Copying the Mustang of the time I guess didn’t work out, hatch and 4 on the floor, with a chevvy LB9 (85-92) engine. It has all those things listed as “unrealistic” so I won’t complain but I will say that fairly big brands had them. Cool review, cool way of doing it. Good luck to the rest of the participants!
2 Likes
We’ve worked out most of this on Discord, but just to clarify: I am listing the 4-speed as a drawback, not as something unrealistic, along with stuff like the unprotected chassis. That said, 4-speed manuals on the Mustang GT disappeared early in its run, persisting only on 4cyl models through '86.
And come on, we both know full well that a 5-door liftback and a 3-door almost-coupe are different animals 
4 Likes
Awww fishsticks… 's what I get for bothering with fuel economy while restricting myself to what I thought would be well within your mechanical realism comfort zone. Otherwise I’d’ve pulled a big flat six and AWD, with likely a different outcome.
Stripped-out toy? With a premium interior?
As for price, to blame is mostly the CD player. Who else had one?
Defining the styling realism borders for me was stuff like this…
1987 Stutz Blackhawk
1982 Excalibur
4 Likes
in the '80s? in america? i doubt if anyone has one.
2 Likes
CD players in 1987 were very new, and not a realistic option for most cars back then.
I think the 1987 Town Car was the first car to offer one, so yes, very new.
My oh my, i got into the finals this time! The boxer 6 in front turned out to be a pretty fricking good deal for weight distribution, and going back to basics with the engineering helped too…but i didn’t expect beating a 407 c.i.d. demon from hell in a drag race! Thanks for the ispiration for the engine, mr Subaru…
Now the question is: how much will my boomer taste in car aesthetics screw me up for the next round? I think my car is still quite the looker, but i might have overlooked how much “eye-catch” is important for a 20-year-old rockstar…
2 Likes
My first “published” V8 in a long line of flat-sixes smirks ironically and tips its hat sincerely to your Matsumoto. See you on the Wangan Expressway in JOC4, perhaps?
As a fellow boxer enjoyer, i pay my respects to your Nightslayer, it’s honestly a very cool and well done retro design that deserves a lot of praise!
We’ll see if I’ll find the time to put in an effort towards JOC4 as i’m kinda busy rn, but if i’ll find the time, we will surely meet on the Wangan.
ROUND 2-2: BORN TO BE WILD
The Bunker, September 26, 7 AM
Ruinous Revolt had a Thursday gig yesterday. This is one of the reasons they really want to move up in the world: If you do, you no longer /have/ to do any weekdays with their low attendances and half-dead crowds of savvy nerds to make ends meet. Still, at least band members can usually sleep in… Unless you’re Rob, who, after passing out on the Bunker’s couch, is woken up mercilessly by David.
Rob: What the hell are you doing?
David: That rerun’s up in like an hour.
Rob: So why are you waking me up now? I swear, one of those days I’m just gonna up and murder you.
David: It’s a good habit. What’s more, I actually found a car magazine that isn’t all bullshit, and it’s got a whole piece on handling-oriented sports cars.
Rob: Well, that’s just peachy. You could’ve shown me after!
David: Yeah, I coulda. But you puked on my couch that one time.
Rob: That was two months ago, you psycho!
David: People don’t forget.
Rob: Whatever, I’ll be up in a minute. And if you don’t have a pot of coffee ready you’re a dead man.
Handling Comparison: Can You Sell a Corner?
The oil crisis has had a profound effect on the automotive industry. In the past, especially in this country, selling a car’s dynamic qualities involved dumping extra cubes into the engine compartment and watching the customer eagerly disappear into the horizon. However, now that ‘adding cubes’ is about as taboo as slugging a kitten right in its adorable face, the other three directions of movement are suddenly just as important. Big tire grip, smart differentials and suspension geometry all help with side-to-side movement, whereas all-around disc brakes and sometimes even ABS helps cars stop. But the real question is: Can any of those gimmicks excite people as much - and sell as well - as good ol’ fashioned go? In this comparison, we picked out 6 cars with nothing in common except advertised handling prowess and only two actually… habitable seats.
[Rob: So much for bringing all’a you along, huh.]
Pocono CS2300 @z2bbgr
The sports car from Pocono validates our assertion about changing standards: Even as one of two traditional-layout rear-drivers in this test, it has the proportions of a front-driver and a four-cylinder engine. Now, the engine in question is a 16-valve unit that makes 150 horsepower - which is what rival OHV engines of its size make with a turbo - but otherwise there’s nothing remarkable from the speed perspective. The problem is that while handling is the most positive thing about this car - with a well-regulated, neutral behavior that allows it to stay true and flat on any course - it’s unremarkable compared to the other cars in this test. Worse, the other parts of the car - such as interior comfort, fit and finish, running gear (the differential is open) et cetera - feel so cheap that we would expect to find them on a $9,000 car. The Pocono costs $13,900.
[Rob: I’m not feeling this article so far. You jostle me from a well-deserved rest to read about some nerds thrashing around in dressed-up shitboxes?
David: Yeah, the Pocono isn’t a good start. The problem with that outfit is that their factories are about as outdated as Elvis impersonators; even mediocrity doesn’t come cheap for 'em.]
(This entry is a non-binnable techpool error - meaning the distribution wasn’t against the rules, but it was… Well, it was the default “+2 everywhere” one. 45 techpool points down from everybody else, it’s no wonder that the car is the lowest-scoring in all of Round 2. The idea itself is something that could have been fun: A big yet still high-strung four cylinder in a rear-drive car. Kind of like an American AE86, perhaps.)
FMW Zukunft CR 4.1
The other traditional slugger in this test then, the FMW Zukunft, turns it up several notches. If the CS2300 was ‘fast enough’, the FMW - with its V8-fueled 5.9-second dash to 60 - is a bolt of lightning. And in terms of handling, it’s no worse: staggered sports tires coupled with an aggressive rear sway bar and front camber combine for razor-sharp handling, just controlled enough to be fun rather than scary - and with frightening skidpad figures. That being said, the double whammy of great straight-line speed and even better cornering couldn’t fully make us forget about the finicky “future” door mechanism, the comically blocky front end and the total lack of practicality. Plus, we’d venture to say that much of the handling that we’d come to admire on the flat track would be wasted on the road: the FMW’s ride is pretty remarkably harsh, meaning it’s harder to sense the road as you’re getting pummeled by it.
