Take note when you get to the Rocky. I don’t know why but I gave you the MX trim when I meant to give you the MXU trim. Soooo yeahhhh…
Looking at the things people have been marked down for, and thinking back to my own entry, let’s just say my hopes aren’t high. 
Congrats to the accepted, and great job on the writing by ElMenduko!
To the guy who submitted the A-Team van: https://youtu.be/wyz_2DEah4o
Same. I made the Rocky a week ago and I’m already wanting to remake it. Bad news is that I can’t because no more entries, i’ve already published the car, and I can’t change the lore.
Yours was… kinda like a pickup version of what crossovers are to SUVs
Not good for a work truck but any means, but it can work as a premium vehicle for someone who wants a ““truck”” for saying they have a large peepee but actually don’t need or want truck performance at all because they use it as a funky looking premium/family car (and would complain about the inherent disadvantages of an actual truck like the handling and ride quality when unloaded)
So it’d definitely have its market. Just a widely different one than this.
8 Likes
Looks like a Tacoma and a Ram mixed honestly.
Would be weird if Tomás García’d find a briefcase of money and somehow unrelatedly a revised up-braked spec of a certain truck.
1 Like
Knew I wasn’t gonna get past the first round lol. But had a lot of fun!
1 Like
and now a intermission ad in between parts
Geschenk Grand Ton
*not included in ad, a Grand Ton of turbo lag
har har
5 Likes
uhhh I don’t know about my chances here. 3L 4 cylinder got accepted but it probably has more power than my 3.5 V6. Might have gone for too much reliability on the engine.
Mission failed, we’ll get 'em next time
11 Likes
My entry doesn’t seem to have been accepted at all, he hasn’t even looked at the car file
I guess he did not have the time to look at all entries - they are too many. I guess he will post the other cars as well but a little later. All the writing is taking a long time.
I am a little worried about my car. It might be underpowered… For a car mostly idling and requiring few maintenance I went for a 2600ccm NA V6 with 210 horsepower…
This is the first of 3 parts, only 16 of the 60~something entries were reviewed so far.
5 Likes
I’m happy to wait and I do understand there are a lot of entries to go through
this… i have a question. what do you imagine a modern ‘manual locker’ is like?
i’m thinking more like those button/switch operated thing, and less like the 4hi/4lo lever like in old cars.
what about the ‘active torque division’ thing modern 4wd cars/trucks have?
like they can split the power front-back depending on the situation. what does this categorizes into in your opinion? Elec-LSD? but some ‘e-LSD’ systems don’t actually have LSD at all and uses independent brake control to ‘emulate’ an LSD.
basically. i want to know how, and why do you see it as a potential problem?
An aquaintance of mine has a manual locker in his car. It’s a button beneath the radio (I think), next to 4WD and 4WD-L switches. What you mean by the hi-lo is something different, that’s the transfer case mode. (in this case also the buttons (4WD and 4WD-L).
I am also curious about why the manual locker seems to be a problem for some cars. As far as I know manual locker is exactly the thing you want for offroading. Press a button and go.
i know… what i mean was the ‘lever’ like in those range selector for ‘4hi’ or ‘4lo’ in older cars.
emphasis on the lever.
which means it’s likely a mechanical action. you can’t cancel it even if you fuck up
but modern vehicles are now all button, which are likely electronically driven, which means it can do more than just ‘do’ what it’s meant to do. (like how ESC off button doesn’t completely turn it off in some cars)
A manual locker is either 100% locked (no slip) or completely open diff, nothing inbetween. No matter what method is used to activate it: a switch, a button, a lever, even a pedal like in some old tractors…
A lever that says merely 4hi or 4low in an older car is merely the range selector, chaging the gearing to be very short or “normal” gearing. Not the differential locker (if it has)
“‘active torque division’ thing modern 4wd cars/trucks have” most likely electronic LSDs (like most pickups and SUVs come with these days), which would be the best LSD for offroading. Which can vary the conditions according to user input and/or a computer deciding what’s best. They usually combine the controls of the 4x4 (if 4x4), the transfer case (high or low), and the LSD controls itself (unless it has a mode to force it to lock more lor less for w/e reason)
“some ‘e-LSD’ systems don’t actually have LSD at all and uses independent brake control to ‘emulate’ an LSD.” Yup, that’s a misleading marketing term. In that case it would be the ESC system applying the brakes automatically on a slipping wheel. Which can be helpful to greatly improve a mere open diff making it work sort of like an LSD (but not quite, since it’s not an actual LSD but clever ways to get close). In any case, that system wouldn’t be very helpful here: serious offroading and driving on serious snow and ice in winter.
