CSR 162 - Round 2 - Part 1
After narrowing down his search by a fair bit the other day, Tim opens his laptop to start going over some more potential candidates...
First up today is the AMS Antares, with Tim browsing AMS’s website and scanning through some reviews...
Reading around, Tim found that most of the reviewers found that the design was too simple, particularly at its $40,000 MSRP, and pointed out that other cars were sportier and easier to drive for less money. A long term test of the Antares revealed that it was fairly reliable and annual servicing costs were reasonable, but could be expensive at the fuel pump over time. Ultimately, Tim decided that there were better options than the Antares, and moved on.
End Result - Eliminated. While a totally fine car, the design is too simple overall despite being reasonably period correct, engineering is largely fine, however it’s fairly easily outclassed by other, more affordable entries, particularly when it comes to drivability and sportiness - that said, in most other stats, it’s either right at or above average. All around solid, you just got edged out.
Continuing on, Tim loaded up some information about the Accurate SC370...
Reading on, Tim found that many reviews didn’t love the wing and two-tone paint, which they felt cheapened the design. Looking beyond that, reviewers remarked that the SC370 was very sporty to drive, but not as easy to drive or nice to live with as some of its competitors. A long term test revealed that while not entirely trouble free, it was still very reliable during the time they had it in their fleet, with moderate annual service costs to boot. That same test also remarked that ride comfort wasn’t the best for long trips, but acceptable for day-to-day driving. Much like he did with the Antares, Tim decided that the Accurate wasn’t the right choice for him, and scrolled on.
End Result - Eliminated. Much like the Antares, you just got edged out by better cars. Sportiness was above average, service costs were below average, but it was below average in the remaining three star stats, comfort and reliability were below average as well. The design was fine, but Kyorg and I both agreed that the wing and the two-tone cheapened the design somewhat, and made it seem more tuner-y than we would have liked. All around fine, just bested at the end of the day.
Opening another tab, Tim loaded up some information on the Frampton FurnACE...
Reading on, Tim went through a few articles on the FurnACE. Looking through a review by Driven Magazine, Tim found that the FurnACE, while reasonably sporty to drive, wasn’t always the most pleasant to drive regularly, and that it wasn’t particularly comfortable either. Another review also stated that the FurnACE didn’t feel as nice as its $39,500 MSRP suggested. Design was divisive, some writers liked the design and appreciated its quirks, while other writers preferred other cars over it. Not feeling swayed by the FurnACE, Tim closed it out.
End Result - Eliminated. Design was a little divisive, I personally didn’t love it and found the front to be a little narrow and squished, the moderately inset wheels made it look kinda soft for a sports car, and so on. However, Kyorg was more complimentary, commenting that he liked the the front fascia and thought the rear end did a good job at hiding the inherent shape of the body, but pointed out that the body choice wasn’t particularly well suited for the mid-2000s; instead, it looked more like a 2015 car with 2005 features. Engineering was a mixed bag, with above average sportiness/safety and below average service costs, however in the rest of the three star priority stats it’s below average by a fair amount, and comfort is among the lowest of the semi-finalists. Not a bad entry, but just out of step with the competition.
Next up on Tim’s list was the Revuelto Castanya...
Reading a review in this month’s copy of Driven Magazine, Tim read “...While the Castanya isn’t our favorite design in this segment, we do like how easy it is to drive, and at $33,000 as tested, the materials all feel very high quality and well made. However, it doesn’t feel as sporty as some of its competition, and performance is on the lower end of cars in this segment we’ve tested, with a recorded 5.4 second 0-60 time...” Tim did some more research, and found an owner’s forum - the Castanya has been very reliable, with little to no issues encountered so far. He also read that while nothing seems to go too terribly wrong, if something goes wrong, it’s on the expensive end of things to fix. Not convinced, Tim moved on to the next car in his list.