[David: Let me guess, you’re gonna get stuck on this one?
Rob: I mean, I would, but… It’s too uncanny. You got this pretty ol’ body everywhere and then it just stops in a front clip that only a mother would love, if that mother was a brick. And the father’s probably a Volvo, too.
David: Well, there’s a relief. Here I thought I’d have to shout at you to get across the fact that the doors and roof are both failure-prone, and that you’d not see your car for months trying to get them fixed.]
(Full disclosure: The FMW possesses the best overall performance score in the competition. that is doubly impressive when you realize this is a convertible. However, the cool factor of the car is spoiled somewhat by the already twice-mentioned nose, whereas my generosity towards it was wiped out when I saw that it, despite supposedly being a “car from the future” with BMW Z1-style sliding rear doors, has a detachable soft top roof, chosen no doubt to try and get a boost in stats. The stats themselves, especially reliability, are unremarkable enough that even without stirring up my displeasure, the car’s performance has to work really hard to justify it.)
Hakaru Solexa III 1600 ZZ-R @Executive
The Hakaru Solexa is the only front-driver in this test, and that has implications. The most important implication being that, despite having the form-factor and even the rear-seat cramp of a sports coupe, it’s based around a platform meant for practical city cars. The engine, a small 120-hp inline-4, is also pretty much just an economy engine, albeit with the ZZ-R trim bringing in a high-compression head that takes advantage of premium fuel. And to be fair, small rear seats aside, the Solexa is genuinely good as a city car; more surprising is the fact that the suspension is wound tight enough for the front-heavy little rascal to actually corner. It takes downright unintelligent methods of corner entry to actually make it understeer, courtesy of the torque-sensing diff; more impressively, at higher speeds the Solexa’s rear end gets light enough that - helped by the large rear sway bar - you may actually force the unpowered rear axle to break traction. In fact, during deceleration this is almost expected, and aids in rotation. So, for a front-driver, it’s a wonderfully handling car, and - compared to the previous two - substantially cheaper; if only it had some more serious power.
[Rob: That thing gives me serious mixed feelings. It actually looks pretty damn mean, what with its stripes and skirts; but they really make it seem like it has no power at all.
David: It really doesn’t, and that’s a shame - it’s actually easier to make a front-driver accelerate than to make on handle. They tried it here, and the best it comes up with is decent cornering forces and some tail-outs that happen because it lifts a wheel.]
(A case of not enough sports in the sports package. If it were a bit louder, brasher, and with tires just 10mm wider, it would have an even better contender. The looks are good and the peripheral stats were too, but a performance deficit worth half the points in that scoring category is tough to overcome at the best of times. Another gripe (confusingly, in the opposite direction) that had the car dinged was the cosmetic use of aerodynamic fixtures, which ended up giving it positive downforce at both ends - something 80s supercars tended not to have, let alone compact mini-sports cars.)
Akari Chimera 1.8 GSi DuoTop @vero94773
The Hakaru’s real problem is the existence of cars such as the similarly-branded Akari Chimera. One of the several recent mid-engined compact sports cars, it touts city-car economy - though definitely not practicality - combined with almost club race-like handling. It carries over many of the virtues found in its front-drive countryman: helical torque-sensing differential, high-compression 4-cylinder engine (though in this case, a 1.8 liter unit which actually extracts a more substantial 140 horsepower), and great nimbleness. Like the FMW but unlike the other two cars mentioned so far, this one came equipped with the technological flex of ABS - which also brought it in line with the price of the FMW. Compared to the big V8 convertible, it’s not as fast or ferocious, but at 6.4s to 60 and a 14-second range quarter mile, it’s hardly slow; and unlike the Zukunft, which stands on the edge of being controllable enough, the Akari is accessible and controllable. More importantly still, it is tremendously well-built.
[Rob: Well, that basically answers my dilemma on the previous car. Or are you gonna tell me I can’t afford to service this one either?
David: Nah, this one’s fine. It’s still a mid-engined car - and one that doesn’t look as much a million bucks as did the Hinode - but it will save you or your service guy a lot of man-hours when there’s no turbo clogging up the engine bay.]
(This one is very period-correct, it’s very sporty, it’s very reliable - the advantages just pile up, and altogether this mirrors the way in which the MR2 in the 1980s was a much more compelling driver’s car in comparison to a sporty Corolla when that went front-drive. If there’s one complaint, it’s that the front of the car looks a bit new and honestly a bit bland compared to the rest of it - the temptation to avoid just having pop-ups here is understandable, but it didn’t pay off.)
KMA KX4 1.6 Coupe @abg7
The Chimera has an adversary of its own: the more ferocious-looking KMA KX4. In terms of power solutions, the KX4 is the madder one, screaming out 5 more horsepower out of a smaller engine by way of such power adders as individual throttle bodies, long headers and extremely high-life camshafts. Though these all should make the engine sound very good, KMA decided on muffling it well so as to not be too tiring to the ear. How unfortunate, then, that at highway speeds the short gearing ensures the car yells at you in a language called "3500 RPM drone " - and cannot, in fact, idle at much lower than 1500. But enough about the irrational powertrain; the KX4 just… handles. Perhaps somewhat scarier than the Akari, it is also measurably grippier and more taut, and will beat the other car on a track nine times out of ten. It’ll look showier while doing it, too. However, it’s just… That much less pleasant.
[David: So, what’s your take on this thing?
Rob: Well, it does look a lot meaner than the Akari. And it also sounds like a real pain in the ass - though the author mighta laid it on a bit thick.
David: That probably means he drove it and it seriously got on his nerves. Drony gearing in a car that’s too muffled to sound as good as it should… Worst of both worlds, if you ask me.]
(This is your brain on pure performance. No other car left in the competition even uses longtubes - or idles this nauseatingly high. In terms of handling score, though, it is pretty much peerless. Looks - like the characters have said - very mean, if a bit play-doh-ish.)
