The choice of basic interior and no radio really killed your car. Yeah, you would have received one or two more cost deductions, but the increase in other stats would have more than made up for it, I could take another look at your car and suggest other alterations to make it better, if you’re interested.
May 1980
[size=150]Family Feud[/size]
[size=130]Sub-$7000 Suburban Brawl[/size]
A scenic, winding drive to the beach, with the windows down. The sun glistening on the tops of rollers as the road slowly drops to the sea. Catching the salty tang of the ocean breeze in your lungs.
A packed picnic basket and a loaded cooler. Children in the back seat playing the license plate game. A lush, colorful meadow awaiting.
Images like these bring smiles to the lips of most men and women who devote themselves to their family. The trusty steed that gets them there is the family car. While it’s true that the marketplace has recently proliferated to offer “family” cars of all sizes, we know that trying to cram memories into a sardine can isn’t that pleasant of a prospect. Especially not when the breadwinner can afford a little extra.
But there are also a number of options out there that will allow all the flexibility that an established family needs, without breaking the bank. After scouring the world for the best of the best, we came up with our top four.
And we have to warn our readers in advance. None of our beloved Detroit iron made the list, which is a sad day for many here on staff.
[size=120]Baltazar Kashmir 3.0[/size]
The first car we acquired comes from Baltazar Automoveis in Brazil. We’ve featured one of their liftbacks before a couple years ago in a shootout of pocket rockets. They’re back with another liftback, though this one is a far different beast.
Far longer and sleeker than their go-to Quark model, the Baltazar Kashmir is everything that is expected of a people-mover. Sure, it’s not as nimble on the clogged, narrow streets of many South American countries, but it looks and feels right at home on our roads. It even comes with the kind of motivation under the hood that our own manufacturers are expected to churn out. Just, a little bit lighter and more efficient.
We tested the Kashmir 3.0 trim, which comes standard with a such features as cloth seating surfaces, a 2-speaker AM/FM stereo with 8-track, assist grips at all passenger doors, and a fold-down split rear bench. There’s more, but we don’t want to spoil too many details just yet.
[size=130]FMU Pampero Rural[/size]
This next one was a bit of a surprise to us. When we looked at the specifications, we scoffed and almost dismissed it out of hand. But the more we learned about the FMU Pampero, the more we had to give it credit.
Another South American entry, this time from Uruguay, the Pampero is of a very archaic design, and its engine application is absolutely foreign to us. After all, who puts a 2 liter 4-cylinder into a big, long station wagon? FMU does, and oddly enough it works. We can see the villagers outside the office now, with their torches ablaze and raising their pitchforks at this madness. But read on and you’ll see why the Pampero was chose.
The particular trim we got was the “Rural” model, which as it sounds is kind of like a pickup. So much so that FMU actually uses a C-channel ladder frame on it. 5 seat belts come standard, with the rear being a split folding bench. It also comes with an AM/FM stereo, which also comes with an 8-track player, which must be well-used given the spotty radio coverage in its home markets.[size=130]Romanov Katusha[/size]
The senior editor felt that our third choice was like rubbing salt in the wound of “nothing made in the USA made it.” But this isn’t the first time we’ve featured an offering from the Soviet Union’s house-name manufacturer Romanov. It went toe-to-toe with some good old American steel two years ago in a battle of the pickups. Now Romanov is back, but they’re facing a different kind of competition.
It’s odd to think that one of the best family sedans in the world comes from behind the iron curtain. Doubly so when its 4-cylinder motor is added to the mix. It is, however, on the larger and more powerful side, and we think it would cater well enough to domestic interests, as long as its badge was covered up. Or if it was driven by some liberal hippie out west.
Standard features on the Romanov are fairly sparse, though it does have a radio on par with its competitors. The rear seat folds, but it is a one-piece unit. Simplicity has worked for Romanov in the past, and it seems they’re banking on that again here. Or they simply don’t care, because decadence is waste. Oddly flying in the face of that philosophy is the fact that the Katusha is the only one of the group that comes standard with alloy wheels.
[size=130]Znopresk Zanzibar 2.7 Sala[/size]
The last selection for this test is the one manufactured closest to Detroit, though that is only a matter of semantics, as Italy isn’t even on the same continent. It’s also one of the most shocking entries. It’s not a sedan or a wagon like most people would think when they hear the words “family car.” It’s a full-blown body-on-frame off-roader, built by Znopresk.
Our test model was the Zanzibar 2.7 Sala, which appears to be an upscale model from the research we did. It’s also the one that can go farthest afield, off the beaten path. The biggest question mark surrounding the Znopresk is whether or not the public will buy into it as far as being a suburban warrior. Of course, it’s our job to uncover the answers to such questions.