“and why do you see it as a potential problem?”
Because of a combination of a)AWD with open diff being very bad and b)not being able to drive around with locked differential(s) all day in all situations
a) Because in a normal 2WD car with open diff, if one wheel starts slipping it’ll sap practically all power and you’ll be stuck and get nowhere. In an AWD car with 3 open diffs… same scenario only than any of the 4 wheels could lead to something like that. Even cheap cars with AWD (e.g: old cheaper Subarus with AWD) have at least an LSD in the center (viscuous in that example). But even those would be almost useless here. Like, sure, maybe they get more traction than a normal car in a low grip road, or for a bit more spirited driving on road, but don’t mistake road (even if shitty dirt road, or gravel road) with driving through untouched-by-man wilderness.
b) First off, trying to corner with (a) locked differential(s) is extremely difficult (and puts a lot of stress on the differential and can break it) unless it’s very low grip conditions. Same applies to using 4x4 mode where it shouldn’t be used, as those normally don’t come with a center differential (which is the same as it being locked permanentely if there were one). However these won’t be driving all the time in the hardest offroad, these won’t be in a pool of mud all day. Hence, they can’t use 4x4 and locked differentials all day, only when the situation allows it (or requires it, in the case of an electronic LSD, it would automatically realize when it needs to lock more and when it needs to lock less). Especially if carrying or towing stuff within the bases, or on the airbase.
The same truck 4x4+e LSD, 4x4+locker, or AWD+e LSD would’ve been good by themselves (not counting the other variants they’d affect like price, for example; and not counting the rest of the vehicle)
10 Likes
Judging Round 1, Part 2/3
García was leaning against the 4th wall of the room, with food in his other hand. “You know, it’s kinda weird how many of these cars seem to have been photographed in the same place, isn’t it?” he said with his mouth full. “It’s as if it were the first time all these carmakers heard of these beautiful grassy hills and decided to all take their photos there, like, in almost the same spot.”
“García quit talking crap and come back here, we need to keep doing doing these if we want to finish before we die of old age!” said Rossi.
“Fine, fine.”
Straker Kakadu AXT
G: First one of these is the Straker Kakadu AXT. Oh, this one looks a bit pissed but I like it. Only $16664!
R: I like what I see. Well equipped truck, it means business.
O: Engine is a turbocharged 2.8L Inline 4. No complaints here, really. Spools the turbo at 2000rpm, good useable band after that. Should be more than sufficient to move this.
G: I’ll add that it consumes 1.52L/h. Very good.
L: Inside it’s similar to many we’ve seen. 5 good enough seats, and basic electronics. No complaints here, enough for our needs but nothing unnecessary. Comes with a 6 speed automatic and a manual locker.
R: I’m really not finding anything to complain here. Pretty common layout for a truck, except that the front section is unibody. Comes with sway bars on both ends, but they can be disconnected.
O: Me neither. It really does seem to go straight to the point on everything. Absolutely no fluff, just a truck that seems like enough for the job on paper, for a very good price.
R: We should definitely consider this. I mean, if I had to find it a defect… I’d prefer slightly shorter gearing, that’s all.
Approved. Doesn’t seem to have any obvious flaw for now. And also it looks pretty well equipped and has good detail. Straight to the point, and very cheap compared to the rest!
Arkadus Imperial Conquest
By @Caine
G: Next up, the Arkadus Imperial Conquest. Ooh, large truck. $25669. I like it. Aggressive, kinda like a batmobile truck.
R: It comes very well equipped that’s for sure, but I wouldn’t call this battruck a full-on truck. Full unibody chassis, and rear multilink suspension… hmmm… I don’t know about that. Can get expensive to maintain that fancy suspension if something breaks but let’s see the rest.
O: Huge engine, 5L V8. No complaints about the power and the useable band for sure, but how much does this thing consume?
G: 1.9L/h. More than most we’ve seen but still manageable if the vehicle is good enough.
L: The interior space is huge, it can seat 6 people. Thankfully it comes with a 6 speed automatic, and a manual locker.