Midlands Cygnus GX @Portalkat42
If you’re the kind of person who just wants to stand out, though, the KMA pales in comparison to the Midlands Cygnus. Its engine is behind the rear wheels, and it powers all of them with a full-time, viscous-coupled system - a result of the entire model line being derived from all-out rally cars. This particular Cygnus is motivated by a European quad-cam V6 pushing out 160 horsepower. Though light compared to the V8 Zukunft, the Cygnus’ unusual drive makes it the second-heaviest car in the test - and compared to the mid-engined ones and the hot German, it is slower. It’s a true 2-seater, though a hatchback rear means decent cargo space if you don’t mind your groceries cooked before you get home (that said, there’s also a front compartment). the Midlands is a very graceful performer: Its wide tires and the four-wheel-drive system serve to equalize the load on all tires despite the rear-drive weight distribution, ensuring neutral - at times even slightly understeery - handling. The car is grippy despite not having the most aggressive tire compound, but suffers from a peculiar tuning flaw: Following a bump, the car tends to rock back and forth, the ends refusing to sync up. The fit and finish is good, if not necessarily stellar.
[Rob: You know, it’s strange. For all of the praise the reviewer’s giving the car, he doesn’t sound all that excited about it.
David: Maybe excitement isn’t all you can find in a car. It’s very much my type - intelligent. I do worry about maintaining that fancy drive, though.]
(This car certainly delivers in terms of proving that there’s a spot for a rear-engined car in this niche - and perhaps 80s motoring in general - the near-super 911 aside. It’s not as sporty as the mid-engined twins, but arguably better-looking and very detailed, and it does get to a higher top speed. That said, it is both less reliable and more costly to service than both, and while I appreciate the “solution” to the practicality question, let’s be honest, that placement of the interior floor above the engine is extremely tight. You would have had a metal door and then a carpet there, with a gap similar to one in a front-engine car’s hood. Overall, this car’s a good effort.)
Our staff didn’t hesitate to discard the outlier Pocono - which was both unremarkable and expensive - but the rest were a more difficult matter. The Zukunft is a terrifying performer, but it is somewhat outdone in pure handling by the somewhat less problematic KX4 - with the absolutely rock-solid yet still fun Akari Chimera agonizingly close behind. The Solexa, meanwhile, didn’t measure up in any sort of performance capacity, but we were still drawn to it due to what it could do while also presenting as a perfectly cromulent city car. The Cygnet, despite its blood-and-guts rally origins, actually had a similar effect, if one closer to the performance cars on the scale of sense vs sensation.
Of those latter five, each is a worthy choice, but that was not the point of this exercise. We wanted to answer a question: Is handling a selling point now? Can you make people spend money - or sacrifice creature comforts - for handling? Well, the answer is: It depends. Despite the KX4 and Zukunft scoring the best on handling prowess, few of us actually gravitated towards them - but on the other hand, if we were asked to choose between the Solexa and the Chimera, most of us would go for the Chimera. The difference? In the latter case, while we were giving up a fair amount of usability, we were not giving up a sense of solidity and trustworthiness in the car. Thus, our verdict is as such: You can sell a car on handling, if you don’t tie a whole bunch of issues to it.
Rob: Well, that was some overly-philosophical crap.
David: I’ll admit, this article is weird to read. Almost like the writer came up with a theme for the review, lost the plot, then tried to tie it up at the end. Doesn’t matter much, though; what did you get out of it?
Rob: Well, they’re probably right about the Pocono - and about the whole Solexa/Chimera thing. If I can get a good front-engined car or a good mid-engined car for similar prices, I know what I’m going for.
David: What about the Cygnet?
Rob: It’s pretty tempting, but I also can’t say I’m that impressed with what they say it offers. Yeah, it’s graceful. Yeah, it’s not slow. Yeah, maybe if you’re smart you can stuff a bunch of your things into it. In the end it’s just… Less impressive than a Chimera. Also less impressive than the KX4 and the pug-nose, but like the guy in the magazine said: they’re jank.
David: And here I thought I could have you driving the smartest sporty car there is.
Rob: You’re richer than I am, go get one yourself. I want the fun first and the nerding-out never.
FINALISTS FROM ROUND 2-2:
you are alone
17 Likes
I definitely could’ve raised it a bit, though sadly automation doesn’t really simulate well the amount of carpeting that would be in a typical '80s machine. I did at least model the access door though. It fits in ver nicely with how the vw type 3 has its rear engine access.
3 Likes
Frankly, I’m surprised that my 3/4-scale Testarossa powered by what is essentially a detuned 3/4-scale Super Touring engine from a few years later made it this far. I could have stuck a 2.0L I4 with tubular mid headers and a single throttle body in its engine compartment instead for a more street-friendly build - but in doing so, I would have sacrificed some of its racecar-like feel. It would have been more economical, though, and easier to drive, in addition to costing $500 less upfront.
Hmm, a bit surprised that my entry wasn’t included here since it feels somewhat similar to the Hakaru concept wise…but I guess it will be shown why later on.
The verdict for the FMW reminded of this piece of writing from the first cuts of CSR136 - both cars were built on curvaceous body sets, but the use of blocky, boxy 3D fixtures didn’t quite gel with their overall shapes:
And now that the misfits, speed freaks, and corner carvers (in that order) have been reviewed, I’m suspecting that the all-rounders (that strike a more even balance between straight-line performance and handling prowess) will be the next cars to come under the spotlight.
I was not expecting to still be getting quoted on that round after all this time. Must have actually been an entertaining story somehow.
2 Likes
The Bunker, September 26, 8 AM
After coffee and a round of nasty 2-day-old fridge pizza, a still vaguely groggy Rob is escorted to the TV. After some frantic work with disconnecting Luke’s god-damned NES, the two just about make it in time for the MotorMouth re-run.
Rob: This had better be worth it. I still don’t know how feeling like shit way too early in the morning is good for me.
