FS: 1994 Ilaris Ion S8 wagon (26316$)
V8 6MT
I wish I could have gotten this up to my standard of quality but apparently it’s the season of malaise and coughing up blood…
I wish I could have gotten this up to my standard of quality but apparently it’s the season of malaise and coughing up blood…
9 Likes
2003 Volaro Verlyn Tourer - VST “Arizaga”
year make model bodystyle trim “special”
taken care of. it has a 3.3 liter turbocharged inline-6 that makes about 369.2 hp @ 6600RPM and 363.5 lb-ft @ 3900RPM, sent through a 6-speed manual to all 4 wheels. The engine redlines at 7400RPM, and the car is electronically limited to 165MPH.
VST is a trim slightly different (currently arbitrarily) to the facelift VSN of a prior-generation seen in QFC47 and the pre-facelift VSN from Happyhungryhippo’s CSCS4. The Arizaga designation comes from having been turbocharged by Volaro’s internal turbo-specialized tuning house partially run by the Arizaga Legal team family of VOLARO Group, as opposed to the Llereza supercharger-specialized mini-house headed by some Llereza Finance BODs. The VSN from CSCS4 is a Llereza supercharged car.
This is a facelift of the second generation (to be manufactured under VOLARO Group) Verlyn. The first generation under VOLARO Group ran from its inception in 1988 to 1996 (ignore the aforementioned QFC entry’s claims of being a 1998 model, this is now my retconning) and the second generation under them ran from 1997 to 2003. The third generation can be seen in CSCS3 as a sedan and CSR162 as a coupe running from 2004 to 2010, with a facelift posted as an extra goodie in my pinned topic.
this example is meant to have a neon taillamp bar! if it were real, it would be the fourth production vehicle to ever feature a neon element in at least one part of its exterior lighting features. it’s also got HID headlights, which are less noteworthy relatively.
$28657
8 Likes
Unlike previous Cool Walls, we will save for last the criteria that are most subjective, most difficult to evaluate and to compare to others, and most of all, the biggest point categories that will decide the winner, so as to build and maintain suspense. We begin in the opposite corner…
Upfront costs
None of the cars went over the $35k soft cap after I remembered to factor out weight redistribution. There are no longer any penalties, but the order has little changed - @ErenWithPizza’s 2005 Mancini Dirigente is most expensive car in this lineup of twelve, a score of flat zero for this category.
Whatever else there’ll be to say about the styling, I will say at this point that it does look like it should be the most expensive.
At the other end of the spectrum, and at P1 by a significant margin, is @Knugcab’s 1987 IP Celestia 2000DX wagon for a bit over half of that, at $22,048, earning it this category’s maximum of 2.0 points.
The IP is also a bit of a fluke to the pattern of older entries costing more. @tsarchasm’s 1958 300GT Europa was the better part of double the present-day budget, costing $57500 when it was new. The Europa is also the oldest car submitted by any measure; it was 22 when the next oldest sold with a warranty.
And the rest:
Service costs
Nobody used a crankshaft-driven supercharger of any kind, and the strongest driver of maintenace costs appears to be turbochargers, especially older and fancier ones. At the top here in the “poster child money pit” department is the 1980 Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carrosserie Marin (@mart1n2005), with its estimated annual bill of nearly $1800 and a corresponding score of zero.
It isn’t just a turbo, it also uses a quite complex mechanical fuel injection system - the only car to do so - and furthermore with individual throttle bodies. That hood/bonnet line also reminds of the early 90s Nissan Z32, with some component access resembling in situ neurosurgery on heartworms. Still, it isn’t much worse than the runners-up.
Meanwhile, its opposite is the 1958 300GT Europa (see above) by @tsarchasm, which is the only carbureted engine here. Despite being a V12 with a relatively advanced carb setup (mid-performance triple two-barrels), maintaining it just doesn’t seem to be that troublesome or expensive. Its victory margin isn’t vast, however.
Offroad
While this vehicle won’t be anything like an expedition vehicle, much less a dedicated offroader, the reality of long-distance roadtrips is that obstacles are out there, and making minor sacrifices elsewhere to be able to handle them minimally or better is a good idea.