End Result - Eliminated. A decently well engineered entry, with above average drivability and reliability. Prestige is good considering its significantly below average price, but is still well below average compared to other entries. Comfort is fine if average, sportiness is below average, and it’s not particularly competitive from a performance standpoint. Design was alright, but the lighting elements across the board are too large, the front lacks some polish, and overall was collectively one of Kyorg and I’s less favorite designs. Generally not a bad car, just flawed.
Next up, Tim decided to compare three very similar cars; the Crowley Scythia, BSC Colt and the Hoffsman Blythe...
Comparing these three cars, Tim found that they were very similar in terms of idea, but each had distinct advantages and disadvantages. Starting with the BSC, Tim found that the design was the least favorite among many reviewers, something he agreed with, and also found that it was the only one with a V8 - a small, 3.0L naturally aspirated unit making just 305 horsepower, compared to the Scythia and the Blythe, which both use 4.0L naturally aspirated inline-6 engines, making 402 and 346 horsepower respectively. The BSC wasn’t as sporty as the Scythia or the Blythe, which reviewers found drove very similarly, but the BSC wasn’t as easy to drive as its competition. The BSC was the nicest of the three, with better materials and sound deadening, which also made it the most comfortable of the three. The BSC was a little more reliable in a long term test, but the Scythia and Blythe were equally reliable long term. The Scythia was the most affordable at $36,000, and the Blythe was the most expensive at $39,900, with the BSC between both at $39,100. Thinking it over a bit more, Tim came to a final decision.
End Result - Eliminated. The BSC was the first to go - statistically it was well behind both the Scythia and the Blythe in most areas besides reliability and prestige, and Kyorg and I agreed that it was our least favorite looking out of the three. When it comes to the Scythia, it was a very close race between it and the Blythe, with both nearly matching each other statistically in almost every category, with the Scythia having the advantage of slightly higher prestige, better reliability, as well as being cheaper to buy and service. However, Kyorg and I both agreed that it wasn’t as good of a design as the Blythe, feeling too derivative in comparison, and that ultimately influenced our final opinion. Solid cars, both, but one simply did the TVR angle better.
End Result - Finalist. Like I mentioned above, the Blythe and Scythia were exceptionally close statstically speaking, with the Blythe having marginally higher drivability but nearly equal scores in the rest of the three star stats. Reliabilty was the lowest of the three but still good overall. It’s both more expensive to buy and more expensive to service than the BSC or the Scythia, but what it really came down to was design. Kyorg and I agreed that the Blythe felt the most unique, and more successfully pulled off the TVR angle, which clinched it a spot in the finals.
Following his little comparison test, Tim moved to the Volaro Verlyn...
Reading through a few different reviews of the Verlyn, Tim saw that it received praise for how well it drove and for being moderately sporty; a long term test also praised the build quality and reliability of the Verlyn, remarking that it was very affordable to service. However, complaints were leveled against the $39,900 MSRP, pointing out that more affordable cars do what it can equally as good or better, and against the design, with particular criticism leveled at the proportioning of the front and rear fascias, as well as some of the details feeling unnecessary. Unconvinced by the Volaro, Tim struck it from his shortlist.
End Result - Elimination. The Verlyn is overall a solid car, with Kyorg and I generally liking the design, but we felt that the front elements were too close together, and the rear elements were too far apart. We also thought design elements like the C-pillar detailing and the reflector design were kind of odd, and didn’t do much for the design. Engineering was good, scoring at or above average in many of the objective categories, but being just 100 dollars under the price limit, cheaper and more interesting looking cars outclass it. Not a bad effort, just bested at the end of the day.
Moving off the Verlyn, Tim searched up some information on the Valheimmer S6...
Reading a review in the August 2005 issue of Driven Magazine, Tim scanned through the article, his eyes falling onto the next line -“...the S6 is a sharp-looking machine, with aggressive and well-defined surfacing, but we felt that the taillights are just a tad too low visually, and some of us weren’t huge fans of the simplicity of the side air duct. On the road, the Valheimmer is very easy to drive and reasonably sporty, but we reached the limits of its grip fairly easily, at least compared to some of its rivals. Material quality and the materials chosen all feel very nice and high quality, and feel well assembled. In conclusion, the S6 is a very competent sports coupe, with just minor flaws when compared to rival cars...”
