Its more or less in the order they were submitted, so check this to know when it’s your turn.
Tension is intensifying. Looks like I really should have used a larger engine, damn it.
I know mine might be in Part 3 and I’ve given up on the challenge knowing eveything I messed up with the Rocky. Like how I gave them the MX instead of MXU.
Going for reliability wasn’t a good idea, then. 82 reliability but only 220 hp on a 3.5 V6 lol
Two thirds… part 2/3 (tolerance: +/-2 entries). 2/3 = 0.6666… = %66.666…
Etc. Don’t know how else to say it. I’m trying to put them out roughly in the order I received them so don’t be surprised if yours come among the last if you sent among the last…
I think I’m getting around 170hp out of a 1.5 i3 turbo with 60-75 reliability, I went for cheapness in the sense that extra money means more budget for spares
Wat? inline 3? Did you send a lawn mower into competition?
Concerning the fact the car idles mostly and rarely used for really heavy loads and should have decent mileage, I thought 210 horsepower should do the job. But this seems to be rather the bottom end here.
In this kind of challenge, low-end torque, idle fuel consumption, offroad ability and durability is more important than horsepower alone.
Questions own decision to use such an innately flawed body style
I’m surprised I made it with all the little issues my van had. Good luck everyone wlse who was accepted and to the people who haven’t been judged yet!
1 Like
If you didn’t have luck with utility vehicles, try a taxi. I still need some entrants. 
Uh there are 15 fixtures 
, to be honest I have never been very good at doing the cosmetic part of my cars.
As far as not having ESC it is my understanding that that is the stability control and every 4X4 I know of when you go into 4low that portion gets disabled but it did have traction control.
Huh electric power steering did make it a touch better, and a touch cheaper too.
@CMT mine has 178hp which between the engine, and the gearing was more than enough. Though mine makes 31hp at a 700rpm idle which by the calculations caused the fuel consumption to be a bit high but it could pull your house, and your neighbors. I mostly went too much to the utility side.
I didn’t go count them in detail, it’s not literally 8, and counting mirrored ones as one. What I meant is it was practically a checklist car: One headlight, one blinker, one taillight assembly… Even then, it didn’t have extra equipment unlike pretty much everyone else has done, wouldn’t have been fair to not mention that given how the great majority of people modified their cars with equipment and details.
Regarding ESC, traction control would be very useful for heavy snow or ice operation, and ESC in modern trucks comes with other useful things even in this context like hill start assistance and descent assistance, which can come undeniably handy. That’s why I’ve mentioned that when I’ve done it. Even then, they won’t be in 4x4 mode and offroading all the time either. On its own wouldn’t have been too bad, but it was another thing that most others had.
And I mentioned the power steering because electrical is practically a flat upgrade over hydraulic. Not a too bad thing, but, it’s weird because of that: because there is practically no downside to going electrical these days. I didn’t mention anything about it being non-variable (nor on any other that might’ve been) because that is indeed pretty irrelevant here, no high speed driving.
5 Likes
I think it’s more than you picked a v6 and then turboing it. V6 and twin turbos don’t quite work that nicely yet. Very damn hard to make it low spooling. Im getting 240 ish with a 3.2l i6. With still above 80 rel. But only 22hp with 23% on idle iirc?
I realized My entry will be the first in Part 3 maybe.
It’s a naturally aspirated engine, I think it made like 21 hp at idle and 23% efficiency.
Hydro suspension was probably a push but worth the try 
1 Like
Well I’m glad you like it. My design goal with this truck was getting the job done at a reasonable price, and I seemingly nailed it. I look forward to seeing where the rest of this CSR takes us. 
Why was I tagged?
Judging Round 1, Part 3/3
García was leaning against the 4th wall of the room again, eating. “You know guys, if you don’t find it weird that so many of these cars got their pics taken in the very same grassy hills, don’t you find it weird that absolutely none of them are Diesels?” he said between chews. “I mean, it’s as if all these carmakers had felt compelled to not make a Diesel as if some external limitation were imposed on them, when Diesels would be very common in utility vehicles, right?”