Hi, Dave Jameson here with MotorMouth 1987 - Your trusted automotive information TV show. On this episode, we compare seven brand-new compact cars with sporting characteristics that set them apart from their peers! We’re going to be looking at their worthiness both as family haulers and as… you-know-what haulers.
First up to bat is the tried and true Ariyan light coupe, the IP Pandora GTT (@Knugcab). This subcompact four-seater features bold styling with both a flat nose and a formal roof. The former helps visibility while the latter makes passenger headroom tolerable - though legroom is still a scarce commodity in the two rear seats. As the side of the car proudly proclaims, this is the turbocharged and intercooled model, with the overhead-cam 1.8 liter unit managing 136 horsepower. While it’s far from a powerhouse setup, it does have the benefit of a very easy-spooling turbo; combined with the Pandora’s low weight, we found it good enough for a 7-second 0-60 time and a 15.3 second quarter mile - very brisk. Ride and handling are also pleasing: the Pandora tracks confidently at all speeds, sometimes wishing to kick its tail out but never in too threatening a manner. The clutch-type differential lets the car avoid any and all sorts of undesirable low-traction behaviors. Braking was a particular treat: with the optional anti-lock brake feature, the car descended from 60 mph in just 120 feet totally absent any drama. Alongside ABS, the IP’s list of standard and optional equipment is very strong, with our test car including a premium sound system and hydraulic steering. Complaints were few; some of our editors weren’t into the styling, and some felt that a more sporty ride along with bigger and more aggressive tires would have elevated the fundamentally good chassis further. There were also minor gripes regarding fit and finish.
[David: You get all that?
Rob: Yeah, just about. It seems like a nice and thought-out car, but too much of a starter kinda thing. I’d rather something with more substance as opposed to trying to impress people with premium sound systems. I got a premium sound system at home!]
(The Pandora is a pretty good effort, but is neither particularly fast nor particularly sporty-handling - and it doesn’t offer up a serious, crushing advantage to counter that in any regard. I mean, it’s comfortable, sure, but it isn’t particularly beautiful, it’s still almost at the top of the budget, and it doesn’t even boast great reliability. Just a case of “needs more, and preferably for less”.)
Another similarly-sized subcompact is the Swanson 125GSC (@Ludvig). Offered in hatchback form in contrast to the traditional 2-door sedan proportions of the Pandora, the 125 comes with a big 2.5-liter flat-six. This is a familiar engine that has appeared in numerous Swansons this decade, but its inclusion in this bite-sized machine is unexpected - though pretty effective. If you can launch it, expect a quarter mile in 14.4 seconds. That’s firmly muscle car territory. Handling is similarly impressive: large-for-body tires, manual steering and a sporty suspension tuning all make sure the little hatch is fun to toss around, though one should note the short wheelbase’s vulnerability to oversteer just as with the Pandora. A torque-sensing differential compensates. Like the Pandora, the Swanson we drove came with optional ABS - meaning a short and sweet 112 ft stop from 60 mph. That all being said, the Swanson’s form factor means that while it can fit a similar amount of luggage to the Pandora, it’d have to do so in an inconvenient vertical squash. Other concerns include the looks - Swanson’s radical triangles-focused design language had many a detractor among our staff.
[Rob: I’m not on their staff, but I damn sure am a detractor. Look at this thing, it’s like a toddler wearing his dad’s overalls.
David: They’re capable cars, I know that for myself - but that pancake-six is one sick mother to work on, jammed between the strut towers and all.]
(Here’s another “full disclosure” sort of comment: if you subtract the visual design, realism and practicality scores from my scoreboard - with those three being my subjective “enter a number” scores - the Swanson would have been very much near the top. However, this car really isn’t good looking, with both the design direction and execution being eh - and it’s not realistic either, seeing how the rims are literally from the future and how this is literally a subcompact hatchback with a flat-six for no reason. A flat-six with 12:1 compression on regular fuel, no less. CSR154’s Swanson 225 was already “walking the top rope” with its short length and funky powertrain in 1980; this car - being newer, shorter, yet having a souped-up version of the same powertrain - has more of a “getting thrown off Hell in a Cell” vibe. Good effort, but tone down the cheesy madness.)
A side-effect of gathering all the sportiest compact cars was that we scooped up much more longitudinal-engine designs that one would think are still around - including two liftbacks with actual rear doors. It would be three, but the Arlington Airacruiser’s sporty version is still a year or two out at this time. Enough of unrelated cars, though; this is the Niichi Aquila (@MisterRocketMan), and it packs a technologically-advanced twin-cam four-cylinder with 156 horsepower. Even with the extra weight of a larger, four-door body, this means it can dispense with a 60-mph sprint in 7.4 seconds and be at the quarter in 15.5s - great numbers for a four-door. More surprising, though, is the fact that the Aquila is /that/ close to matching the smaller Swanson for sporty handling - despite being a significantly larger car on similarly-wide tires. Some of the handling precision is owed to the Niichi’s still-manual steering, which with the car’s almost 2600 lbs of weight is starting to feel out of place. The Aquila also stops in the same sure-footed manner thanks to its ABS system, taking just 114 ft to stop from 60 mph. The problems begin with the overall build quality - only okay, and downright subpar for Japan.And though a five-door, the Niichi’s wheelbase is just 3 inches larger than that of the Swanson and the IP - meaning that it still isn’t a passenger paradise. The carelessly-shaped and undersized rear seats in particular were a disappointment, with one of our staff quipping they “didn’t deserve doors”. On the other hand, the well-bolstered front leather seats and sound system were a cause for joy. The Aquila is geared short, which allows it to retain much of the alacrity expected in its segment, but also saps its fuel economy - something hardly helped by the high-life-cammed engine. Overall, this is is a very competent sports hatch - though your friends will thank you if you reserve the rear doors and seats for your children.
[Rob: For a four-door, I do like the way it looks.
David: For a four-door, it sure screws up at being a four-seater.
Rob: True… True. I do still like it, but… With that kinda flaw, I really don’t see the point of this over a Mercer or whatever.]
