Cool Wall 4: "I'm Rich!" (Scoring Area #7: Service Costs)


"Alright, all the major issues with the cars are out of the way. Now before I look at anything else, I have to figure out which cars I like best. The whole point of buying this car, after all, is to impress “them.” So more than anything else, I have to determine which cars look valuable, and which don’t; which ones would make me look rich, and which ones would reveal the truth.

2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer


When this thing was new, it would have been an awesome car to have I bet. I mean, the engine was fully modern, the interior was relatively high end, and best of all, the suspension came with adaptive dampers and semi-active sway bars. That must’ve felt space-age 20 years ago!

Except that’s the main problem: 20 years. That curvy, bubbly, melting-butter look might’ve at least been hip when it came out, but now it just looks horribly dreary and sad. Like something you’d find filled with trash in the Walmart parking lot, or covered with leaves and dust in a rural driveway. Like, I can see how good a car it is, and between its size and good condition it has some things to say for itself… but they’re first impression of it will be pretty bad.

Still, I think it can just barely manage a positive score, with it’s size and equipment. I say…1 point.

2012 Allure Chiroptera


So the thing about this car: It’s a budget car. It’s cheap. Now it’s a very good budget car, it makes a great enthusiast’s car, but it’s still cheap. With an inline 4, manual transmission, and a very spartan interior, heck it’s basically just a Nissan Versa with RWD and an LSD.

Except, in opposite fashion to the Everest, it doesn’t look cheap. In addition to being the newest (and newest-looking) car here, its long, sleek profile and sharp styling make it look like a much higher-end sports car than it is. As well, those accents that I thought might be aftermarket- the headlight lightbar and the large rims -make it look even nicer.

Yeah, it’d be risky, but I think I could make this thing work. As long as they don’t actually look inside the car and see the manual crank windows or anything, I might be able to pass this off as a much nicer ride. Heh, maybe if they get too close to seeing in, I’ll just redirect them to the old owner’s Batman stickers on the B-pillar. It would definitely distract Caleb…

I’ll take the chance. A 13 for this one.

You know, I always thought it was the silliest thing ever when people would buy all that offroading kit for their cars, only to proceed to never ever use them. And now, I’m here considering doing just that.

The main problem with this one, again, is that it’s old; 20 years so, like the Everest. But other than that, it’s got a lot going for it. It’s got the whole suite of offroading kit: 4x4, big tires, a skidtray and even a winch. All of which is purely decorative as far as I’m concerned, but after all it is what’s hip right now. Also, the interior is pretty high quality (at least for the time, anyway), and that rough visual design is a bit timeless.

So hey, it’s old… concerningly old. But it’s a timeless and cool enough car to shed off a little bit of that age… Imma say 7.

2008 Courageux Cirrus


Okay, tiny little European car, Imma be honest; ya have a problem.

I mean, this thing is the size of a thumbtack, and has an engine that can’t even make 100hp. And if it couldn’t look more pathetic, there’s black trim on the rear bumpers and sides!

But okay, it’s not all bad. Namely, that automatic, hard-top convertible roof really is pretty cool, and really boosts its image. Also, this car’s equipment level is at least a step above “budget”; those wheels are actually pretty nice. Plus, it is among the newer cars here.

If this were a bigger car, rather than a city microcar, I think it could be pretty darn good. As it is, though… a 5 will do.

2005 Fowler Rand 211AG


*Note: BeamNG has not accurately conveyed this car’s color.

Okay, as much as I roasted this thing for its aftermarket rims, I have to say they do help the car look fancier. I mean, they do look a bit comical, all tall and skinny like that, but the car itself is tall and skinny so it kinda works out.

Overall, it looks a lot like a Land-Rover type car, with all those chrome and black accents, and the 2 tone paint. And while it definitely isn’t as luxurious as it first looks, it does have some perks under it, like a big, nice-sounding engine and a full ESC suite.