End Result - Finalist. Kyorg and I liked the design of the S6 overall, finding it very clean and well executed from a cohesion standpoint, but we found the side air duct just a bit simple but still fitting with the rest of the design, and thought the taillights are just a bit low. Engineering is solid, with high average to above average scores in all of the objective categories, but performance and cornering grip lag slightly behind average. Purchase price is slightly above average, as are service costs, but the difference is fairly minimal, and considering how well it does otherwise, we can overlook those minor flaws.
Continuing on through his list, Tim loaded up some information on the Mancini Coutura...
Glancing through a few different articles, Tim found that the Mancini wasn’t as sporty to drive as some of the competition, but it was very comfortable, easy to drive, and made for a very nice place to spend time. Some complaints were directed at the design, remarking that it looked better in pictures than it did in person, particularly from the front. Performance was good too, but not quite as fast as some of the other options out there. Some outlets predict reliability to be very good, but somewhat expensive to service should something go wrong, and mention that the $38,000 MSRP was very reasonable for all that you get. Tim ultimately decided that the Coutura wasn’t quite what he was looking for, and moved to the next car.
End Result - Eliminated. Overall a pretty good entry engineering wise, but sportiness was well below average, with most other stats at or above average. Service costs and purchase price were slightly below average as well. However, the biggest issue was the design. While very nice to look at from a rear 3/4 angle, prominently featured in your own ad, the rest of the design falls flat, with a front that’s kinda empty and awkward to look at, a rear that doesn’t make great use of the space it occupies, and a wheel package that doesn’t fit inside the arches very well. Had the design been better, and sportiness higher, this could have gone further.
Next up on Tim’s list - the Montiel Torrige...
Reading a long-term test of the Torrige, Tim started following the next line - “...In the last year that we’ve spent with the Torrige, we’ve had nary a complaint with it as a car; it’s easy to drive even on the worst of days, very sporty, and all of the materials have stayed together and feel exceptionally well built, even now at the end of our test. Reliability has also been very good, with only two unscheduled maintenance stops over the last year; service costs have also been very reasonable, below average when compared to other sports cars that we’ve tested long term, at just $1,719 annually. If we had any complaints with the Torrige, it would primarily be towards the design, with some testers not huge fans of the front fascia, looking a bit catfish-like. Some also pointed out some more minor flaws, like the square surround for the circular exhaust tips looking somewhat odd, but the rear was generally well liked, as was the sweeping beltline across the side of the car. Overall we would recommend the Torrige, depending on how you feel about the design...”
@vouge and @Tsundere-kun
End Result - Finalist. Kyorg and I generally liked the design, but the front is a little awkward with the front grille being reminiscent of a catfish, and littler details like the exhaust tip surround being square when you have a round exhaust tip just come off as strange. That being said, we liked the rear, and the side profile. Engineering is good overall, but it’s borderline too quick for the era. The three star stats are all above average, reliability is the best in the entire competition (and borderline unnecessary but alas). Overall, the Torrige is a very good entry, and earns a spot in the finals easily.
Clicking away from the Torrige, Tim looked up the Ventus Kingsman...
Reading up on the Ventus, Tim found praise for how equally at home it felt in everyday driving and up in the twisties; build quality and materials were also praised, but much like the Volaro, at $40,000, the Ventus is bested by cheaper cars. Some complaints were also leveled at the design, with some reviewers finding it too simple and not as exciting as some of its rivals. General consensus surrounding the Kingsman seem to point to it being a good car - but not the right car for Tim.
