what does the engineering look like? Can it live up to the exterior’s weirdness? This car is actually so gutless you’d be surprised to open up the hood and find an engine, instead of a CD player set to play “Generic car noises” and a bunch of hamsters on wheels. Although, each hamster has guts, so maybe that’s a terrible analogy? Anyways, this vehicle features a 109hp (surprisingly, AlSi) 4-banger attached to an advanced automatic gearbox, a standard interior and FWD. Essentially, under the unique bodywork, you have the same gear you’d find in any bog-standard hatch, albeit slightly better quality. It’s a competently engineered car and has some of the best stats in categories commuters care about, but it’s remarkable just how much of a poseur this car is! It’s an active lifestyle car without any of the benefits you’d normally find, like AWD or an okay tow rating. It’s got a truck bed, but it is purely useless as a truck. It’s got the specs of a commuter car, but most commuters either don’t need a truck bed and don’t want to have such a large car with a small cabin, or only care about the “active lifestyle” part and will be disappointed it can’t tow their seven hypothetical boats or take that one dirt road they might possibly go down with as much aplomb, even though, for a FWD car, its’ offroad capabilities aren’t terrible. And anyone who can look past that? Well, they still won’t be looking very long… because its’ styling would likely drive away the rest. And the best part? There are several totally plausible reasons for a car like this to come out. Picture a car company that wants to hop on the late ‘90s/early 2000s active lifestyle trend and wants to test the waters for something unique from a cladded wagon in the same vein, but in a way that is cheap for them. It isn’t unreasonable something like this, a MPV/hatch/sedan in truck clothes, would be the result. Maybe a company that wants a truck, but doesn’t have the cash. Maybe a company trying to get utes to work in Europe. There are 16 different ways to make logical lore for this. And that’s why this car is the winner. It’s plausibly awful to a degree none of the other cars could match! A lot of time and effort clearly went into the entry, and it shows. 95 Points
Crypt’s Review: The obvious question, then, is what on earth could beat the sheer vitriol generated by the Diamant? Well, the answer is a car which is a little more subtle, but much more earnest with its awful nature. The Mons Revolution is like the Pontiac Aztek’s tray-carrying cousin. The plastic cladding is perfectly positioned to give the car a cool, hip and active look, backed up by its aggressive design and a sporty coupe utility shape. The flared fenders call back to a bygone age of coke-bottle styling, but are far too sharp to inherit anything positive from that trend. The front looks like a supercar designer’s failed attempt escaped the wastebasket and snuck onto a ute. I can see a group of executives all nodding and thinking that the Revolution is a guaranteed sell-out, blind to its problems. This is a bad car that understands why bad cars go bad. 89 Points
To recap, the Top 5 are
- @cake_ape (184 points)
- @Quneitra (177 points)
- @Nonon (168.25 points)
- @karhgath (162.75 points)
- @Elven_Sage (162.5 points)
Oh, and one more thing - Hi took all of the really interesting photos of the cars. Some cars got several, and all the photos can be viewed here.