R: Eh, about the transmission… I’d like those gears shorter. They’re pretty long but maybe with this engine it’s not that much of a problem.
O: It also has the best load capacity we’ve seen so far that I remember. A bit more than we need, but good to have.
R: Hmmm I found another problem though. It comes with a fancy active suspension, which by itself is good for offroading. However: that, plus the multilink rear suspension… would probably end up adding up in high maintenance costs, so it’d end up being more than $25669 suggests. Also, having all around independent suspension restricts articulation for offroading.
O: It wouldn’t be too bad if it were cheaper maybe. But yeah, a buildup of small issues for one of this price, considering maintenance costs too.
Rejected. The menacing styling and the details are very good, the load capacity too, but service costs from the fancy suspension would start adding up too much on top of the high price. Plus, all-around independent suspension.
Petrov V124C
By @Mad_Cat
G: Oh here comes a real cheap one for $10886. Er…
L: Um…
R: Ha, comedy gold
Ojeda crumpled the paper and threw it into the bin across the room. It bounced around dramatically twice on the edges of the bin before falling inside.
O: Trey!
Rejected. (ಠ_ಠ)
BT Motors Tarandus AEV
By @EddyBT
G: Next, the BT Motors Tarandus AEV, $18415. Eh? Another van? Well this one at least seems like an attempt was made.
R: OK, this one is really weird but it does seem to be prepared, we might as well have a look. It has a lot of good equipment, storage compartments… Very nicely equipped outside.
O: I think the engine is even weirder. 3L I6 under the seats. Why the hell go with an I6 for a van? Seems like it fits very snugly. Well at least the engine itself is very good, turbo spools early, good useable band.
G: It also sips 1.34L/h, very good.
L: The interior though… it seats only 3. I mean, for ferrying people around the base I guess two or three can sit in the back but still, can only take 3 people max on a long expedition. Which is manageable but not the best. Well, at least it has a 7-speed auto, but a manual locker. Maybe not too bad for the price.
O: Well, the back can be useful for carrying stuff. Good load capacity and more space than some of the SUV thingies we’ve seen for sure.
R: It really does seem to be well-prepared for offroad. Disconnectable sway bars even. Only that I would prefer a bit larger wheels, and a wider wheelbase with such a tall vehicle… but it could work, and the rest seems good. Not like one can do much about those with a van, just that it will require being careful with not taking an obstacle larger than it can chew.
O: My only gripe is the small rear brakes… but maybe having most of its weight in the front explains that? Mmm. Considering the weight distribution, it might not be too bad. That, and the engine maintenance. It doesn’t seem to be very expensive to maintain, but does it require taking off the whole front? Can it be removed reasonably easily? We’ll need more information on that.
L: I definitely didn’t expect to see a van, but considering the price… it could be a good option.
R: Hmm, true. It’s quite cheap compared to most we’ve seen and undeniably would be very practical, and this one seems to be equipped enough. Many smaller concerns, but I think we can let those slide and evaluate those when we actually test the vehicles?
O: Yeah. I guess it could work. If we end up with too many cars for the shortlist we could always reevaluate it anyways.
R: I still have my doubts, but eh.
L: Well, screw it.
Approved for now. Very weird thing, but might work. It looks well prepared in styling. Some concerns here and there, but somewhat cheap, and some concerns are due to being a van and can’t be helped much. But such a huge engine in this? Hmm, we’ll see.
Fuji C250 4x4 Facelift Expedition
By @CC9020
G: Next, the Fuji C250 4x4 Expedition. Oh, another van? $22841, mmm…
R: Hmm, doesn’t seem as well equipped as the other one. Oh, this one has a high-strength steel chassis but it isn’t too expensive compared to some of the other cars we’ve seen with that.
O: Ach! The engine though… I’m not liking the engine at all. Not only it has a big engine plus transfer case crammed in a cabover like the last one… the tune is very bad in this 3.5L V6.
G: At least it consumes a reasonable amount? 1.64L/h. How’s the rest?
L: Don’t let the windows fool you, this one is also a cargo van. Only 2 seats in this one actually. Worse than the last.
R: I’m seeing something very interesting, but also very concerning with the suspension. It uses an hydropneumatic suspension, but the complex hydraulic system is going to be a headache to maintain, but it might, MIGHT, be helpfu… ah, forget it. Judging by the rest of the figures given here, this suspension is not very good for offroading.