End Result - Elimination. Kyorg and I liked the Kingsman’s design for the most part, but felt that it seems too toned down and simple, particularly against other cars in this round. Despite that, it’s still a good core design, and makes for a good stepping stone to bigger and better designs. Engineering was mostly fine as well, scoring at or above average in many of the objective categories; however, SVC is below average but still on the higher end, and purchase price is right on the maximum cap. Far from the worst entry, but in this field of cars, it just doesn’t do enough to stand out from either an engineering or a design standpoint.
Next on Tim’s list is the Lumiere Betelgeuse...
Reading some reviews of the Betelgeuse, many reviewers were divided on the design, with some liking the star-shaped grille up front, but others feeling it looks kind of strange in conjunction with the doubled up headlights. There was universal disdain for the rear, with many feeling that the shaped used on it fight one another, with the very angular shaped taillights fighting the squareness of the rear. Some pointed out that the diffuser area looked a bit too futuristic, and the way the exhausts and rear reflectors poked out was awkward to look at. When it came to driving, across the board it was found to be very easy to drive while still being sporty, ride comfort was good, and it felt decently nice to live with considering its $40,000 MSRP. A long term test also revealed that it wasn’t the most reliable, and at $1970 for annual maintenance costs, it wasn’t cheap to fix when something went wrong either. Not convinced by the Betelgeuse, Tim moved on to his next car on his list.
End Result - Eliminated. Let’s start with the good - Drivability, comfort and sportiness are all very good, prestige is slightly above average, and despite some of the issues Kyorg and I had with the design, we generally liked the way it looked. Now for the bad - Reliability was slightly below average, service costs were above average, and it’s right at the maximum budget, and we still had issues with the design, particularly centered around the rear, with shapes that fought one another, a diffuser that looks arguably too modern and exhausts/reflectors that poke out weirdly. I saw you get upset because you didn’t think you’d measure up after seeing other people’s cars, but; until the last 10 days or so submissions were open, you were actually the highest scoring car overall. Don’t let one car completely shake your confidence, it’s never that deep, and it’s never as bad as you think it’s going to be.
Coming up on the shortlist, the Walther 212 Evolution...
Reading up on the 212, Tim found significant praise for how easy it is to drive, and how sporty it feels. Build quality and materials were also well received, and a long term test praised the 212’s reliability and reasonable annual service costs. The biggest issue with the 212, according to the reviews Tim read, was that it felt messy and discordant, with an overly busy and clashing rear, a side intake that doesn’t look particularly flattering, and a front that just looks boring, with a silver bar that gives it a bit of a brace face. Disappointed, Tim struck the 212 from his shortlist.
End Result - Elimination. Engineering is the core reason the Walther made it as far as it has, and isn’t why it loses either. It scores very well overall, placing above average in all of the objective categories. If there was any particular flaw on the engineering side of things, it’s simply that it’s a hair expensive. Design, however, is the biggest flaw with the Walther, feeling too much like a replica, and overall the design lacks thought or cohesion, with a side profile marred by a singular intake fixture that doesn’t look good or intentionally placed, a weird and discordant rear design that fights with itself, and a front design that’s just too simple and doesn’t bring the design up at all. There are some smaller details that don’t help it along, like the reverse diamond cut wheels, and the multiple vents arranged on the very corners of the rear. You got caught up trying to show us what you can do, without thinking about if you should’ve done any of what you did; as a result, you get in your own way. Stop trying to do everything all at once - because what we have here feels overwrought and underthought.
Scrolling away from the Walther, Tim loaded up some info on the Tioro Tanaro...
Reading through a few different reviews on the Tanaro, Tim’s eyes focused on a long-term review in the June 2005 issue of Driven Magazine - “...Over the last year we’ve spent with the Tanaro, we’ve largely enjoyed the experience - It’s been fairly easy to drive (some of the competition is better in this regard, however), properly sporty; but at the cost of some ride comfort. Reliability has been very good, but annual service costs in our testing were moderately high, at $1,979 over the last year. Design was a favorite among our testers, but some complaints were leveled at the LED rings in the headlights, and a rear that looks just a little flat. Despite that, it still was one of our best looking testers over the past year...” Convinced, Tim added the Tioro to his test drives.