(A very good attempt - the best in this round so far, in fact. It looks very good, the handling tuning is great and the straight-line performance, though not the best, is actually good for this class of car in this era. Hell, you even left some room in the budget, which is commendable. However, the +2 seats in the back of a 5-door were weird, and the budget space spent on the premium interior probably should have been spent on making reliability something other than the worst-in-round 67. For those reasons, this one’s path ends here.)
The Uran- I mean, Urabus Pleiades T-4X (@conan) follows a similar basic concept: Liftback, four cylinders, manual, longitudinal layout. However, this four-cylinder is a turbocharged 8-valve boxer good for 170 horsepower - and the Pleiades even has a full-time all-wheel-drive system. The system’s weight poses a problem, however, as the Urabus, with its 2900 pounds of weight, is the portliest car here. This means 7.9 seconds to reach 60 - the slowest result of all the cars tested - and a similarly unremarkable 15.8s quarter mile. Cornering is better, being sharp and competent, but grip levels and suspension tautness are both inferior to the Niichi - and the IP, for that matter. One would expect more with all the obnoxious writing on the side. Braking is smooth - once again, ABS is optioned - and a 60 to 0 stop takes 118 ft. The rear seat was a big improvement compared to the Nichi’s - not leather, maybe, but actually shaped to support adults and with sufficient legroom. The equipment level on our $13,300 test car was good, with a premium sound system, power steering and sports tires, and the fit and finish did not disappoint either - that is, until the third brake light that was screwed into the spoiler fell off. Overall, the Urabus is a noble concept but in most respects not up to par with its nimbler RWD rival reviewed previously.
[Rob: Well, I heard the guy. Got nothing much to add.]
(This entry is let down by weight, simply put. It’s too heavy to be fast even with its theoretically torquier and more powerful engine than the Niichi. It also manages to have worse drivability despite the AWD, and the lack of proper diffs brings down its handling score. It is the first entry this round with a proper rear bench, so there’s that - but the performance isn’t there, so neither is the finals spot.)
Not all hatchbacks are created equal, though - and the Turból j30 v6 (@donutsnail), a 3-door hatchback coupe, is proof of this inequality. A proper compact like the Urabus as opposed to the previous 3 subcompact cars, this low-slung fiend from America’s sportiest manufacturer is powered by an overhead-valve 3.1 - not 3.0 - liter V6 powering the rear wheels. Despite having 12 valves and only sporting a throttle-body injection system, this premium fuel-guzzling, high-compression, high-lift fiend manages a potent 170 horsepower. That’s good for 6.9 seconds to 60 and a quarter mile time of 15.3 - only giving up ground to the lighter Swanson. The Turból’s party piece, however, is its laser-like handling. Huge 235-section performance tires all around allow for unmatched brute-force grip, and the suspension matches it for a freakishly low roll angle. The car tracks without skipping a beat, though the driveline is only secured by a viscous diff. Braking is simple, too - 109 ft - but what’ll really cook your noodle is that it does so without ABS. Be careful, winter drivers. With power steering and a purpose-designed interior with heavily bolstered seats and lightweight yet pleasant materials, it’s quite possibly the most complete experience in this group; as a bonus, you can actually fit non-tiny adults in the rear bucket seats. And if that wasn’t enough, everything you touch feels absolutely rock-solid. Apart from generally just wanting the thing to go faster, our staff’s few complaints centered around the engine’s less-than-stellar responsiveness, likely a symptom of the general purpose-derived engine’s large flywheel.
[David: I hope you’re not thinking of skipping out on this one…
Rob: Yeah, this is deep into “gotta take it for a spin” territory. You can’t say something like “laser-like handling” and expect me to be cold on it. Plus, look at how mean it looks!]
(Boom, finalist #1 of this batch. The Turból is not free from sin, like the supremely weird “max balancing mass, full rich” combo in the engine that I find lazy and suboptimal - as well as the similarly probably-done-for-minmax +7 SPEFI. However, being able to properly squeeze a sports interior into the car - and daring to go with the scary big 235-section tires - is a testament to donutsnail’s real skill. Only reason this doesn’t have top sportiness is because there’s power steering in the mix, and that’s more of a good thing in my book. The looks are good, too, evoking that often-ignored image of the angular, futuristic late 80s car. It’s like a Corvette/Pontiac Grand Prix mix.)
Also representing the American compact scene is the Valiant Virtus RZ (@mart1n2005). Now, this is a front-driver, so one can’t call it as pureblooded as the Turból - but it does have a 3.2-liter overhead-valve V6 pushing 160 hp - close to parity. This V6 has a more sophisticated twin-plenum port injection system and makes a fair bit more torque, and succeeds in propelling the Virtus to 60 in 7.1 seconds and through the quarter mile in 15.4. Handling is similarly good, sharper than most front-drivers tend to be - however, a comparison with the j30 leaves it feeling far less impressive, what with its smaller, more generic tires.The Virtus also has the second-longest braking distance here despite its ABS assistance, at 122 ft. Equipped with a a helical front differential and power steering, the car is still more than competent for the price; fit and finish is also a strong area.
[David: Honestly, for a front-driver American car, this looks good. We should take a look…
Rob: It feels boring. This is literally what would happen if you put the j30 on a pound of sedatives.
David: Hey, you might need it. It has AB–
Rob: Oh, screw the ABS! Never had it before, don;'t need it now!]
(This one scored pretty highly, and could have well been finals material if it had a more aggro exterior - and more aggro handling, or at least a price advantage. Like the IP and the Swanson, it’s priced at $13,900 - and at that price point, the $14,000 Turból wipes them all off the map.)
Last but not least - though least in price - is the Steurmann C26 (@HybridTronny & @Tsundere-kun). Yes, you heard it right, the Steurmann is the bargain option in this test, being the cheapest at $12,900 and yet the most powerful - with a 24-valve straight-6 making 180 hp. It only matches the Virtus RZ’s performance, though, due to its heavier weight and regular differential. The Steurmann handles gracefully but sedately, the thinner non-performance tires making the grip limit decidedly unremarkable - and inflating the 60 mph braking distance to 123 ft. The C26 is saved by the fact that this cheaper spec still trickles down with dignity, parmitting the buyer ABS, power steering and some of the best fit and finish in this group. And with the longest wheelbase in the test and a formal roof, its rear bench is best-in-class too - despite the lack of rear doors.