“Quit stuffing your mouth and come here, I want to finish this today” said Ojeda
“Sigh… Fine”
Okul MUV 1
By @Tyhikastija
G: The first one is a small van, Okul MUV 1. $20683, decent. Looks good but… man why are the door handles so low?
R: Ignoring those awkward handles… it does look prepared, but not as much as that van we left for consideration earlier.
O: This one doesn’t have such a large engine but… it has its problems. 2L Boxer 4, so it’s down at the bottom. Another one that would be a bit of a pain to maintain. But ignoring that, the tune is just straight awful. At first I thought it was naturally aspirated, but it’s not. It’s just that the turbo spools so late that it contributes practically nothing: spools around 6800rpm… holy shit it even spools after peak torque, 6200rpm. For all intents and purposes, it’s naturally aspirated with 2 cosmetical turbochargers on the sides.
R: For all intents and purposes except maintenance… Having parts that do nothing, and it has an intercooler too to take more space.
G: But at least it sips just 1.11L/h
R: Eh, but that isn’t of much use if the engine is bad. Still I guess we could look at the rest…
L: Inside it seats 5, comes with fancy leather seats. Definitely more than needed, could’ve cheapened on that. And the rear seats are full seats instead of crappier foldable seats.
O: Hmm, yeah. Loading a single large item would be hard in this, except maybe on the roof, but if it’s too heavy that wouldn’t work either.
R: Oh, and the brakes are not vented. They could fade a little bit with if carrying a load
L: Hmm considering the buildup of issues, and if in doubt: no
Rejected. Looks decent, but turbos do nothing of value for the engine whatsoever. Fancier interior than really needed. Brakes would fade with a bit with a load.
Blaire Rocky MX
G: Next is the Blaire Rocky MX for $19774. Er…
R: Ha ha, some people are feeling funny today. Is it so fucking hard to not offer obsolete and completely unfit vehicles?
L: They didn’t even do any of the modifications we asked for whatsoever.
O: I got this
Ojeda crumbled the papers, stood up, went to the corner of the room, and threw the ball of papers at the bin accross the room. It bounced against the wall and went in.
O: Woo! Another trey!
Rejected. (ಠ_ಠ). You didn’t even use the fucking naming scheme so I had to go dig to see which car was yours. One job. It has no redeeming qualities aside from the “Family 1 Variant 1” engine matching the car it’s on perfectly, as they’re both a lazily cobbled together without thought or effort piece of shit.
Archon Bies
By @RyderTheRed
(ಠ_ಠ)
G: I just got an e-mail from another office. Turns out they received a car proposal that they think should’ve been for us. They sent me a scanned copy.
L: Do we really want to buy from people so sloppy that they send it to the completely wrong place? We were very clear with that, weren’t we?
O: That is definitely bad for sure but, well, let’s take a look anyways…
G: Archon Bies I think it is called? $23681. A black bat-truck.
R: I wouldn’t call this one a truck. Full unibody, all-around independent suspension… it’s like a crossover with a bed. Rear multilink can be a pain to maintain if something breaks, and all independent suspension restricts articulation. I’m not liking that.
L: The interior has 5 leather seats… completely unneeded.
O: Well I think we gave it the benefit of the doubt enough already. Too much for something of this price and that was sent to the completely wrong place and we learnt saw by pure luck.
Rejected. Didn’t use the naming scheme but at least I could tell it was a CSR car and whom it belonged to… but still, that’s bad. I could’ve just sent it straight to the bin because of that without even mentioning the rest
Teuvo Terracotta
By @LS-Vehicles
G: Hopefully a truck this time. Large one, Teuvo Terracotta. $18212, good price. And it looks nice, doesn’t it?