O: Add to that the pain of maintaining both hydraulics system and that very bad big engine… all in the same space… no.
Rejected. The suspension as tuned more for road use than offroading, and its maintenance cost would mean it’d end up costing more than the mere price suggests, so that sets the bar high. Also the engine tune was pretty bad.
Arctic Tonka
By @Flamers
G: The next one is the Arctic Tonka. $22807. Ooh, huge truck though. The two tone scheme is odd but I like it.
L: Question, can we outright reject vehicles and proposals that say “Arctic” instead of “Antarctic”?
R: Eh I don’t think it’s worth outright rejecting this, as it looks well equipped. Let’s see what it has… Hmm, OK. All-around independent suspension, I don’t know about th… oh, this one also has hydropneumatic suspension. Well then maybe it can work, but again, these are maintenance intensive so that would end up adding more cost than it seems.
L: The interior is very spacious, seats 5… no complaints here. Automatic 6 speed, manual locker.
O: This one also has a V6, but a much better one. A 3.2L turbo V6, it doesn’t suffer from a late spool but… it’s a bit little for so much truck.
R: Oh, yeah, and also consider that the hydraulic pump is going to draw some power too.
G: But this one has a good price, and only consumes 1.45L/h
R: Seems like a good price, but that price will end up being more after we consider maintenance of the fancy suspension. And the engine and suspension itself don’t convince me either.
G: Awww. Alright then.
Rejected. Very nice design and detail, but the suspension would end up making it more expensive than the mere price suggests, which sets the bar higher. And the hydraulic pump for the suspension would draw more power from the already slightly underpowered engine.
Frostlander EX
By @brunator
G: Another large pickup. Frostlander EX, $22856. Eh!? Is it a pig or a truck?
R: OK this one looks odd to say the least. But looks aside, doesn’t look as well equipped as other options.
O: The engine… 3.6L aspirated inline 6. Oh, good low end, especially being aspirated. Worried about it being enough for such a large truck, maybe if the gearing is appropriate?
R: Oh no, the gears are too long in general for this. Especially considering it only has a 5 speed manual, they are spaced a bit too far apart too.
L: The interior seats 4 people, more than decent one. Oh but this one has no ESC, nor TC even. Only ABS. Not an absolute or legal need but… in a truck? in 2019? Come on, we’re expected to be paying $22856 for this. That could’ve been really helpful in difficult terrain.
O: I also see an issue with the brakes. They’re not too big, and they’re not vented. I doubt they’ll have much power or won’t fade if the truck is loaded.
R: I think the departure angle could be better too…
G: Yeah, this isn’t sounding like a good choice. One thing here, thing there…
Rejected. Weird looks, but aside from the looks, doesn’t seem to have much equipment. Unvented and a bit underpowered brakes. Plus some other issues but that end adding up.
Daito Duna
By @MasterDoggo
G: Next one, a truck. Ooh, beautiful truck. Ouch, she breaks my heart: $27683
R: Might look good, but it could’ve been a bit better equipped. High strength steel probably explains much of the high price, but it can’t be the only thing.
O: The engine is a 3L turbo I5. Hmm, spools early enough… no complaints here, except that it says it has VVL, yet it does practically nothing.
L: Eh, the interior is more than we need, probably explains the rest of the price. Leather seats? Seats 4 people. Well at least it has a 7-speed automatic.
R: No complaints about the transmission, has short enough gears it seems.
O: I have no complaints about the brakes. I mean, the rear ones are not vented, but it probably won’t be an issue given their size.
R: Eh, I found where the rest of the price comes from: Air suspension with adaptive dampers? I mean, being able to change the ride height would be useful if these also did road driving, here it could help in a few cases maybe but not that much.
O: And the maintenance?
R: Hmm, definitely costly to maintain this. And how much did the truck cost? Almost 28000?
G: Oh then definitely not. Will end up costing much more in the long run on top of already being pricey.
Rejected. Looked very nice but in general too expensive + too high service costs (more expensive in the end). Could’ve used way less fancy stuff in general.
Kuma KO V6 EXT
By @Xepy
G: Ah, another beautiful truck, the Kuma KO V6 EXT. Please don’t break my heart this time again… Oh, $20505. More than decent!
R: Unlike the last one, this one seems very well equipped, good! I like what I see.