No, these all vary from the low end of Mediocre to the high end of Hopeless, when it comes to anything more challenging than wet leaves. The one SUV here isn’t even on the podium, and the top two are RWD, not AWD as many (most?) others, both details speaking volumes about how much we’re out of our element here. The 2012 Hockenheim EST635 Citadel Sport by @superbiirdd takes a very narrow victory, but a full 2.0-point victory all the same.
Meanwhile, good luck getting the 2013 Artemis Osprey Gale Edition Wagon by @oldmanbuick even out of a bad driveway, nevermind up a snowy road or dry trail.
Sportiness
It’s better news here: the worst is a not-bad-at-all 18.7 (the 1958 300GT Europa), which despite its light weight and reasonable power, has tires too small.
The most athletic is over double that, at 41.5. Remember that 2013 Artemis (@oldmanbuick) that struggled to move on anything less than perfect tarmac? Well, ifnwhen you do manage to get it onto good pavement, and keep it there, you do get rewarded by the best handling in town. Though on the heavy side (1736kg, 58% of which is in the nose due to no attempt made to fix an Automation bug) and surprisingly soft-sprung for its 265/45R19 sport tires, the strong grip and quite lively engine make it the most fun to drive here, by a small but decisive margin.
Pleasant surprise from the (partial?) corporate littermate of Flint, notorious for Feeling Like It’s Nap Time.
Rotating inertia
Why is this even here, especially when “responsiveness” is already a major component of Sportiness? Because it’s a different variable that trades responsiveness (especially when shifting) for smoothness, not for fuel consumption. And because it’s something Des particularly cares about.
Unlike Sportiness, a wide chasm separates the liveliest from the most lethargic, with a rather tapered midrange due to one big fat outlier. The winner, however, shouldn’t be too surprising: that 2013 Artemis Osprey Gale Wagon (@oldmanbuick) is powered by an oversquare all-alloy 4.7L V8 that not only has no flywheel, beyond a bare minimum for clutch and starter motor purposes, but also has forged and mostly lightweight internals, machined in a few choice areas to weigh even less. The car’s handling is servicable, but outright grip aside, nothing special. The engine, however, is a veritable dance partner, and would be an absolute joy to drop two or three gears and wind out to its 8300rpm redline. Even with its weight, 426hp is nothing to sneeze at, either. Out of 4.7L, naturally aspirated? Impressive. Still manages to get 11.4L/100km with a car this size? Good sweet spot. 84.7 reliability? Most impressive. On the loud side, but Des can’t hear it anyway because of a highly misspent youth doesn’t mind.
If Flint is predictable, boring naptime, this is is A Remarkably Torrid Engine, a Most Impressive Surprise.
At the other end, the otherwise fairly maximalist build of the engine on the 2001 North W73 (@toxicnet) - more on this one later - also includes an utterly colossal 67.5kg rotating assembly. What this tank engine lacks in responsiveness, though… well, you’ll see.
OOC: I realize that this should have been scaled for displacement. As neither prestige nor outright power were among the priorities, while economy was, this would/should have overly encouraged tiny engines. Thankfully, at least in this case, a holistic approach to the engineering kept this one in what I’ve found to be a pretty good sweet spot for this size and type of car, high 4.some liters regardless of cylinder count.