As for anything wrong with it… I mean, it’s 15 years old, and it is, again, not as luxurious as it looks. But hey, looks are what matter most here… I think it’s earned a 10.

1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E


The oldest car here is definitely showing its age; it’s not a bad design, but it is definitely very dated.

This was a pretty upper-class SUV when it was new, with air suspension, electric power steering, and a well equipped interior; feature-wise it’s still pretty nice even for today. But it doesn’t look nice for today. It looks blocky and utilitarian, with a super distinct and loud 80’s & 90’s design language.

I-I don’t hate it or anything, but it’s just so old I think it’d do more harm than good. I have to give it a -7

2010 Matterhorn Scout


As much as I made fun of this thing mechanically for all it’s shoddy mechanical repairs, I have to say they did make a point to repair the looks properly. The car looks just about as good as new, other than perhaps those aftermarket turn-signal LED rings; which honestly help the look more than anything. And hey, those wide fenders also hide the tire stagger pretty well.

I mean, if you don’t look at all the mechanical problems, it outwardly looks like a relatively new and pretty high-class car. Even the interior, which my friends might see, is still pretty nice (other than a bit of wear). And I know my friends well enough to know that there’s no way in a million years they’ll realize that the engine is at risk of exploding, or that the suspension is wholly inadequate, or that most of the safety features don’t even work anymore. They’ll just see the surface… and the surface is a 16.

2005 Regal Vedette


And now, Mr. Snoot. …I still can’t tell weather this is an SUV or not. It’s really weird.

I’m not really sure what to do with this one. So it’s 15 years old, and it looks a bit funny; and actually I can’t really tell whether its size and big grill make it look valuable, or if the stretched front and strange profile make it look gaudy. Perhaps gaudy is a good thing in this case, since that’s what luxury cars tend to be anyway? Also I will say, I thought the features on it would be higher-end then they actually were, and I think it was the looks that made me think that.

It’s an old car, and not an especially valuable car (but certainly not cheap, either), which looks ugly and dated but also more upscale than it actually is. And oh right, those stripes; I keep forgetting about them, they just blend right into the bodywork. Are they supposed to look… sporty? Retro, maybe, like a callback to something? I guess it just adds to the “interestingness”

Alright, I have to settle on something… 6.

2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8


Alright, past the weirdness, and onto the exact opposite; this simple, minimalist specimen. Maybe too simple, honestly, it looks rather plain. Which is actually a shame, since it is actually a nicer car inside than the Vedette.

The pros: it is a luxury-trim muscle car, with all the amenities that come with; including 2 major showpieces, them being the engine and the roof, that are pretty darn impressive. The cons: well, beyond the showpieces, it doesn’t really show off that luxury very much thanks to its simplistic design. There’s not much on it to suggest its value. Heck, even the convertible top is the same color as the body, so that it almost blends in!

I think a 4 is appropriate. It has a lot of disadvantages compared to the Vedette, and not enough advantages to quite catch up to it.

2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport


*Note: BeamNG has not accurately conveyed this car’s color.

So this is another case like the Matterhorn, where the problems with the car aren’t really something that you can tell from the outside. And I have to say it does look pretty good; it looks sporty, without looking like someone’s tuner project.

Inside, it’s basically just the mass-market sedan of its era, but sportier. It has GPS, which is nice, as well as some very nice wheels, but overall everything impressive is on the outside.

Y’know, sportiness wasn’t what I was after, but I think this car does a good job of it; given it’s age I’d say a 7.

2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP


Ladies and gentlemen, the lot’s resident ricer. Well okay, maybe “ricer” is the wrong word, the original car did have some sportiness to it’s name, but there are some pretty obvious and pretty tacky visual mods here, as I said earlier. Yet… I think they would like them. The anachronistic LED lightbars and rims help it look newer, and spoilers and hoods scoops are strongly associated with sports cars. Only problem is, the fact that it is clearly a modded old car, rather than just an outright new car, taints the look slightly.