[Rob: So… The most affordable and reasonable car in this comparison is a dang Steurmann? I was convinced that shit was priced for dictators and Elvis, and that’s about it!
David: And it doesn’t necessarily look like a poverty spec, either. You could pull it off.
Rob: I can’t say I’m excited by how it supposedly drives, but… At that price, can’t hurt to consider it.]
(Finally, a value-option entry! God! In all seriousness, this is a very smartly structured build that results in a decently competitive - if under-sporty - car for great money. It’ll be a finalist… And it’ll be the cheapest finalist. Our most significant gripe is that while the design is well-made and very /Merc/, it’s not necessarily… exciting.)
So, which is the best sports compact to choose? Well, if you absolutely must have four doors, the Niichi is a decent choice, though its actual rear-seat utility is limited. It’s a very fun car to drive, and exceeded our expectations on that front. If you’re short on cash, then Steurmann of all people have you covered with a better-handling mainstream compact than most that is guaranteed to serve you well and serve you for a long while. If you want to embarrass a V8 at a streetlight and not much else… Well, maybe you can be a Swanson customer, God help you. And if you want to embarrass quite literally anything on four wheels on a twisty canyon road, you’re a Turból customer… without ABS. God help us all. This concludes this comparison test. Up next, how to change the rear cylinder head on a transverse V6 - a journey into insanity…
Rob: Welp, I’ve seen enough. We’re all locked up with gigs through Sunday; how about some dealer hoppin’ the day after?
David: I don’t have anything better to do.
Rob: Yeah, because you’re bitchless.
David: Hey, wha-- So are you!
Rob: Yeah…
FINALISTS FROM ROUND 2-3:
@donutsnail
@HybridTronny & @Tsundere-kun
FINALISTS OVERALL
@LS_Swapped_Rx-7
@TanksAreTryhards
@vero94773
@donutsnail
@HybridTronny & @Tsundere-kun
17 Likes
and then there were 5
Picking the top 5 from the multitude of entries that made the first cut was a challenge, as it often is, but picking a winner from that top 5 (whatever it turns out to be) may well be even harder still.
In any case, all five finalists deserved their place in the final round of this CSR… and all of them are RWD, with the Chimera being the only one of those five to also be mid-engined (the other four are all front-engined).
And some time after the deadline, I recently made an FR test mule to see if a cheaper, lighter, simpler entry would be viable - powered by a 150bhp 2.0L all-alloy DOHC 16v flat-four driving the rear wheels, and with struts up front and semi-trailing arms at the rear, it weighed less than a metric ton and cost $12.5k. By comparison, my actual entry (the KMA KX4) handled even better (and was deliberately styled like a miniature mid-engined supercar), but at the expense of everyday usability.
Outside of the Akari dealership, September 29, 9:44 AM
Rob: Houston, we have a problem.
John: Ayup.
Luke: Sure do.
David: I mean… I know what this thing drives like. I can sit this one out.
John: Honestly, I’m not that interested in this thing; engine’s too small. Wanna sit this one out in that diner next door?
David: Sure, why not. You two have fun!
Akari Chimera 1.8 GSi DuoTop @vero94773
Rob isn’t too thrilled by this outcome; with John noping out first, he’s stuck testing the Akari with Luke - and that dude, for all of his preaching about how his herbs make him a better person, is never in a good mood. Oh well, there’s a reason he’s on bass.
Luke: You know, I don’t dig this already. We’re ditching half the gang because their space is taken up by the engine? It’s more impractical bourgeois excess!
Rob: Oh, shut your bah-humbug-hole. This is a sports car. It’s meant to haul ass, not asses. Observe!
Rob does the opposite of a wise move and accelerates before the wide bend in the street, taking it at an extralegal 50 mph. The car obliges.
Rob: It’s real hard to upset this thing. And I can feel everything! Can’t hear much, though. Engine manages to be pretty anonymous for something right behind me… Kind of a shame, really.
Luke: Noise is waste. If you can’t hear it, it’s running efficiently - at least that’s good.
Rob: No, dumbass, it means they’ve muffled it and are turning the noise into heat in said mufflers. Don’t pretend to be smarter than me just because you think I’m not as virtuous. You know what? Just for that, you’re riding in the back next time.
Luke: Philistine.
Rob takes his time recklessly cornering around the city’s wider and faster streets, then comes back to the dealership. It doesn’t take long for the other two to come back from the diner in John’s old K-5 and pick them up.
David: So, how’d you like it?
Rob: Hell, that thing’s fun. You can get away with damn near anything, and it’s even pretty fast. Almost makes me want more drama.
David: Well, that’s about what I expected. You’re an adrenaline junkie; one of those days you’ll dive off the stage and there won’t be nobody there.
Rob: I can always use yo mama as a trampoline. Yo John, we got places to be; I think the Matsumoto shop’s closest to here.
John: On it, I know the place. Can y’all stop ribbing each other? This coffee ain’t kicked in yet.
Matsumoto Judan TA6 @TanksAreTryhards
Rob: Wuh-hey, I didn’t notice it at the dragaway, but this thing’s got huge door handles everywhere. Hood, trunk, you name it.
John: At least all four of us fit. Shotgun, by the way!
David: Aw, nuts.
The quartet gets in the car and drives off. Luke, a bigger guy, complains about backseat room; Dave is none too pleased, as well. Rob tries the same routine as in the Akari, only to realize the car is less predictable and tends to want to spin whenever traction is lost even a little - not helping the situation in back.
John: Does this thing have an open diff or something? It’s pissing me off.
Rob: Hold up, lemme check.
Rob drives up to an empty streetlight, stops and dumps the clutch; Sure enough, only the right tire burns out and almost sends the whole ensemble into oncoming traffic.
David: Yeah, it’s a plain diff. Which is weird, too: wasn’t this just about the fastest car you guys saw at the dragaway?
John: Well, fastest in budget. You’d have to launch it carefully, but with this power and this weight I can definitely see how it won back then.