| Year | Make & Model | Rotating Inertia | RI Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | North W73 | 67.5 | 0.0 |
| 2008 | DDS R-Speed 8 | 45.2 | 0.9 |
| 2009 | Menschen Sahara RV8 | 30.8 | 1.4 |
| 2005 | Armor Kestrel Sportwagon | 25.7 | 1.6 |
| 2012 | Hockenheim EST635 Citadel Sport | 20.9 | 1.8 |
| 1958 | 300GT Europa | 19.4 | 1.9 |
| 2005 | Mancini Dirigente | 18.4 | 1.9 |
| 1994 | Ilaris Ion S8 | 18.4 | 1.9 |
| 1980 | Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carrosserie Marin | 18.4 | 1.9 |
| 2003 | VOLARO Verlyn Tourer VST Arizaga | 18.3 | 1.9 |
| 1987 | IP Celestia 2000DX | 15.9 | 2.0 |
| 2013 | Artemis Osprey Gale Edition | 15.8 | 2.0 |
Overall standings after all 2-point categories:
| Year | Make & Model | 2-point subtotal |
|---|---|---|
| 2001 | North W73 | 2.6 |
| 1980 | Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carrosserie Marin | 3.6 |
| 2008 | DDS R-Speed 8 | 3.9 |
| 2005 | Armor Kestrel Sportwagon | 5.2 |
| 2005 | Mancini Dirigente | 5.9 |
| 2003 | VOLARO Verlyn Tourer VST Arizaga | 6.0 |
| 1958 | 300GT Europa | 6.1 |
| 1987 | IP Celestia 2000DX | 6.5 |
| 2013 | Artemis Osprey Gale Edition | 6.5 |
| 2012 | Hockenheim EST635 Citadel Sport | 7.3 |
| 2009 | Menschen Sahara RV8 | 7.6 |
| 1994 | Ilaris Ion S8 | 8.6 |
11 Likes
Well. The engine in the Celestia is supposed to be swapped for the one from the sportiest of the models, the GTT coupé, hence the disharmony.
It appears I forgot about weight sliders in price calculations. Uhhh… standby for correction.
3 Likes
My car is in fact a wagon as classified by Automation and therefore the weight slider should be free. It should only cost $34615 and should not get any penalties
2 Likes
Hey now, Artemis Automotive Company, Inc., is only partially owned by Flint Group, Inc., parent company of Flint Motor Company, Inc. Because Flint’s founder refused to accept the “damn fool” idea of building sports cars, of course. So any accusations that Artemis makes slow, boring cars will not be accepted. Let the record reflect that Artemis specializes in manufacturing fast, boring cars with that certain je ne sais quoi of just not really having all that much flair.
3 Likes
Sum of throttlebody count, cylinder count, and exhaust quality
As far as I’m aware, as with rotating inertia, CW9 is likely the first time a challenge called for this. Note that the rules gave no bonus for a louder or a quieter exhaust or intake, nor any different scoring for different types of components (other than more or fewer throttlebodies). Apart from forgetting the existence of bypass valves, both of these were intentional.
P12. The vacuum cleaner: Hockenheim EST635 Citadel Sport by @superbiirdd
Single-throttle V6 with +2 = 9
P11. Menschen Sahara RV8 by @the-chowi
Twin-manifold V8 with +1 = 11
P10. VOLARO Verlyn Tourer VST Arizaga by @DoesStuff
R6 with ITB and +0 = 12
P8 (tie). IP Celestia 2000DX wagon by @Knugcab
Single-throttle R6 with +6 = 13
P8 (tie). DDS R-Speed 8 by @DuceTheTruth100
Single-throttle V8 with +4 = 13
P7. Armor Kestrel Sportwagon by @GassTiresandOil
Twin-manifold V8 with +5 = 15
P6. Ilaris Ion S8 by @shibusu
Twin-manifold V8 with +6 = 16
P4 (tie). Mancini Dirigente by @ErenWithPizza
Single-manifold V8 with +8 = 17
P4 (tie). Artemis Osprey Gale Edition by @oldmanbuick
Twin-manifold V8 with +7 = 17
P3. Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carosserie Marin by @mart1n2005
V6 with ITB and +8 = 20
Not a whole lot makes sense about this engine, but it does sound good, and unusual. If condemned by lore to use a 90-degree V6 layout, you could do worse… but a better option would be anything else the 3460cc equivalent V8.
P2. 300GT Europa by @tsarchasm
Triple twin-barrel carbs on a V12 with +7 exhaust = 25
Well, someone’s been reading the Gospel According to St. Enzo… 250cc per cylinder? SOHC? In the late 1950s? With a carb setup rivaling early MFI for complexity but actually thought out?