Wow, underneath this is almost identical to the Schnell. Both are sport versions of mass-market 2006 sedans, both have similar interior quality and the same traction aids, and both have been modified by prior owners. But at the end of the day, the more visual mods on the Stockholm mean there’s a chance it’ll convince my friends that it’s newer than it is.

So for that… it’s an 11, I say.

2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC


…Yeah, so that bug-eyed styling reminds me of the Everest; in that it probably looked in-fashion for its time, but now just looks like an eyesore. Actually, to be honest, I think it looks dated even for 2007.

So this looks like a lower-end sports car- and it very strongly does look lower end on the outside, I’d say. As for inside, the softer suspension and electric power steering give me the impression this was more of a comfort trim than an all-out performance one; which is good good in my case, I don’t want the car to be outright cheap. But I care way more about the outside than the inside, and this outside isn’t working at all.

I guess this car is the opposite of the Allure from earlier. Because while the Allure looks newer and nicer than it really is, the Firebolt (which is already older anyway), looks a few years older than it is, and it looks valueless

So even though it is actually the nicer car inside, I think it would ultimately do more harm to my image than good. So it’s a -1.

2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300


Easily one of the most plain cars here, this one. A lower-midrange coupe, with pretty standard, mass-market equipment all around, but without any obvious sportiness-focus or mods… except for the RWD on it, which implies to me that its higher trims are more luxurious or sporty than this.

I will say though, it does look very good; not like a luxury car, or anything, but it just has a very elegant, clean shape. It looks good for any era, and certainly for 2007. And even though it’s a coupe, it manages to look just sporty enough to avoid a “budget” image. Overall, it just looks… sensible. Reasonable. Pleasant.

And more importantly, it doesn’t look cheap. While it’s a the luxury coupe like I would’ve wanted, I think it’s polished and put-together enough to get an 8.

Coolness Scoreboard
Position Car Score
1 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 16
2 2012 Allure Chiroptera 13
3 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP 11
4 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG 10
5 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 8
6 2000 Armor Mojave 7
6 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport 7
8 2005 Regal Vedette 6
9 2008 Courageux Cirrus 5
10 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 4
11 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer 1
12 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC -1
13 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E -7

Current Scoreboard:

Position Car Current Score Change
1 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 11 +12
2 2012 Allure Chiroptera 10 +10
3 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG 9 ±0
3 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP 9 +4
5 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 8 -4
6 2000 Armor Mojave 7 -5
7 2005 Regal Vedette 5 -4
7 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport 5 ±0
9 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 3 -6
9 2008 Courageux Cirrus 3 -4
11 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer -1 -4
12 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC -2 -9
13 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E -9 -6

Up next: The 5 point categories, starting with Price. 'Cause the goal is to get something that looks expensive, not necessarily something that is.


Almost right. It was the “sporty” trim of a lower end car, hence the not-so-sporty equipment.

Oh, well. At least I tried.

Did @DuceTheTruth100 make the another Sir Weight-Shed-A-Lot again? It would be interesting to see how the successor to the Wells fares from CW1.


Thats cool that you noticed that :sunglasses:

The part that sucks is the fact that i had to negative quality just about everything just to fit in the budget…so the car comes out cheap
…I knew this going in but definitely not what I wanted. So yea, its basically a base level clapped out cool lookin car lol.

So maybe next time the year shouldn’t be so new so I can have more budget to play with.

@Edsel cool write ups man. One thing tho…the bat emblem. It was one of the last things I put on the car iirc.

Its from the factory lol. But instead of calling it “the little bat”…I went with Chiroptera. Wiki told me its apart of the bat family, so I rode with that…sounded better too imo. Also, instead of spelling all that out, we felt that the bat emblem would suffice. In essence, when the car is brought up in conversation it went something like this…blah blah blah blah Chiropwho…Chiropwhat???..wait…the little bat car??..ohhhhh yea…the little bat car!!!