R: A truck indeed, I like what I see. Very well equipped, good! Also, fully body-on-frame, hadn’t seen one like that for a long time. Solid axles front and rear. No complaints over here.
O: This one comes with a turbocharged inline 6, but a reasonable sized one at around 2.8, 2.9L. No signficant complaints here for this price.
G: 1.34L/h of consumption only.
L: I have a small complaint about the interior. Seats 6, but the seats are pretty bad… well, nothing we can’t manage and can’t be picky with such a large truck for this truck but still. Well, at least it has enough electronic toys for charging devices at least, and has a 7-speed automatic.
R: Oh yeah and it has short enough gearing for this engine, good.
O: Oh, finally! A truck with very good load capacity. A lot of the ones we’ve seen had low rear axle load capacity, this one has more than enough. The only problem I’m finding is that the brakes are not vented. They are pretty large, and we won’t be using all of this bad boy’s load capacity though… so considering the price, I think we should consider this one.
Accepted. A lot of details, very good! Plus a solid truck for a good price instead of something trying to look the part. Maybe a bit too basic in interior and brakes, but well, not too significant in this one’s case.
Wallys Grand Expedition Heavy Duty
By @vmo
G: Now the Wallys Grand Expedition Heavy Duty. A SUV? I guess it counts as such. Ooh, looks good. $18303 looks good too.
R: Good, not a crossover in disguise: full truck frame, solid axles front and rear. Looks like it’s definitely an offroader.
O: Holy. It has a large engine, 4L I6 in this not-too-large boy. It’s a bit tight in there. Oh, well, at least it’s very good. And it’s naturally aspirated, meaning no need to worry about a turbo spooling. Very good low and mid range.
G: 1.82L/h though. A bit more than many, but still reasonable.
R: For that engine size it is reasonable I’d say.
L: Hmm, the interior is nice enough without being excessive, it can carry 5 people. The transmission is a 5-speed manual. Nothing we can’t use, but an auto isn’t expensive these days, is it?. Well, very good for the price so far still.
R: Well, the gearing seems a bit longish but considering the engine is aspirated, won’t be much of an issue. I’d prefer slightly wider tires but not a big problem either.
O: I think we should definitely consider these. It has enough cargo room and capacity for most of our needs.
Accepeted. Interesting styling, nice details. A few minor issues but for this price they can slide for now.
Quost Tapir Standard
By @oldenways
G: Next the Quost Tapir Standard. Ouch, $27843. Er… what the hell is this?
R: Did anyone ask for a truck-shaped limousine?
L: They didn’t even do the modifications we asked for! Some people have no reading comprenhension whatsoever. I’m getting tired of these.
O: OK but at least it’s an opportunity… to see if I can get the hat trick.
Ojeda crumbled the papers and threw them to the bin, but missed.
O: AWWWWW
Rejected. I even gave you the chance to resubmit after being overbudget and not having used the naming scheme the first time! (ಠ_ಠ)
LLA MightyMan Mk3 X-Trek - XL
By @LinkLuke
G: Next up, the LLA MightyMan Mk3 X-Treck - XL. Wow that’s a long name. $16488. Er… does this count as a pickup?
L: If we wanted one of those small Japanese trucks we would’ve gotten some long ago
O: Or one of their Chinese knockoffs.
R: Yeah this thing is going to have the offroad capability of a shopping cart with that ride height and those tires.
O: Engine is terrible, it is high-strung and the turbo spools too late. A racing shopping cart! And the brakes would be cooked nicely after using them loaded for a while.
Rejected. This thing simply does not work, at all.
Armor Alpine
G: OK this one at least seems like a serious proposal. Fingers crossed, Armor Alpine. $20508
R: This one is a truck alright. But it came without external equipment, yeah, that’s not good. Also this one has no rustproofing whatsoever it seems, outside of the paint. I would’ve preferred a bit of that, but let’s see the rest. And it could’ve had more ride height.