Of the two twelve-bangers here, this is the small, fun, friendly one. Sounds amazing, if not quite as rich in harmonics and resonance as the Other V12…
P1. The symphony: North W73 by @toxicnet
V12 with ITB and +11 = 35
Holy and unholy expletives… You don’t drive this engine. No, pish posh, that would be rather base and vulgar, wouldn’t it? Quite unbecoming for someone with such refined tastes and the pockets to indulge in them. No, here you issue orders from the bridge, then kick back, take a nap, walk around outside, put on the tea, finish a Sudoku puzzle, visit the loo, pet the cat, chat with the watch crew… and around lunchtime the following day, the orchestra in the engine room plays something different but no less moving. Good luck trying to get anything done, as you can’t do much more than sit there and shed tears of joy and beauty. Remember DCMW’s schtick of hiring a Fruinian church organ builder on higher end exhausts? The W73 knows what’s up.
Side note: the lowest legal score here would’ve been -8 (-15 quality exhaust, single throttle six cylinder). The highest, in theory, 47.
Reliability
P12 with 58.2. Mancini Dirigente by @ErenWithPizza
Looks like it’s expensive, turns out to actually be expensive, isn’t too bad to take to the shop, but you’ll be there more often than with anything else here.
P11 with 59.5. Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carosserie Marin by @mart1n2005
P10 with 59.9. DDS R-Speed 8 by @DuceTheTruth100
P8 with 60.8 (tie). VOLARO Verlyn Tourer VST Arizaga by @DoesStuff
P8 with 60.8 (tie). Hockenheim EST635 Citadel Sport by @superbiirdd
P7 with 61.3. 300GT Europa by @tsarchasm
P6 with 61.6. North W73 by @toxicnet
P5 with 63.7. IP Celestia 2000DX wagon by @Knugcab
P4 with 64.5. Menschen Sahara RV8 by @the-chowi
P3 with 65.5. Artemis Osprey Gale Edition by @oldmanbuick
P2 with 65.8. Ilaris Ion S8 by @shibusu
P1 with 66.6. Armor Kestrel Sportwagon by @GassTiresandOil
Old and simple car, new and well-made engine, slap them together and carry on. And on. And on…
…around the sun.
It’s somehow fitting - and, in real terms, oddly illustrative - that both the best and worst have engines from 2005, and that the second place in both cases are 30+ years old.
Fuel economy in L/100km
P12 with 16.7. The guzzler: North W73 by @toxicnet
World-class symphonies have big, big appetites. 7.3 liters in twelve cylinders, a shameless 1863kg of grandeur - second-highest here - and not much other than incidental tuning quality to redeem its thirst.
Mind you, these economy numbers assume sedate everyday driving. Any sort of kinetic or acoustic enthusiasm - such as, I don’t know, flexing over 500hp while listening to that bewitching soundtrack - would take the terrible economy and make it downright unprintable.
P11 with 15.6. The old fart: 300GT Europa by @tsarchasm
Despite being the lightest car by a huge margin (976kg; the next lightest is 1257, and the rest are mostly in the 1700-1800kg range), old tech is old, and this is fancy old tech at that. For pulling half of an average car’s weight, this is about double the engine we need. Not complaining about what’s overall about my favorite motor here, and for this kind of car in the late 50s, it’s not bad at all, but in this category, numbers are numbers.
P10 with 13.7. The brick: Armor Kestrel Sportwagon by @GassTiresandOil
When you’re shaped like a brick shithouse, you need all the help you can get. But the sport tires, a functional rear spoiler, and absolute zero of drag reduction parts gives little to to work with, while the 4.9s 0-100 time sums up the priorities of that work. Actually, for 313hp and 1600kg, 4.9 is pretty damn good, especially considering the total lack of (free) weight redistribution in a rear-drive platform.
P9 with 13.6. The total surprise: Menschen Sahara RV8 by @the-chowi
The tallest and heaviest entry here, the only SUV, powered by anything bigger than a hamster wheel a 4.5L V8 through a transfer case, gets crap mileage. Who’da thunk? Is water still wet?
P8 with 13.5. The overgeared: DDS R-Speed 8 by @DuceTheTruth100
Somehow, at 1505kg, this is our fourth-lightest car, and certainly the lightest of anything from this century. It tops out at 326kph (!) in sixth, while both first and second gears do little more than roast tires without getting to 100kph. Methinks it’s geared too short, boss.
P7 with 12.6. The modern boat: Mancini Dirigente by @ErenWithPizza
Big fat boat needs big fat drinks. Our third heaviest entry’s consumption looks remarkably reasonable for an NA motor - and not even that much of a screamer, peaking at 7500 and redlining at 8200 - making 414hp out of 4.5L.