Something like that :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

@Odyssey_Fan, whats also weird/very interesting is that, it seems @GassTiresandOil is kinda on the same path as last time as well. He may very well have the all around package. AGAIN!! lol.

Too early to tell, I know…but…:grimacing:


Thanks, but I wouldn’t be so sure about that lol. My car looks like it might excel in the lesser categories, but the more important ones might hurt. I was kinda banking on its coolness carrying it… which already hasn’t worked out :sweat_smile:

1 Like

To be honest, I figured the bat badge was probably meant to be stock somehow, but since I didn’t know the word “Chiroptera,” I never made the connection. Plus, the double-identity thematic parallel was just too perfect to pass up. (:


Not your fault at all, I need to do better with my lore. And yea, I too had no idea about that word …I liked the logo, and somehow thought it looked even better on the car lol…actually, I thought it could fit with the nature of the car, light and agile…Then I started Googling cause calling it a bat didnt sound right…to me at least.

Edit: I THINK bats are light and agile…:man_shrugging:t6:


"Alright, I’ve gotten my subjective considerations out of the way; Now I need to focus on my more objective critera. After all, this is a big purchase; even if I’m buying the car just to look cool, I’m still gonna have this thing for a long time, and be using it pretty regularly.

I should probably just start by confirming with Dad how much they’ll cost. Not that it matters much, most of these things will probably be within a few dollars of each other. But hey, every few dollars I save means another trip to Dairy Joy, so…"

Cheapest Car:

2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer - $1899.24 (before depreciation: $26,600)

"So this one works out to be the cheapest… by $100. Well, I could afford one more tank of gas with that.

It’s not really a cheap car, to be fair; it’s actually pretty well equipped for its day, and still in pretty good condition too. I guess that’s just what 20 years does to a car."

Most Expensive Car:

2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 - $1999.80 (before depreciation: $22,000)

"The Matterhorn is technically the most expensive… by about 4 dollars. But really, most all of these cars would be using up everything I have. The Cirrus, the Firebolt, the Sunbelt- they’d all be right at the limit, anyway.

(side note: The math may have worked out to make the Matterhorn the most expensive, but all of the following cars also used the maximum price for their given year. They each scored .2 points, a value so small I doubt it’ll have a significant impact on the contest.)

2008 Courageux Cirrus - $1995.84 (before depreciation: $23,100)
2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC - $1995.54 (before depreciation: $23,700)
2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 - $1995.03 (before depreciation: $24,300)

Price Scoreboard
Position Car Score
1 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer 5.0
2 2000 Armor Mojave 4.3
3 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP 1.1
4 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 1.0
5 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E 0.7
6 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport 0.6
7 2012 Allure Chiroptera 0.5
8 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG 0.4
8 2005 Regal Vedette 0.4
10 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 0.2
10 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC 0.2
10 2008 Courageux Cirrus 0.2
13 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 0.0

Current Scoreboard:

Position Car Current Score Change
1 2000 Armor Mojave (@GassTiresandOil) 11.3 +5
2 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 (@FidleDo) 11 -1
3 2012 Allure Chiroptera (@DuceTheTruth100) 10.5 -1
4 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP (@Odyssey_Fan) 10.1 -1
5 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG (@Ludvig) 9.4 -2
6 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 (@Texaslav) 9 -1
7 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport (@interior) 5.6 ±0
8 2005 Regal Vedette (@karhgath) 5.4 -1
9 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer (@Hilbert) 4 +2
10 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 (@SheikhMansour) 3.2 -1
10 2008 Courageux Cirrus (@mart1n2005) 3.2 -1
12 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC (@Knugcab) -1.8 ±0
13 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E (@BannedByAndroid) -8.3 ±0
(Other fun facts)
  • The most expensive car before depreciation was the 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E at $29,000; after depreciation, it costs $1986.50.
  • The least expensive car before depreciation was the 2012 Allure Chiroptera at $20,200; after depreciation, it costs $1989.70. As it happens, the least expensive car in the first Cool Wall challenge was a similar car by the same user, though that one’s pre-depreciation cost was only $16,100.
  • The mean cost of a car is $1977.18. A car with that price would have scored a 1.1; the 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP placed 3rd in this round with such a score, at $1978.61; though let’s not neglect the very-close 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300, at $1978.70.
  • Meanwhile the median cost of a car, held by the 2012 Allure Chiroptera, was $1989.70.