Looking at the feature list, it seems like the Zanzibar should be right in the mix as far as gadgetry. A dual-speaker AM/FM stereo with 8-track player, cloth seating, and a split folding high-back rear bench are among the goodies that Znopresk has included.[size=150]The Tests[/size]
[size=130]On The Inside[/size]
For the long haul, details of a vehicle’s interior come into play as a factor. Buyers in this slightly upscale price range ask for more than those who look for basic transportation. Most of these manufacturers seem to get that, but even still there are differences between the four.
Baltazar and FMU have the same approach to the cockpit. Seating is spacious, with generous leg room between the front and rear rows. Both rear rows fold down in a 60/40 split, allowing the cargo areas to grow to utterly cavernous sizes. The Baltazar has a little nicer radio, however. Reception seems to be a tad better, and audio is noticeably clearer.
Romanov’s inexpensive approach shows up here in the cabin. Whereas the other three competitors use cloth for their seating surfaces, Romanov makes do with heavy-duty vinyl. The seats are supportive and comfortable, but still not as nice as its competition. It is also the only one of the four to have a one-piece folding rear seat, limiting flexibility of the cargo area. As well, the interior panels have a decidedly cheap feel to them.
The Znopresk shows its heritage as an off-roader, with a very simple and straight-forward console layout. Seating positions are very upright, but they are made of heavy-duty woven cloth, which is quite comfortable and appears that it will wear well under heavy use. Its rear bench is a 50/50 split, which is a little awkward for the rear center passenger when all seating positions are in use.
Winner: Baltazar Kashmir. With good, comfortable seats, flexibility, and the best of the radios, it was a pretty clear winner.
Loser: Romanov Katusha. It’s pretty comfortable for such a visibly cheap interior, but does fall short of the others, especially with its lack of split rear seat.
[size=130]Nuts and Bolts[/size]
We love the mechanical bits of cars. It’s the added kick in our morning coffee that gets us through the day, so to speak. Not everyone shares this passion, but we feel that it’s important nevertheless. Especially when you’re putting your hard-earned money on the line for a long-term investment. For some, their car is more than a form of transportation, it’s a partnership. Only right that they should find the best partner, right?
Editor’s note: All four models come standard with power steering.
The Baltazar Kashmir is powered by an all-iron 2962cc straight-6. Air feeds the engine through a simple 2-barrel carburetor. It’s a 24-valve overhead cam design good for 127 horsepower, which is respectable for this segment. That power is transferred to the rear wheels by a 4 speed automatic transmission that is very nicely geared. The Kashmir can get up to 100 km/h in 12 and a half seconds, and comes to a stop quite nicely thanks to 4-wheel antilock disc brakes, which have a very even feel to them. Historical reliability data shows the Baltazar’s motor to be about average.
FMU’s Pampero has the smallest, least powerful motor, displacing just 2 liters from the 16-valve DOHC 4-cylinder. It’s equipped with a spreadbore 4-barrel carb. In testing FMU claims 98.5 horsepower, which gets to the rear end via a 5-speed manual transmission and open differential. Despite being so far down on power, the Pampero still manages to get to 100 km/h in 12.4 seconds. Disc brakes are found on all corners, with the fronts being vented. An antilock system is also standard on this model. There have been complaints from FMU owners about problems with head gaskets, so we give the motor a “caution” rating. The rest of the setup is pretty impressive though.
Similarly, the Romanov Katusha has a 4-cylinder, though this tips in at 2137cc. A single cam drives 16 valves, and the top end is fed by a squarebore 4-barrel carburetor. Romanov claims 113 horsepower from this motor. It has a rear-wheel drive setup, through a 4-speed manual transmission. It is the quickest of the bunch to 100km, at 11 seconds flat. Solid discs provide stopping power at all 4 wheels, but there is no antilock braking system. Romanovs of all ages can be found choking the streets in Russia, so although no official data exists, we have reason to believe the motor on this thing is very reliable.
Finally, the Znopresk Zanzibar has, predictably, a 2.7 straight-6 with a 4-barrel carb. It has a total of 18 valves driven by a single cam, and puts out 10 horses. A 4-speed automatic feeds the manual locking rear end, giving the Zanzibar an impressive edge in inclement conditions. Its 0-10km/h time, however, is a cringe-worthy 15 seconds. As with the others, there are disc brakes at all corners, though no ABS is present. Repair data from the past 10 years indicates that Znopresk is a little better than average when it comes to their motors’ reliability.