@iivansmith and @Oreology
End Result - Finalist. Design was an easy favorite, the only weak spots being the slightly modern LED indicator rings in the headlights, and a rear that could have used a bit more prominent of a bumper. Engineering was solid for the most part, with above average scores in many of the objective categories; however drivability and comfort were slightly below average, and safety was just average. Other weak spots are few - it’s right on the price cap, and service costs are slightly above average. Overall a very good entry, with minimal flaws that don’t add up enough to keep it out of the finals.
Up next on Tim’s list - the Zephorus Revenant...
Next up was the Zephorus Revenant, in 4R trim. Reviews liked how easy to drive it was, how sporty it felt, and how nice the materials and touch surfaces were. However, some reviewers remarked that it simply felt too firm and sporty for an everyday vehicle. Reliability was good in a long term test, but at $2679 in annual service costs, it was very expensive to repair should something go wrong. There were also complaints directed at the design, with the two tone and large wing making it feel more tuning house like, rather than a factory design. Not in love with the Zephorus, Tim decided to move to the next car on his list.
End Result - Eliminated. If I take this out of the context of the challenge, it’s a tremendously good car, and even inside the scope of the challenge, it scores very well in many of the objective stats, but it’s borderline too fast, service costs are among the highest in the entire competition, and fuel economy isn’t the best either. The bigger issue for Kyorg and I is the design, which we both agreed looks too tuner-y for the challenge, and simply beyond the scope of what we actually wanted people to make. Not a bad car by any stretch of the imagination, just not the right car for the challenge.
Next up on Tim’s shortlist after the Zephorus - the Bushido SL Fuji R...
Reading through a January 2005 comparison test featuring the SL Fuji R, Tim’s eyes fell to the next line - “...Overall we find little wrong with the Fuji R; the aggressive and modern design was unanimously a favorite among our testing group, but some would have liked just a hair less flake in the paint, and found the exhaust tips to be a hair small. Driving impressions were also very positive, with testers finding it very competent to drive normally but still willing to let loose and have fun, all without sacrificing ride comfort too terribly much. Materials and build quality were highly praised, feeling expensive to touch and solidly put together; impressive for the Fuji R’s $38,600 MSRP.” Impressed, Tim decided to add the Bushido to his test drive queue.
End Result - Finalist. Kyorg and I both really enjoyed the design, with only minor flaws - a bit too much flake in the paint, small-ish exhaust tips, and personally I didn’t love the body color trim on the wheels; However, it hits all of the marks we wanted, looking sharp and elegant but still of the era. Engineering was similarly good, with competitive performance stats and above average scores in all of the objective stats; however, price and service costs, while far from the most expensive, were slightly above average. Overall a solid, very near flawless entry worthy of its spot in the finals.
Next up on Tim’s list - the Yagihara XGT...
Reading a long term review in the March 2005 issue of Driven Magazine, Tim’s eyes fell to the following line - “...while we all loved the XGT’s styling, it wasn’t very cooperative to drive despite feeling relatively sporty, and several of our testers found that it didn’t ride very nicely on longer trips, but that everything felt high quality and well assembled. Good news, however, is that our XGT was very reliable over the last year, but our yearly maintenance costs came out to a fairly high $2,523. Overall we enjoyed the XGT, but it needs a deft hand to drive and live with comfortably...” With mild disappointment, Tim moved on from the XGT.