O: Engine is a 3.3L NA V6… this tune is just plain bad. That, and the obsolete valvetrain make it punch below its weight. 1.8L/h consumption
L: So far the interior sounds like the only uncriticizable thing then. It sits 4 and is decent enough.
O: Oh the rear axle load capacity is just abysmal.
R: Well, definitely not then.
Rejected. Buildup of several important issues
Cyanide Motors 2016 Husky - '19 Arctic Custodian
G: Another truck. Cyanide Motors 2016 Husky, for… ouch. $26438. It’d better be good.
R: Well I see no obvious issue at first. This one at least came equipped, unlike the last one. And lifted properly.
O: The engine is a 3.6L NA V8. Good low and mid end, I see no issue here. Maybe it consumes too much?
G: Nope, 1.68L/h
L: The interior seats 6. It is acceptable, but the second row has a bit worse seats than most we’ve seen, but for the second row I think it can be fine. It could be used for carrying objects or people easily. Oh, the gearbox is manual though.
R: Hmm. I guess the gearing could work given that it is NA, but it could be a tiny bit shorter. Looking at the rest… I see no obvious problems.
G: Aside from the price?
L: Oh right, what do we do with this one? It clearly has no significant flaws but… I think we’ve seen comparable ones for much less, haven’t we?
O: Eh, the approved pile has grown quite large anyways. One more, one less… let’s put it there and then compare to said others and make the choice then.
Accepted. Unremarkable, as in, it doesn’t have important flaws… aside for its price. It might get rejected later in favor of cheaper cars of comparable performance. But it survived for now
Fuoristrada, Edizione Antartica
By @LordLetto
G: Oh. Well, it had to happen sooner or later. An Anti-Toro… well, more of an Anti-Strada given the name… The Fuoristrada Edizione Antartica! $22620
R: And they cheapened out on the equipment it seems! Well, something that was expected of something that sounds so FIAT-insipired. But let’s see anyways… high strength steel chassis on this thing? Two solid axles? Eh? That was unexpected for sure
O: This one is even more unexpected: it has a 4L V8 inside… with two turbochargers on top. No kill like an overkill?
G: 1.92L/h… hmmm…
L: This car is just… no. Look at this: it has drum brakes all around and the interior is 2 of the crappiest seats imaginable with no place to charge anything whatsoever. Hilariously shitspec and very very impractical. But then you look at the price and the fancy active suspension they advertise here and it suddenly sounds like a high end car?
R: Right, no. Too many issues… plus I don’t think this thing could ever hope to perform as well as most others we’ve seen and it brings no external equipment.
Rejected. Design-wise it’s a bit mediocre, a checklist car with no equipment. And the engineering choices… oh boy. They’re incredibly weird and all over the place. The shittiest shitspec that has ever shitspecced in places, and a fancy premium car in others.
Nagoya Rambler Classic
G: Now a SUV. The Nagoya Rambler Classic, for $21805
R: Decent equipment. Pretty traditional truck chassis and layout with front independent suspensions… nothing to note here that I can see.
O: I don’t know what is it with people putting huge engines in this retro Jeep-like SUVs… 4L OHV V8, naturally aspirated. A bit higher strung than it needs to be for this, more mid range than low range… but being such a large engine it can brute force its way forward I guess. Oh, this thing I don’t like. The intake filters are going to be expensive on this thing. And another thing is: how much does this large engine consume?
G: 2.34L/h, the highest or almost the highest so far. We had done the math earlier for a similar one and it wasn’t too much, but still, less would be preferable. Not a disqualification on its own by any means though.
L: The interior is more than fine, seats 5 people. Comes with a 6 speed automatic.
O: My other problem is that it is a bit restricted in cargo space.
R: Well, I say considering that we’ve seen with around the same performance for less… I don’t know about this one.