P6 with 11.4. The actual surprise: Artemis Osprey Gale Edition by @oldmanbuick
A comparable engine to the Mancini’s, Artemis’ nominally quite aggressive tune - 8300 redline, 426hp at 7300 (which is second-highest of all here), from a 4.7 eight - deploys its secret weapon, VVL, thus ending up not only with this glorious powerplant and its lovely song and dance, but the highest thermal efficiency of any entry - 33.0% and remarkably reasonable real-world consumption.
P5 with 11.1. The quietly competent: Ilaris Ion S8 by @shibusu
A slightly more advanced and slightly more aggressively tuned BMW M60B40 of the same year, getting slightly worse economy than one of those did.
P4 with 10.5. Six the greater: VOLARO Verlyn Tourer VST Arizaga by @DoesStuff
Nobody should be too surprised that the six-cylinders all end up towards the bottom of this list. This one, a 3.3L R6 turbo, is the thirstiest and most powerful of them, with 374hp.
P3 with 10.3. The wholesome: Hockenheim EST635 Citadel Sport by @superbiirdd
About what we could expect from a nice, well-rounded, efficient, modern motor making 287hp from an NA 3.5L V6 at 6600rpm, redlining at 7200, and moving a rather portly 1781kg.
P2 with 9.7. Six the lesser: Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carrosserie Marin by @mart1n2005
Second-smallest with 2595cc, third least-powerful with 254hp. Aforementioned oddities aside, <10L/100 from any remotely similar powerplant in a remotely similar car, and in 1980 at that, is fantastic (meant both as praise for good tuning, and derision for the game making it a bit too unnecessary or too easy sometimes). At 1307kg, it’s also the third-lightest.
P1 with 7.9. Six the least? IP Celestia 2000DX by @Knugcab
2.0L turbo six making 213hp. In a well-tuned and relatively lightweight car (1257kg, second-best), it’s nobody’s surprise that this car consumes this little.
Driveability
I’m not sure whether the statistic is compiled in an objectively flawed way (such as Comfort), or if it’s just personal subjective fussiness about what makes a vehicle easier or harder to drive, or that I see the mainstream definition and personally don’t give a damn, or a combination of the above, but the fact that the chart is topped by a nearly two-ton SUV, and trailed by something weighing half as much… is a problem. Too late to solve it here, tho.
On further analysis, it’s not as bad a discrepancy as it first seemed. The Menschen really is well-tuned, the Europa isn’t its equal there and leaves a lot on the table, and tho visibility isn’t an official factor, as newer cars go, its windows and pillars are actually very good. Meanwhile, small tires and a solid axle don’t do any favors to a car with no ECU, no ABS, and no weight redistribution.
8 Likes
So if I am doing the math right, there are still 30 non-coolness points on the board and then an up to 40-point swing for coolness. Which means everything up to now will serve as nothing more than a tiebreaker.
I know the plan was to go from smallest to largest point value, and for good reason so that the smaller point values don’t become anti-climatic, but I feel like something of the reverse is at risk of happening here where nothing seems to really matter when any advantage/disadvantage could be easily wiped out by the coolness value.
I’d like to suggest making the next round coolness, then leaving the larger 10-point value categories that might not be enough to take someone from the bottom or coolness to the top of the rankings, but with enough point value to create some meaningful shifts in rank position. Just a thought.
3 Likes
There’s merit to this idea, and I’ll consider mixing up the order some. One benefit of doing it from the bottom up is that it gives me a deeper perspective on a car, as I can take my time getting to know it piece by piece. I also plan to invoke the “I do what I want” final modifiers clause to account for any car’s Je-n’sais-pas features that bump the value of the whole higher or lower than the sum of its parts, including looks.
3 Likes
It should also be noted that categories don’t always sway by as much as their point totals suggest.
In theory, if the last place car is 19.9 points away from the first place car, than a 20-point category could take it to first. In practice, this would require the last place car to get dead last, the current first place to get dead first, and every other car to do proportionally poorly enough that it doesn’t pass the current first place.