End Result - Eliminated. The XGT was unanimously one of Kyorg and I’s favorite designs, with Kyorg even going as far to say that if he didn’t know any better, he wouldn’t know what body you used, and he made the body. I really enjoyed the two tone, the front and rear fascias were great if just a hair too modern, and overall just made for a great looking entry. What really stabbed you in the back, however, was engineering. It’s way too fast for the era (being the fastest accelerating car in the entire competition), drivability was one of the lowest out of all the cars submitted, and what’s most disappointing about that is that you could have very easily fixed it with just a little bit of toe. It would have had minor impacts on your other stats, which with the exception of service costs, were generally all very good. You kinda dismissed yourself in your ad, thinking that you were gonna get taken out earlier than you did, but really you had no reason to. Don’t automatically discount yourself because it didn’t all go to plan - it’s okay if it’s imperfect. Really a strong effort - take what you’ve learned here and I don’t see why you couldn’t go further in another challenge.
Next up on Tim’s list - the Tristella Crecerelle...
Reading through some reviews of the Crecerelle, Tim found that it’s very easy to drive while still feeling sporty, it feels exceptionally nice despite its $36,600 MSRP. Comfort is good, projected reliability is expected to be very good, but safety isn’t as good as some of the competition. The design was unanimously regarded as very good, with reviewers directing particular praise towards the front end, but some felt that, while still very good, the rear feels just a little basic in comparison. Intrigued, Tim added it to his shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. Another design Kyorg and I unanimously agreed was one of our favorites, looking exceptionally clean and deceptively simple, especially considering you used one of the worst bodies in the game. If I could find any flaws (and this is a personal complaint), I feel that the rear is just a tad simple in comparison to the front. Still a great design, with a great attention to detail. Engineering is solid too, with great scores in all of the objective categories, the price is great, and if there were any weak spots, it would be safety, which is slightly below average, and service costs, which are below average but still towards the higher end. Overall a great entry.
Coming up next after the Crecerelle on Tim’s list, the Kaizen FC32...
Reading up on the Kaizen, Tim found a blurb from a March 2005 review by Driven Magazine, his eyes falling to the next line - “...the Kaizen FC32 is a good car - it does everything it sets out to do with relative ease and focus, but when you start comparing it to actual sports cars, it starts to pale in comparison. We enjoy the design, but we’d like a greater departure from the FC sedan’s styling, and while we liked how it drove normally, it was resistant to being pushed, reaching the limits of its grip far too early, and well before it would let you have any fun. By no means is the FC32 a bad car, it just isn’t the sports car we would have liked it to be...”
End Result - Elimination. While there’s nothing explicitly wrong with the FC32, it feels out of step with the other cars in this round. Design is good and is one of the FC32’s saving graces, but some of the surfacing is a hair rough and could be adjusted. Engineering is overall good as I would expect from you, but sportiness is the lowest in the entire semi-finals, it isn’t very fast, nor does it grip as well as other cars, having the second lowest 20m cornering grip in the entire competition. The other stats are good, and with a different brief this would likely be a better contender; here, however, it just doesn’t match up.
Flipping to the next page of his list, Tim started researching some information up on the Sendo Friesia...
Reading a first drive review of the Friesia from the December 2004 issue of Driven Magazine, Tim’s eyes fell to the following line - “...Despite being a pre-production US specification model, the Friesia feels exceptionally well-built, with thoroughly high quality materials adorning every inch of the Sendo. Driving is another strong point, with the Friesia’s 8-speed gearbox feeling exceptionally smooth and well-matched to the V10 powerplant; however, we don’t find it quite as sporty as some of the cars it plans to compete with. Ride comfort is solid as well, something we’ve come to expect from Sendos of yore. If this is how good the future feels, even before it’s finalized - we like what we’ve seen...” Intrigued, Tim added the Sendo to his test drives.
@Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs, @Portalkat42, and @SpeedyBoi
End Result - Finalist. A tremendously well designed car, with meticulous, borderline sociopathic attention to detail throughout. While I know it was the intention, I do find it just a bit too modern, but that’s neither bad nor good. Engineering is solid for the most part, scoring above average in many of the objective categories, but sportiness and reliability are somewhat below average. Purchase price and service costs were also above average; fuel economy was below average as well. Despite all of that, the flaws don’t outweigh the positives, making it an easy shoe-in for the finals.
Continued in Part 2