Next up: Reliability. 'Cause good looks & low price mean nothing if the car doesn’t actually work.


Well, @GassTiresandOil wasn’t the average car this time, but has he figured something out that will let him win another cool wall?

1 Like


"Next I’ll look at something more long term… I guess reliability seems like a good place to start. Can I trust each car to work in the morning?

I guess it isn’t really that big a concern for me; If a problem comes up, I can probably just look at and fix it myself most of the time. That could start to get annoying, though, if It happens too often. And if the problem requires a replacement part, I probably won’t be able to pay for it… Yeah, I should consider this first."

Most Reliable Car:

2012 Allure Chiroptera – 73.0

"Honestly, if I can manage not to break it with the revs, this one’s probably gonna cause the least problems. In spite of how very worn down it is, the Allure is the newest car here, and is mechanically built on very simple-but good technologies. And as for its comfort features, well there was never much here to break; and what was here has already broken! This would have been far from my guess for the ‘most reliable’ car, but it looks like that’s what it is!

(Also, why do I get the strange feeling I’m gonna be seeing a lot more of this car today…?)"

Least Reliable Car:

2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 - 58.7

“Oh gosh ok… I mentioned that this things was pretty badly degraded earlier, but now that I’m looking at it I’m just… blown away by how messed up this thing is. I mean, I get that reliability probably wasn’t the focus of this design, but all that automated and electrical tomfoolery is gonna make for a lot of problems at this age, especially given how badly this thing has degraded. Heck, it isn’t even protected from rust anymore! (Though I guess that’s more for the ‘environmental resistance’ category).”

Reliability Scoreboard
Position Car Score
1 2012 Allure Chiroptera 5.0
2 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC 4.2
3 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG 3.9
4 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP 3.8
5 2000 Armor Mojave 3.7
6 2008 Courageux Cirrus 3.6
7 2005 Regal Vedette 3.2
8 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 2.7
9 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 2.4
10 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport 2.3
11 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer 2.2
12 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E 2.0
13 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 0.0

Current Scoreboard:

Position Car Current Score Change
1 2012 Allure Chiroptera (@DuceTheTruth100) 15.5 +2
2 2000 Armor Mojave (@GassTiresandOil) 15 -1
3 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP (@Odyssey_Fan) 13.9 +1
4 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 (@FidleDo) 13.4 -2
5 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG (@Ludvig) 13.3 ±0
6 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 (@Texaslav) 11.7 ±0
7 2005 Regal Vedette (@karhgath) 8.6 +1
8 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport (@interior) 7.9 -1
9 2008 Courageux Cirrus (@mart1n2005) 6.8 +1
10 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer (@Hilbert) 6.2 -1
11 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 (@SheikhMansour) 3.2 -1
12 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC (@Knugcab) 2.4 ±0
13 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E (@BannedByAndroid) -6.3 ±0
(Other fun facts)
  • The mean reliability of a car is 67.3. A car with that reliability would have scored a 3.0; if the 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 is taken out as an outlier, the mean reliability is 68.0. the 2005 Regal Vedette came the closest to both, with a score of 67.9. It was also the mean scorer.
  • The second lowest-scoring car after the Sunbelt was the 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E, with a score of 64.3.

Next up: Environmental resistance. Sure the car’s fine now, but how long is it gonna stay that way?