O: I like what I see about the engine too. 3.8L V6, no complaints here. Aspirated, so no worries about a turbo spooling.
R: And it’s coupled to a 6-speed auto with short gears! Nice! How is it inside?
L: No complaints about it. Seats 5 and is good enough for what we need.
G: So, it looks pretty look overall? $20500 is not the best price we’ve seen but is very good.
O: Eh. I have a small complaint. It’s rear load capacity is low for a truck. Not low enough to make it a no-go, but I would’ve preferred more.
L: Well, but considering the price and that the rest is fine, I guess we could go with this one.
Approved. Good styling and details, seems like it’ll perform well enough despite it having an oddly low rear axle payload capacity.
FAAL Kalathios Arctic 1500
By @asami and @Knightophonix
G: Oh, another truck. FAAL Kalathios Arctic 1500, for $23737, hum.
L: Argh, there you go with the “Arctic” again…
R: It looks equipped well enough outside, at least. And I like that it has solid axles front and rear.
O: The engine is a 2.8L turbo I4. Why the hell it says here it’s a Diesel I don’t know. It definitely isn’t. Hell, the spreadsheet even says it runs on gasoline. Ignoring that, it seems pretty good: the turbo spools early. However, it uses expensive high-performance intake filters… completely uneeded here, I don’t think we’re going to be doing spirited driving, will we? We don’t need it to make the high power it makes. Nothing else looks concerning that I can see, though.
G: Consumption at least is good, 1.53L/h
L: I do find something very concerning though. The interior seats 4 in 2 rows but… no rear doors?
O: Eh? What? For real?
L: Well I don’t know you people but I see no rear door handles.
O: Hmmm. Maybe they can be opened from inside or with a FOB?
L: Maybe. If it doesn’t have rear doors at all, that’s a huge problem. Go try to get 2 adults wearing heavy clothes back there by folding the seats. If it does have doors but they open with a FOB, that’s pretty impractical, go try to use one with snow gloves. Impractical for loading/unloading small items from there.
R: Hmm, I see. And I also found another problem: a bit too long gears.
O: And I found another: brakes not vented. They would be toasted after not too long if the truck is loaded.
R: Not like it can load much on the rear axle either… half a ton on the bed is a bit low. Something good is that it has an hydropneumatic suspension without having other things that are too expensive to maintain but… I don’t think that outweights the buildup of other problems.
G: Fine then.
Rejected. Good styling and details, managed to have hydropneumatic suspension with decent maintenance costs and overall price, but the buildup of other issues was too much. Engine suffers from a small case of German overengineering.
Rhisuki Bouken AT3
By @Repti
G: Ah, another good-looking pickup. The Rhisuki Bouken AT3. Ah, gorgeous price too! $18350
R: Seems to be well equipped, not merely a looker. Good. And I don’t see any immediate concerns under the body either.
O: The engine is a bit weird. 2.5L turbo I6 with an odd tune. What the hell is it with these brands making such tiny oddly tuned inline 6s instead of 4 or 5 cylinder engines? Well, at least the turbo spools early enough and it has a good useable band after that.
G: And it only consumes 1.12L/h somehow.
L: Interior seats 4 people, nothing to complain about it. It comes with 7-speed automatic.
R: Ah, I like the gearing on that one. Has some nice short gears.
O: Oh, and finally a truck with a decent load capacity for the bed. Hadn’t seen many lately.
G: So, everything sounds good?
R: So far so good. Nothing seems off on paper. I think we should consider testing this one.
Approved. Good styling. Nothing seems concerning so far, seems good for the price for now.
Jidosha K. - JLAM-V
By @Caligo
G: Next: the JLAM V. Er. I don’t really know how to describe this one nor how to feel about it, here it is. $15594
R: Er. I don’t know how to feel either. I mean this one is clearly equipped for offroading, but it’s tiny. It has a high strength steel chassis? Eh? Looks like a very specialized vehicle. It’s definitely an interesting one, let’s see what it has.
O: Well… the engine is also very weird. It’s a 2.1L NA I3. 3 valves per cylinder? Single point injection? We’ve certainly stumbled upon a weird thing. For moving itself and offroading, it has enough performance. But we are going to need it to make a bit heavier duty utility job than this engine could pull off, frankly.