Rob: Yeah, honestly, if you’re not dumb with this, it can still show you a really good time. But I didn’t exactly go out searching for a car you can feather.
After returning the Judan, Revolt head to the Turból dealership. This one’s a bit of a longer drive, so Rob notes a different road he can test the next car’s limits on.
Turból j30 v6 @donutsnail
Rob: I’ve been waiting on this. The video David forced me to watch said this thing’s unflappable. What I can say straight away is that it looks real crisp. Apart from these tacked-on foglights, that is…
David: Yeah, I’m kind of excited too. Hell, I think we’re gonna fit inside better, too.
The new route includes a bridge with some twists on it - which the j30 simply eats up, with Rob practically unable to unstick the tires - with acceleration or turning. Even braking feels solid despite the lack of ABS in the car.
Rob: This thing corners like there’s no tomorrow. I could track this thing. Kinda wish the engine was more substantial, though; car’s not light, and it needs more oomph.
Luke: You just can’t be happy with less, can you? I’d bet you could easily start it in second.
At a stop sign, Rob obliges Luke - only for the car to almost stall as the engine pings at the unwanted load.
Rob: Nope, nope, nope, not happening. God, what’s the compression on this thing, anyway?
David: Might be over eleven. Well, at least you’re not gonna kill it that way. Anaheim engines straight up don’t die - ever.
Rob: For that sticker price, they better not.
The vocalist rounds out the test drive with more reckless driving and blatant stress-testing of the pushrod six. David suggests a lunch break and to make the Steurmann their next stop: it’s just a less stressful car.
Steurmann C26 Coupe @HybridTronny and @Tsundere-kun
Rob: Damn, that burger hit the spot.
Luke: Tell me about it. Not getting breakfast had me starving.
John: Awright, focus up. We got ourselves a whole ass Steurmann, and I almost can’t believe Dave was able to talk the sales hand into givin’ it to us without supervision.
Luke: I don’t get it. This is actually supposed to be pretty cheap, right? Why do their other cars on the same base cost so much more?
John: Because you oughtta shut up. When you’re one of the more desirable names in car luxury, you name your price.
The four step into the big German coupe. While this commuter spec isn’t actually that comfortable with the cut-rate upholstery and very basic suspension, this is still far and away the most spacious car left in contention. They set off and Rob finds yet another out-of-the-way area - only to find that the car isn’t really suitable for goofing around.
John: You seem passive.
Rob: Yeah. It’s just not the same with this thing… It’s slower than the j30, and there’s really no contest for handling. All I wanna do in this is cruise and show off its gorgeous German glory… Yep, that’ll get old.
David: I felt you try a slalom. The Steurmann seems composed enough but it does run out of grip a lot faster.
Rob: I bet Luke’s loving this shit, though. It’s totally sufficient and enough for every need you might want to fill… Right?
Luke: Sometimes I don’t get you people. If I were to stumble upon something this solid for this cheap, I’d just take it and be happy. And for once I’m in the backseat and I don’t feel like an orphan.
Rob: I mean, this is a very fine piece of machinery or whatever, but… It’s not that special. You could just put two more doors on it and they’d fit it like a glove, and then bam! Suddenly you’re a stereotypical yuppie.
Mercer Scorpion R/X @LS_Swapped_Rx-7
The last stop is the Mercer dealership. John seems instantly reinvigorated - out of the cars the two of them had seen at the Dragaway, this one was by far his favorite.
John: Uh, can I… Drive this one?
Rob: Get in line. Your hype’s rubbing off, and I wanna see what this is all about.
The car jets off as Rob leans into its V8 power and slides onto the road. The same route as the one taken in the Steurmann goes by faster as the vocalist’s urge to be a hooligan is multiplied
John: Okay, yeah… I’ll definitely want a taste of this after.
Rob: Sure isn’t as maneuverable as the Turból, but it still turns real good.
David: Especially for a solid axle. I expected a lot worse out of this, really.
Luke: This seat’s cramped.
Rob: Suck it up. Great fun, this car, just kind of a shame the Matsumoto would probably take it in a straight 8 times outta 10.
After both Rob and John have their fill of the pony car - and get the obnoxious commission-paid sales hand out of their faces - they head down to a local bar to talk things through. While none of them plan on getting shitfaced, John still gets singled out as the designated coke drinker because they were using his truck to drive around that whole time.
Rob: You know, I was expecting a lot worse out of those cars. I was expecting most of them to be uncomfortable, hard to stomach, situational, and temperamental to an extent. They weren’t.
Luke: Speak for yourself, you weren’t stowed in back.
David: I was, but Rob’s mostly right. Everything we tried out today was honestly pretty nice, especially for the price and the performance bracket. Good on all of them.
Rob: As I was saying, none of these cars were real bad headaches, most even had a proper amount of seats and luggage space, and that frees me from the burden of looking for just a little more comfort in each of them.
John: Long story short, you’re saying the Steurmann’s out.
Rob: …Yeah.
(The Steurmann is the odd one out in this group - and “odd ones out” tend to either come first, or last. In this case, it’s last. With worst-in-finals performance - whether in acceleration, cornering or sportiness - its slightly superior size and practicality, and above average reliability, could not save it. The C26’s greatest advantage is that it’s $1,100 under budget, but even this isn’t enough to justify a car that doesn’t provide quite the required amount of thrill either visually or mechanically.)
David: You said you liked the Akari, but you also said at one point that the Turból was stickier, handled better and all that. What’s your take on that whole story?
Rob: The Akari’s a little faster and a little more lively, but that’s really it. Carries two, and funnily enough it’s not the most eye-catching thing.
David: Yeah, I get what you’re saying. Looks like an economy car but backwards.
Rob: That’s not even all. The front’s round, the rear’s flat and pretty sharp, and it’s all just very busy. Out of all the cars we’ve seen, it’s still one of the better looking ones, but in this group? It’s maybe a third place for looks. And I’d have to shell out big for it, too - exactly my entire budget.