Winner: Znopresk Zanzibar. It was a pretty chase for the top spot in this category, but we like the balance of reliability and power, and the Zanzibar’s locking differential is unique. It was enough to edge out the ABS-equipped competitors.
Loser: FMU Pampero. The engine motivates the big station wagon pretty well, but boy does it complain about it. Also, from what we’ve heard and seen, the FMU’s motor is the one most likely to leave you stranded with a serious mechanical problem.
[size=130]Road Manners[/size]
Some of the best scenery that can be found requires driving narrow, twisting roads. Wracking nerves on a trip while trying to control a squirrely car could make the wrong kind of memories for a driver. Road handling is of paramount importance for family cars, even if they are sluggish and boring to drive.
There is no denying that the FMU Pampero caters to a different kind of driver. We took a poll and called them “insane.” Steering response is uneven on the Pampero, and bouncing in and out of ruts is a definite problem, especially at speed. Its C- and D-pillars are also somewhat thick, which creates blind spots. Frankly, we were glad to be done with the test drive of this model when it was over.
When we got to the Znopresk Zanzibar, we were dreading another ladder-frame travesty. That was not to be. The Italians definitely know how to tune the suspension on a supercar. What surprised us is that they’re just as adept at dialing in an off-roader. One of our interns actually drew a tuxedo and top hat on one of the Zanzibar sales brochures, saying that it “belonged at the Opera just as much as the field.” We have to agree; body roll was about the only problem we experienced. Bumps and ruts are quite well isolated for this category, and turns are smooth from lock to lock.
So what of the two unibody entries? Well, both of them behaved very predictably and respectfully. But the Baltazar’s power steering system was more balanced at all speeds than anyone else, and their finely tuned progressive suspension kept everything even-keeled, no matter what we threw at it.
Winner: Baltazar Kashmir. This is about as close to floating on a cloud as you can get without taking the plunge into luxury car category.
Loser: FMU Pampero. Unless you’re a stunt driver, its driving dynamics are pretty much horrifying.
[size=130]Safety[/size]
This is the number one check box for the vast majority of family-conscious buyers. More than anyone else, they have an awareness of the possibility and repercussions of a collision. All four of the manufacturers represented have a keen grasp on that, and designed their cars accordingly.
Without a fault, every single one includes collision fuel pump cutoff, seatbelt pretensioners, and door intrusion beams. Child locks on rear doors and driver’s air bags are also standard across the board. They also all appear to be integrating some form of force distribution system in them, whereby energy from a collision is transferred around the passenger compartment instead of through.
We’ve reviewed all the data that we could obtain from the various testing agencies, and the only really noticeable difference we could find was that the Znopresk’s air bag was positioned better and inflated quicker. Some of the others were not fully inflated before the crash dummies made contact.
Winner: Baltazar Kashmir. When looking at an overall picture, the chance of injury to the dummies was the lowest on the Kashmir. Its design elements and considerable weight are probably factors in this.
Loser: Znopresk Zanzibar. While its safety systems seem to be better designed, it has a rollover risk several times as great as its competitors. The dummies can survive pretty easily, but it seems that it’s harder to avoid an accident in the first place.
[size=130]Down To Business[/size]
So what all can you do with a $7000 family car that you can’t with a more basic $5000 model? As it turns out, a lot. Active families with places to go and things to do will most certainly appreciate the capability of these four.
In the interest of comparing apples to apples, at least to start, we turn our attention to the monocoque offerings: the Baltazar and Romanov.
At first glance, it would seem that the Brazilian liftback would have the advantage in cargo space. That’s actually a fallacy. Romanov made the trunk on the Katusha deceptively big. It is tall and deep enough to carry some rather large, awkward loads. On the other hand, the sloping glass and high load floor of the Baltazar actually limit the height of objects that can be loaded. Both cars can fold down their rear seats, and the Kashmir has the advantage here with its 60/40 folding bench.
We then looked at the possibilities of expanding their capacity externally. After all, surfer wagons were all the rage once in California. It turns out that, despite being a sedan, the Romanov has a much better and more useful array of aftermarket carriers and rails for the roof. A quick pull test also revealed that, despite its 4-cylinder motor, the Romanov was better equipped to pull a light trailer. Not by much, but it was measurable.
Then it was time to look at the body-on-frame duo. Both of them were leagues better that the previous two as far as racks and trailers. In fact, in our boredom, we found out that even the gutless FMU could pull a teardrop trailer respectably well. When we went to test the Zanzibar, we were a bit bored. There was an old dolly out back, so we hooked it up, loaded on the Pampero, and towed it around behind the Zanzibar. Which was actually more pleasant than driving the Pampero to begin with. As far as the Z’s cargo areas go, however, the two couldn’t be more different.
