SCORING AREA #1: COOLNESS
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
…