"The reliability grading just reminded me of something; the winters here can be very hard on a car, especially given the salt they put on the roads. Also I’m pretty close to the ocean, which blows in a lot of sand and salt; I’m not close enough to the shore to get much of that, but I’m still close enough to make it worth considering.

Considering I’ll probably be parking this thing outside in the driveway, whether it can handle the weather is gonna matter in my case. I should probably look over the cars again, then, to determine not just which cars are in good condition, but which cars are well protected enough that they’ll still be that way in a year."

Most Resilient Car:

2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 - 53.7

"Being the newest car here helps the Matterhorn have the best built foundation of the group… well, second newest, anyway. But while the newer car is just fine, the type of steel used here is the best treated against rust of any car here, and it also has full-aluminum body panelling.

Even though just about everything else on this car has degraded strongly over time (making this car just below-average on reliability), that core chassis and body is so well re-enforced that I trust this thing isn’t gonna get worse any time soon."

Least Resilient Car:

2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 - 21.1

"Yeah, I think I noticed this earlier, but this car’s rustproofing is deplorable. Any rustproof coatings this car may have once had are completely worn away, and the chassis is left with bare iron like a car from the 40’s. The panels are also made from iron, apart from a few inconsequential panels like the hood, and they aren’t treated very well at all. The fact that it’s a soft-top convertible also doesn’t help it, since over time those things develop leaks and problems even when they are maintained very well; the way this one wasn’t.

Honestly, this car is in such a bad state right now, I’d be surprised if it lasted a year without some serious work done to it."

Environmental Resistance Scoreboard
Position Car Score
1 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 5.0
2 2000 Armor Mojave 4.4
3 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport 3.4
4 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP 3.7
5 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC 3.4
6 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG 3.2
7 2012 Allure Chiroptera 3.1
8 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer 2.9
9 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E 2.7
10 2005 Regal Vedette 2.7
11 2008 Courageux Cirrus 2.6
12 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 2.2
13 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 0.0

Current Scoreboard:

Position Car Current Score Change
1 2000 Armor Mojave (@GassTiresandOil) 19.4 +1
2 2012 Allure Chiroptera (@DuceTheTruth100) 18.6 -1
3 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 (@FidleDo) 18.4 +1
4 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP (@Odyssey_Fan) 17.6 -1
5 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG (@Ludvig) 16.5 ±0
6 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 (@Texaslav) 13.9 ±0
7 2005 Regal Vedette (@karhgath) 11.3 ±0
7 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport (@interior) 11.3 +1
9 2008 Courageux Cirrus (@mart1n2005) 9.4 ±0
10 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer (@Hilbert) 9.1 ±0
11 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC (@Knugcab) 5.8 +1
12 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 (@SheikhMansour) 3.2 -1
13 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E (@BannedByAndroid) -3.6 ±0
(Other fun facts)
  • The mean environmental resistance of a car is 40.8. A car with that value would have scored a 3.0, a figure the mean-scoring 2012 Allure Chiroptera comes closest to at 41.1.
  • If the 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 is taken out as an outlier, the mean environmental resistance jumps to 42.5., and the new closest becomes the 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG, at 41.8
    -The second lowest-scoring car after the Sunbelt was the 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300, with a score of 35.6.

Next up: Safety. The car may be good at protecting itself, but how well does it protect the driver?


Whats the trick for good environmental resistance?

Fairly simple, it really boils down to your body panel and chassis material type. Fiberglass, carbon fiber, and aluminum feature higher enviromental resistances than your steel types. Semi space frame is also a way to cheese that stat, since it’s a pure aluminum chassis unlike the others.
Outside of that, chassis quality and body quality can boost this as well. Of course, you need to take in consideration of any downsides and realism bins theses options may have.


Is the rosewood a soft top cabriolet? Why is the roof metal?

That roof actually is of a fabric material, it’s just that the shade of yellow is so pale you can’t see the texture.
Here’s a darkened version, with the texture more visible.:


Beam has a tendency to screw up colours somewhat, and as I have understood it, Beam is used for screenshots here?