(Fourth overall goes to the last MR2 ripoff standing. It’s a tremendous effort, and has a lot of real advantages: best fuel economy, good at both handling and - to an extent - acceleration, and has the best remaining drivability figure that is only enhanced by the geared diff and ABS. However, when you dump practicality completely - and, as it turns out, finish poorly in prestige and service costs as well - you can’t afford to also spend the entire damn budget. While I did have Rob recite some of my gripes with the design, this car did still log one of the high scores in that area; the issue is, it still isn’t enough to overcome all of the stats that end up “dumped” in the process.)
Luke: The Matsumoto doesn’t use the whole budget. You can still save a whole grand should you get it.
David: He has a point. It’s a bargain, what with that speed.
John: That it is, but it also really shows just how budget it is. You don’t get a diff, the radio’s as cut-rate as they come, hell, this is a naturally-aspirated screamer with single exhaust.
Rob: It’s a tough nut to crack… I mean, I did know going in that I wouldn’t be able to get a really nice car, and it’d be pretty logical to say: Oh, well, this is the fastest car, and one of the cheaper options I have, so I can live with less creature comforts. That’s all fine. What isn’t fine is the fact that the cut-rate nature of it affects performance as well. You all saw what happened when I pushed it hard: it folded. Which is a shame, because it even kinda looks good - apart from the massive grab handles everywhere, that is.
(The Matsumoto Judan comes in third, and it’s honestly kind of a bummer. It’s really good at following that philosophy I was going for: Squeeze the most performance into the smallest budget. Apart from the criticism I will /continue/ to pour on the decision to use the open differential (seriously - both your drivability and your acceleration are hurt by not having one), there’s also the unfortunate fact that when you do a comparison to the Turból - one of the 2 remaining cars - it’s literally just a sea of red, as the Judan is outclassed in every way aside from raw speed and price.)
John: Well, if that’s out, that leaves just two cars - or the coward’s way out, where you pick none of them and continue to leech off my Blazer.
Rob: Rude! But true. And I don’t even know where to start. Both are totally different cars and I really have no idea how to compare them.
David: Well, the Turból is the more comprehensive car. It’s got the best interior we’ve seen by miles, it handles like a spider, still has more than decent power, and the more modern platform by five years. Sure, it’s not as explosive as the Mercer, but that’s not all you’re after, is it?
John: The Mercer Scorpion has more to offer than explosiveness. It’s just flat out more fun, and it’ll probably still kick the Turból’s tail around a track because of all that torque. And it’s a whole bunch safer, as well - not to mention that buying it over the Turból, you’d be 400 bucks in the green. And I’m sorry, you just can’t tell me that the V6 in the j30 is half as satisfying as the Scorpion’s mill. It even tried to blow itself up on the test drive.
Rob: All right, I need all of you to settle down for a sec. You both have a point… The Turból is a real high-quality item, and it was a blast to drive. I liked it. But it’s also mildly… Weird, I guess? They decided they could afford a real high-quality interior, but only one injector. and them jacked up the compression something fierce despite that. Clearly they play by their own rules, but I can respect it. And the Scorpion is kind of the opposite. It’s not weird at all, it’s just right in all of the sentimental areas - but then again it’s more sloppy. Fifth gear’s too short, whole car’s pretty heavy, it doesn’t turn as well, the ABS is second-rate - then again the Turból doesn’t have any at all - so the fact that it’s “just faster” is kind of negated by the fact it’s also “just not as polished”. Mercer play the game we all know and they play it well, but it could be better.
Luke: So… Back to leeching off the Blazer?
Rob: Nah. I’ve made up my mind. I’m going with the Turból.
(This was a tough decision. The Turból kind of walked the Mercer and everybody else on points, but it had some questionable engineering decisions that, while not binnable, definitely made it less believable and compelling - more on that later. The Mercer came in with a very good score, but it also incorporated a lot of the delightful idiosyncrasies and specifics of the period. I mean, it’s a Mustang copy, and one that’s almost detrimentally accurate: I would never even have considered putting iron heads on the engine just because the Windsors only had those, but that was indeed the case. That said, there were some actual engineering goofs - like losing a bunch of prestige, over 1 mpg and gaining no performance benefit from going for a close-ratio transmission with a short final drive. You basically told your car to work harder, not smarter - something even ol’ Ford figured out not to do. In the end, while the Scorpion is a lovely submission, it ran out of advantages when stacked against the Turból.
And speaking of the Devil, the winning car by donutsnail isn’t free from sin, either. Most prominently, while it’s decently realistic and well-conceived, there’s a smell of cheese in the air. For example, that cursed “max balancing mass, max fueling, huge compression” combo. It does yield some results, but were I in a wrathful mood, I could well have binned you for that. You gave it a not-performance intake but a single straight-through exhaust to cap the loudness at 50 for sportiness… Again, understandable from a stats optimization perspective - but you know damn well that’s cheese and anybody who knows their engine sounds would have hated your company for that. That said, there are genuinely, pleasantly clever uses of the game’s tools as well, such as sinking techpoints into interior just to squeeze a 0-quality sports interior in. I like that. The positives I’ve already listed in the review and test-drive: amazingly grippy, well-balanced and tuned, decent if not exhilarating speed, and boatloads of reliability. Not too hungry, either. It’s a good, worthy winning combination… But lay off the damn cheddar.)
STANDINGS
- Turból j30 v6 @donutsnail
- Mercer Scorpion R/X @LS_Swapped_Rx-7
- Matsumoto Judan TA6 @TanksAreTryhards
- Akari Chimera 1.8 GSi DuoTop @vero94773
- Steurmann C26 Coupe @HybridTronny & @Tsundere-kun
- Hakaru Solexa III 1600 ZZ-R @Executive
- Condor Taipan GT @Fantic2000
- Midlands Cygnus GX @Portalkat42
- Niichi Aquila Liftback @MisterRocketMan
- Valiant Virtus RZ @mart1n2005
p.s. yeah I know there isn’t an epilogue but I figure I can post something like that later
17 Likes
Thanks for hosting, I think this was a really fun round to build for, as was your last CSR.
I have some ideas for CSR so I do plan to host. Expect a post tomorrow or the next day.
11 Likes