The chances of that sort of thing actually happening is very rare. Often, the sort of car to get first or last is an oddball outlier that has nothing to do with who’s fighting for the lead. Often there are generally-well-made cars that score well on most categories, and even if it’s weak in a given category its stats are still decent enough that it doesn’t get trounced (and vice versa). So even with coolness last, a late-round upset might have a car win from 5th or so, but it won’t completely invalidate the past results.
That said, listing multiple categories per post does seem to be undermining some of the suspense here, since there isn’t as many opportunities for cars to “move up/down the leaderboard.” The reviews themselves are still very good, it just doesn’t play out in that same “sports season” fashion as past ones.
3 Likes
Thanks for this feedback! I’ll spread them out from here on.
This is meant to be a measure of how comfortable and useable the space is to occupy, independent of any dynamic qualities, as a static object, a parked room of sorts. I’ll try to minimize overlap with the next Category by having that one focus more on how it behaves as a vehicle moving that room around.
As the basis of a comfortable, useable space is, well, space… then we begin by at least a crude measure of it (all distances in meters):
Lc = Cabin length, from the rear passengers’ heads to the gas pedal, longitudinally
Lt = Trunk length, longitudinally
W = Width at windowsill level
H = Height, from driver’s feet to highest point in interior
V = nominal volume, (Lc x W x H) + (Lt x W x H)
We’ll then apply various eyeballing and other fudge factors. Some of those are…
Body type
12x entries, 9x normal 4/5-door wagons, 1x 2/3-door Personal Luxury Wagon, 1x 4/5-door liftback that Automation thinks is a wagon, and 1x 4/5-door SUV.
The wagon bonus varies somewhat by shape, and is intended to represent 1. that the usefulness of the two-box’ larger rear cavern is more than the sum of its parts, compared to the same raw numbers from a three-box sedan, and 2. that the shape of said cavern may make it a lot more or less useable despite similar crude dimensions. Consider these:
Rear side windows
Like virtually all typical car windows, these roll down into the rear doorframe. To open fully, the lower rear corner of the glass (which in real cars is some 3-15cm below the level at the windowsill trim strip) has to be able to go down at least as far as the height of the glass above the sills. If it hits the sheetmetal inside the door jamb, it can’t go further. Also worth mentioning is that the door cavity doesn’t go back as far as the actual door seam for various geometrical reasons (including that inside that sheetmetal is often the rear wheel well):
Various solutions exist:
-
Don’t care, t.i. tolerate the window opening less than fully. My practice as a host is to penalize it only if there’s no evidence any thought was put into it. My practice as a tangible person using cars is to be annoyed and consider it a minor-medium problem if I can’t rest my arm on a fully open windowsill.
-
Vent window on the door, like the E34 above. This alone is generally enough to make the window roll down fully. The other methods here are usually combined, and even then often don’t get the same range of motion.
-
Vent window on the body, like this Jaguar X300.
-
Tilt the glass. It’s a significant increase in window regulator complexity, and I can’t quite find any cars that conclusively do this, but 70% remember that a c.2000 Lexus ES300 did.
-
Improve the geometry by cutting off that lower rear corner, often with a small blank panel behind the glass, like on that Jag, or a bigger one on this Honda:
- Improve the geometry by moving the rear window edge forward enough that even a straight drop down is enough to retract the glass fully.
- Improve the geometry by moving the wheel well back and the whole greenhouse forward. On most car proportions, this results in a decidedly cab-forward look, for better or for worse. Observe that among German cars, Mercedes and BMW sedans - fundamentally rear-drive; any AWD is a while-we’re-in-there addition - usually have a split window on the door, the large and stylish rear piece fixed while the front neatly tucks in fully, while VAG - fundamentally front-drive or AWD from the start - are much more likely to have one-piece windows on the doors.
Yes, it looks sleeker to not have that post. No, the window doesn’t need to roll down all the way. But if the opening is around 50% or less, I shift the onus onto the designer to state that they duly considered this and are ok with it as a practical result. Failing which, I consider the omission to be cheating practicality for the sake of esthetics.
- Open it another way. Either pop out like a van, or slide like… something I’ven’t seen since the 50s on anything remotely like a normal sedan.