L: This one could no doubt be practical. 4 seats, rear ones foldable. Could be good for ferrying people short distances, but carrying too many things? Not so much. Also, I have an issue with the automatic transmission. A non-computer controlled 4-speed… this one really cares about simplicity, doesn’t it? However there’s a point where it becomes just plain outdated. Oh, and no driving aids whatsoever. Not even ABS.
O: The engine is definitely the same too. Single overhead camshaft, 3 valves per cylinder, single point injection.
R: Hmm you’re right. This one does go straight to the point and is very simple… but in this case perhaps TOO simple. It is as well prepared as something of this size can be for offroad but… there’s only so much a vehicle of this type can do.
O: I feel it would also not be enough for our needs either.
Rejected. Clearly a very specialized and very simple car… but it’s overdone in this one’s case. There’s only so much such a small vehicle can do though, it can’t hope to perform nearly as well as most others in utility and offroad, ends up being insufficient. Even if it’s cheap, it’s not good enough
T-15
By @Zabhawkin
G: Next the T-15. Yes, only that: 3 characters. Ugh, a weird retro-pickup-thingy. $23823
R: Damn this is barebones. Too barebones. No equipment whatsoever it seems, just the bare minimum lights it seems. Why did we even bother asking for modified vehicles and list the tasks required?
O: Well at least they’ve done the other modifications. Insulation, engine bay, etc. I guess we could still take a look at the rest… oh OK, it has a huge engine for some reason. 4L V6, aspirated. It is certainly a deal more than this needs, but performs well. However, I hope it doesn’t drink all our fuel.
G: 2.14L/h. Above average, but if it’s good enough it wouldn’t be too much of a problem, right?
R: Well, at least the gearing is pretty good, some very short gears.
O: And the load capacity seems pretty good too.
L: Hmmm, I’m not liking the interior though. It can only seat 3 under a roof, which is a bit of a problem. Manageable but… less than ideal to say the least. Also, no ESC, but at least it has TC and ABS, not much of an issue by itself but, how much more expensive could it have been to have that?
R: Well, I’m finding another minor problem too. Hydraulic power steering.
O: Oh yeah. Not that it would be uncomfortable for what we’re using these but.they could’ve made it electric for practically the same cost and have it be much more reliable and less maintenance intensive. Not much of an issue in itself, but still.
G: So, what do we do?
R: Well, I’d say yes if it weren’t for the practically complete lack of exterior equipment for offroading and utility. I’m leaning a bit towards no.
O: I think the same. Otherwise I’d lean towards “maybe”. It’s a hard choice for this one
G: Hmm, I guess we could always also go back to not-so-bad ones if we end up with too few on the list, right? Rejected for now?
L: Yeah, that could work.
Rejected. Not a literal 5-fixture wonder but a checklist ~8 fixture wonder with practically no equipment. Some relatively minor issues aside from that
Albatross Redwood 2019
By @zschmeez
G: And now, the Albatross Redwood 2019. Ah. Not as nice looking of a truck as the ones we saw earlier but, eh, works I guess. Oh, the price does look good. $17201
R: Hmmm this one at least has some equipment, unlike the last one. Let’s see what it has
O: Under the hood it has a turbo 2.8L I5. Unremarkable but in a good way. Spools early enough, good useable band… really, I have nothing bad to say here.
G: The idle consumption is a bit remarkable though, in a good way: 1.30L/h
R: Well, I don’t have any remarks or complaint about the chassis and suspension either. Seems good given what I see here.
L: No complaints about the interior. Seats 5 and is good enough. The transmission is a 6-speed auto.
R: Yeah my only complaint is some of those 6 gears could be a bit shorter, but nothing concerning, and good enough for the engine.
O: My only remark is that this pickup actually has a decent rear axle load capacity unlike most we’ve seen. That’s good!
G: Well if there’s practically nothing to criticize and it has a good price, then let’s definitely consider this one.
Approved. Really, not much to say. A bit bland in styling, but that’s not a big consideration here, and it’s not too much as to be a problem. No issues that can be found with it on paper. Pretty average in general, for below average price.
G: And now please let’s take a break because I’m exhausted.
R: Yeah I’m wondering if this last one was actually as good as this suggested, or if I’m too tired to find defects in it.
O, L: Same.
G: Good then. Let’s come back later.
12 Likes
In terms of entries, what would you say is the percentage of completion in terms of processing entries?