The Pampero suffers part of the same fate as the Kashmir; its load floor is unusually high, limiting vertical cargo space. This is solved, of course, by folding down the seat. That can be done on the Zanzibar as well, though with its great dimensions in all directions, it wouldn’t be needed in very many circumstances. Our only complaint about the cargo area on the off-roader is that it is accessed by a narrow swinging door, instead of a full-width liftgate.
Winner: Znopresk Zanzibar. If for some reason you had to drag the whole family on a safari for which you could not shove enough supplies in its cavernous rear end, you could tow it all in a trailer. Or add one of the many versatile roof-top carriers available. Or both.
Loser: Baltazar Kashmir. It almost edged out the Romanov, but the sloping hatch limits cargo capacity somewhat, the accessory roof racks aren’t very useful, and it couldn’t tow anything larger than a small utility trailer. That being said, it can still carry about twice what the smaller Quark can.
[size=130]Cost To Own[/size]
In mid-range cars, you’d expect the bottom line to go out the window at least a bit. Frugality still reigns supreme when it comes to family buyers, however. Something about funding the next vacation or making sure little Johnny has a college savings account. For all you (squares) budget-savvy folk, keeping a few extra Simoleons around is never a bad thing.
Well, this is a bit of a dogfight to begin with. All of these cars have a retail price within a hundred dollars of each other. Amortized over four years, that’s a couple bucks a month at most. Where the big savings lie is in economy and maintenance.
Romanov made calling this particular category easy. First off, they’re known for simplicity and reliability. With millions of Romanovs still on the road, many dating back to the end of World War II, there’s no questioning their ability to keep trucking, even if you’re trapped in a cheap plastic coffin. Parts are plentiful, making maintenance cheap, and at a hair over 27 MPG, it’s also the thriftiest at the pump.
On the reverse side of the token is the Baltazar Kashmir. It got 22.5 MPG in our testing, and what we’ve seen of their reliability record (other than their motors) isn’t that pretty. Couple that with some logistical problems getting parts around in their markets, and it paints a dismal picture. We projected the overall operating cost of this model to be 25 percent higher than the Katusha.
Falling in the middle are the FMU and Znopresk. Dead even in projected reliability, the FMU is just a hair cheaper to run overall thanks to slightly better fuel economy and wide availability of parts.
Winner: Romanov Katusha. Highest fuel economy, highest reliability, lowest maintenance costs. This is a no-brainer.
Loser: Baltazar Kashmir. Lowest fuel economy, lowest reliability, highest maintenance costs. It’s like the Romanov from the Evil Universe.
[size=150]
Overall[/size]
Fourth: Baltazar Kashmir 3.0. This is a cool, slick, dream machine to drive. It is quite well appointed, and very safe. Unfortunately, looks can be deceiving, and when you really push it to the limits of versatility and overall family-friendliness, its flaws start to show. Coupled with a decided lack of frugality, it just couldn’t pull itself up from the bottom of our list.
Third: FMU Pampero Rural. It may sound like you’re going to turn on the Pampero, hit the gas, and die in a fiery wreck, but that’s a bit of an over-exaggeration. Sure it’s twitchy, but it’s also damn good at doing everything. It makes sense that so many of them are sold in South America, because they’re as tough and useful as a truck but with a convenient cargo cover and a much smaller appetite for gas.
Second: Romanov Katusha. It was a valiant push to the top for the frugal, no-nonsense sedan from the Soviet Union. Its near bulletproof reliability and simple, inexpensive upkeep are very attractive, as is its big trunk. But like the Baltazar, when pushed to the limits of flexibility, it can’t get over the last hurdle and into first.
First: Znopresk Zanzibar 2.7 Sala. At first we were skeptical about the Znopresk’s ability to be a good everyday family car. After all, it is decidedly an off-roader, albeit a cushy one, and Znopresk makes no claims otherwise. But it fit all of the criteria we looked for in this test: seating, cargo volume, economy, reliability, and versatility. It turns out that if you put a nice interior inside a rough-and-tumble offroad wagon, it ends up being a good formula for a well-rounded family car. We can’t help but wonder if we’re seeing the start of a trend here.Vic, I was focused on drivability this time, aiming at around 50 and later cutting everything to fit the budget. I never thought about the interior so you’ve got me here and also this is my 1st experiment in small V8 (2000 cc). But there’s a progress - 1st your challenge & I was dead last, 2nd challenge & 2nd from last and now 3rd from last. Maybe 20 challenges later I will be in top 4 (accidentaly 
)
(please note: sub-$7000 is not referring to total cost in game. I projected an MSRP in Automation dollars based on that, then used an inflation calculator to come up with an MSRP for the year 1980, for the purposes of historical accuracy.)