Yeah, that’s part of it. Beam doesn’t always represent colors right. But in the Sunbelt’s case, it was pretty accurate; if you look at SheikhMansour’s post earlier in the thread, the roof looks just as “hard” (textureless) in Automaton as in Beam.

(Disclaimer: All the Cars’ coolness scores were graded based on their appearance in Automation, not in Beam)

If possible, dont think of my car like a Versa…

I was aiming for a Miata.

1 Like


"Y’know, I’ve been putting all this time into how well the cars themselves survive, but I should probably also consider my own chances of survival in them. I mean, most cars around here are pretty big, and not everyone’s good at driving them. I don’t wanna leave this world early just because some Yukon-driver didn’t understand how to brake earlier in the snow.

Then again, the roads around here are mostly pretty slow and in good condition, so it’s not that huge of a concern. And anyway, all the cars in this lineup passed the safety inspection from earlier. Still not something I should ignore, though.

Safest Car:

2012 Allure Chiroptera - 53.4

"Unsurprisingly, the newest car here has the most recent, safest body design.

This thing has the most advanced safety technology of its day, on a chassis that was already well designed from the start. the heavy wear and tear on this car does hurt its safety somewhat, but not enough to take it down from top spot."

Least Safe Car:

2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 - 33.2

“Okay, now this one does come as a surprise at first, as its chassis is about as modern and well designed as the Allure’s. Looking at it closer, though, I see that about all the safety features on it are either broken, or heavily degraded; I mean, this thing effectively has the safety features of a Geo Metro, or maybe even worse.”

Now that is to say, the Matterhorn isn’t unsafe, or anything; it’s big, and the chassis is still good. It’s just the least safe of the selection.

Safety Scoreboard
Position Car Score
1 2012 Allure Chiroptera 5.0
2 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 4.5
3 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP 4.4
4 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC 4.3
5 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport 3.7
6 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E 3.6
7 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG 3.4
8 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer 3.3
9 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 3.0
10 2000 Armor Mojave 2.9
11 2008 Courageux Cirrus 1.8
12 2005 Regal Vedette 1.6
13 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 0.0

Current Scoreboard:

Position Car Current Score Change
1 2012 Allure Chiroptera (@DuceTheTruth100) 23.6 +1
2 2000 Armor Mojave (@GassTiresandOil) 22.3 -1
3 2006 Stockholm 130CFBSP (@Odyssey_Fan) 22.0 +1
4 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG (@Ludvig) 19.9 +1
5 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 (@FidleDo) 18.4 -2
6 2007 Waldersee Ritter RK2300 (@Texaslav) 18.4 ±0
7 2006 Schnell 1.8 Sport (@interior) 15.0 ±0
8 2005 Regal Vedette (@karhgath) 12.9 -1
9 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer (@Hilbert) 12.4 +1
10 2008 Courageux Cirrus (@mart1n2005) 11.2 -1
11 2007 Vaughn Firebolt GTC (@Knugcab) 10.1 ±0
12 2006 Rosewood Sunbelt V8 (@SheikhMansour) 6.2 ±0
13 1997 Lazurus DTX 3200E (@BannedByAndroid) 0.0 ±0
(Other fun facts)
  • The mean safety of a car is 46.1. A car with that value would have scored a 3.2, just below the 2000 Allen Mount Everest Tourer at 46.5, and the median scoring 2005 Fowler Rand 211AG at 46.9.
  • The second lowest-scoring car after the 2010 Matterhorn Scout 2.5 was the 2005 Regal Vedette, with a score of 39.8.
  • If the Matterhorn is taken out as an outlier, the mean environmental resistance becomes 47.2.

Next up: The 10 point categories, starting with Fuel Economy. How much does it cost just to use the car?


Firebolt one of the safest cars? That honestly surprised me.

1 Like