Giant pillars of doom
“Doom” isn’t facetious cuteness here. I refer to A-pillars in particular, designed to protect you in the event of a crash that the reduced visibility is a huge factor for causing in the first place. “But like, that’s like… ok? I mean like… bra, I’ve got like all these like, airbags and…” Yes, which is (part of) why vehicle occupant fatalities (at least in the US) have been on a meaningful decline while pedestrian fatalities have gone way up. There is no better way to mitigate accident damage than to not get into one to begin with. There are precious few ways to worsen the odds of that happening than to be unable to see out of the car; about the only one I can think of would be not bothering to even try to see where you and your 2 or so tons of personal conveyance are going at all.
First rule of car safety: eyes on the road. Not on the backs of your eyelids, your phone, or the pillar upholstery blocking your view.
As far as this concerns Automation in general and my scoring criteria specifically, yes, we have conflicting requirements between this and the related build quality factor. Pillars need to have some bulk to look realistic. But too much, and we have the rolling-bunker phenomenon. It mostly affects newer bodies, and the way to resolve the matter is 1. pay attention to what the default body geometry does, and 2. modify accordingly. “But that’s how the body comes” isn’t an excuse.
Most usefully cavernous: 1994 Ilaris Ion S8 by @shibusu (8.65)
with 5.95m³ of nominal interior volume, +3 for being a wagon, -0.2 for no armrests, and -0.1 for a missing port side rear window post (but not starboard, making it an oversight of QC and execution rather than a failure to consider). Pleasantly roomy bones are off to a good start, taken to a proper execution with reasonably-sized pillars, no big sacrifices in the name of styling, and no meaningful gaffes, either. I’d’ve liked to see more interior things like armrests, but I also understand this was a very last minute job under less than ideal circumstances. Well done!
Most cramped and awkward: 2008 DDS R-Speed 8 by @DuceTheTruth100 (3.57)
With 4.07m³ volume, it’s not quite the smallest, second to the one car with less nominal volume - the 300GT Europa (@tsarchasm) with 3.94m³ prior to any modifiers. However, the layout of that oddly sensible and sensibly odd late-50s sled is a lot cleaner. The DDS, on the other hand, commits just about every sin of modern smaller-wagon styling, mostly in the name of looks: short and highly-sloped cargo area (-1.5), rear windows that look like they can’t open more than a hands’ width (-1.0), and I wasn’t sure where else to mention an automatic PRNDL shifter for the manual gearbox (-0.5), so it may as well go here where it won’t affect the car’s position anyway.
Honorable mention: Novalina Novalina 626 GT4 wagon by Carrosserie Marin by @mart1n2005 (8.35)
isn’t huge (4.35m³), but apart from committing no meaningful ergonomic sins (the inside door handles would be rather awkward to use, but I don’t think this level of scrutiny was expected, so I’ll let it go), this one also features a full-length center console for four-passenger comfort (+1 in addition to the usual +3 bonus). Good stuff!
So… let’s talk about standings. Eren’s comment previously, that cars tend to work their way to the top by being all-arounders more than dominating any one stat… ends up being mostly true. Not so much out of intention on my part (tho it is a sensible approach), but out of the same je-n-sais-quoi inner workings of this bit o’ voodoo… or something. –hic–
While the peacocks at the top and bottom loudly bicker over who’s got the brightest arse, none of them seem to notice the deceptively innocuous Ilaris sneaking ahead to P1. And now it, in turn, spreads its plumage (hopefully in something other than the Australian Greeting Position…) for all to behold. It’s not roosting yet - the biggest deciders are yet to come and I’m doing my damndest not to spoil anything, be it surprising or not - but dropping its first category win in our first 10-pointer category only highlights how far it managed to get with a P2 or 3 here and there.
Errors? Yuuuhhh… blame Carlo (but let me know). A lot of wine was and continues to be involved. Cheers!
–
7 Likes
Dang it, I usually remember to include a fixed window divider on the rear side window and of course manage to forget it in the one challenge where it actually matters. Oh well. At least the scoring came with what is certainly the most detailed analysis of second row window geometry I have ever read! 
1 Like
IIRC the C-pillar angle was not adjustable on that body, annoying me as much as you.