I have mixed feeling about this victory.
I’m not happy that I used the not-Defender body, I was in conflict with myself and still I am. I feel a bit… cheater.
I’ve confessed my personal conflict in live chat to Conan and Leonardo9613. My first choice was the not-Golf SW body, but it had some graphic bug that annoyed me a lot.
I was on the edge of the rules for that… but I’m happy that the car had good result.
Thanks again to VicVictory about this great challenge. Keep up the good work! This is a great formula.
I really hope that the next you challenge you are planning are about cars that I don’t like very much… because I can’t participate to the next 2
Romanov Avtomobili would like to express their sincere gratitude for this kind review.
Also, we would like to congratulate our friends from Italy, Brazil and Uruguay.
Secondly, we would like to point out, that a “split” rear bench is against our very belief to stand united, as one, just like Mother Russia.
Romanov Avtomobili - You won’t understand, you’ll have to experience it!
PS: No hard feelings, Norman, your idea was awesome and I personally like the way the Zanzibar turned out, kinda like an early SUV type of car!
[quote=“NormanVauxhall”]I have mixed feeling about this victory.
I’m not happy that I used the not-Defender body, I was in conflict with myself and still I am. I feel a bit… cheater.
I’ve confessed my personal conflict in live chat to Conan and Leonardo9613. My first choice was the not-Golf SW body, but it had some graphic bug that annoyed me a lot.
I was on the edge of the rules for that… but I’m happy that the car had good result.
Thanks again to VicVictory about this great challenge. Keep up the good work! This is a great formula.
I really hope that the next you challenge you are planning are about cars that I don’t like very much… because I can’t participate to the next 2 [/quote]
I wouldn’t worry about it, I came real close to using the same body, in fact it was 2nd out of 3 I tried out. I just couldn’t get the quality, or yearly cost where I wanted it to be.
If I had paid attention to what my utility and practicality were doing even with the body I had, I would have given you a good run for your money.
hmmmm… if only I could have sorted the suspension… I’m sure I would at least be second… but this is what happens when I hyperfocus some thing are left
unattended
On a side note, I can imagine the wave of fear Going through the spine of the magazine’s staff “OH NOES! THE GUIDOS THE COMMIES AND THE SPICS ARE TAKING
OVER!”
On yet another side Note Sebatian Machado The Second is already growling at the engineers to sort out the suspension and he’s saying he’s going to acquire forging equipment.
Kind of what I was trying to convey. 
The American automotive press, even in the 80’s, wasn’t super tolerant of foreign cars.
(and on a side note, I actually saw a Trabant driving down the street the other day when I was dropping my kids off at school…)
Excellent work. I can hardly wait for the next event.
Weird… and I hope you catched all the slurs.
Those reviews were great. Good competition, I enjoyed it 
Was safety my wagons downfall? Or the 20 mpg?
Both. Though the fuel economy was the bigger factor. If you had hit 42 safety and 24 MPG, you probably would have beat the Baltazar.
Oh well, it seems then that had I cared more for fuel economy, I would have climbed a few more places. That is a bit weird, since safety has “moderate” weight, where as the costs have “slight” weight. Therefore, I assumed that safety was more important then fuel economy, so I poured more money on that. That actually was one of my concerns with the structure of the challenge, since the instructions aren’t crystal clear.
A way to prevent misunderstandings might be to give a numerical value to the importance of the various factor, or put them all on one single linear scale of some kind.
Some people seem somewhat confused about the difference in importance between the various things within the same weight, like high weight moderate and high weight slight.
[quote=“trackpaduser”]A way to prevent misunderstandings might be to give a numerical value to the importance of the various factor, or put them all on one single linear scale of some kind.
Some people seem somewhat confused about the difference in importance between the various things within the same weight, like high weight moderate and high weight slight.[/quote]
Something like this?
Category 1 (15%): Subcategory 1 (40%) Subcategory 2 (10%) Subcategory 3 (50%)
Category 2 (35%): Subcategory 1 (25%) Subcategory 2 (75%)
Category 3 (50%): Subcategory 1 (10%) Subcategory 2 (30%) Subcategory 3 (60%)
I think that would work best, kinda like how it is done in the Scenarios.