O: Oh yeah and also considering how expensive it’d be to maintain this engine, and I think this is a first one: how much fuel it’d consume… I think that tips the scales towards “no”. Besides, we’ve seen equivalent performance for less.
Rejected. The engine would cost much to keep running, and it just doesn’t perform well enough on paper to justify it. If it weren’t for that, it could be pretty solid.
Schwarzburg X-Cross
By @Rudzis
G: OK, big truck incoming. Schwarzburg X-cross. Ouch, big price incoming: $26196. The accepted pile is growing a bit large so it’d better be damn good for that price.
R: It has good equipment but it started wrong already… fully independent suspension. No, wait. Hydropneumatic fully independent suspension. The hydropneumatic part in itself is not bad, it could be helpful but… with this price… things are a bit tight.
O: Engine is a 3L twin-turbo V6. A bit higher strung than needed.
G: And it consumes 2.44L/h, a bit more than the last… with that price and the consumption getting a bit higher it’d better not have any other problems.
O: Er… I can see some. These brakes would certainly not be enough when this thing is loaded.
L: Shame, it was the only one that I remember seeing with an electronic LSD, which could’ve been useful. But brake problems plus expensive and fully independent suspension… no.
Rejected. Too many problems for its price tag, basically
FM TrailWay
By @Jaimz
G: Another truck incoming. Eh, another expensive truck incoming: FM TrailWay for $25544
R: “Truck” with scare quotes. Another crossover with a bed I say. Full monocoque, fully independent suspension with rear multilink suspension.
O: Oh no. Look at this engine. Forget it. We’re not looking for an American racecar with a big V8. This thing is just too complex and overengineered, just no.
Rejected. Maximum engine ET was 150 (ಠ_ಠ). Wasn’t looking too promising anyways.
RCM Prairie CX 4x4 Polar
By @thecarlover
G: OK, finally a decently priced pickup truck. RCM Prairie CX 4x4 Polar, $16843. Ooh, pretty one.
R: Hmm pretty but it could’ve had a bit more of equipment. I guess for the price we could add a lightbar or something ourselves, but still… Oh, at least I like what I see here. No impostor, an actual truck.
O: The engine is a 3.5L aspirated V6… no problems that I can see with it. Seems more than enough, good useable band.
G: It consumes a more than reasonable 1.61L/h too.
L: The interior is… acceptable for the price. The back seats are not comfortable by any means but that’s not much of an issue. Could be useful for carrying items too. Seats 5 people max. Oh, and it has a 7-speed auto.
R: Ah, short gearing, I like that. I don’t know you but I don’t find any other problems that require attention.
O: Me neither.
G: Well I guess this one is accepted then.
Accepted. Not much to say about it, in a good way. A very solid competitor with a naturally aspirated engine.
Hawker Nemesis ExP
By @USDMFTW
G: Next one is the Hawker Nemesis ExP. $22273. Could this truck be any more blue?
R: Looks well-equipped, good. No complaints about the chassis or the suspension so far.
O: Oh, I like this engine. Big inline 6, but not unreasonable: 4.4L, and naturally aspirated. Very good useable band, more than enough oomph. And this is odd: 5 valves per cylinder. Overall it seems fine but my concern is: will this consume a lot of fuel with 4.4L?
G: Er… 2.04L/h. Above average sure, but quite a bit less than some we’ve seen. On its own it wouldn’t be a problem I think, if the rest is good…
L: Well the interior is good enough, seats 5. It comes with a 6-speed auto
R: Eh, considering the engine… it can work without needing shorter gears. That’s fine.
G: So, no problems on this one?
L: None that I can see.
O: Brakes look fine, load capacity is more than good enough…
R: Suspension is fine by me… the higher price than similar options seems to be due to more extensive rust-proofing than others, I think it’s more than worth considering.
Accepted. A bit more thirsty than average but well within the realm of acceptable. More than enough engine. Nothing bad to say about the rest.
ACA EcoFlow HD Base Offroad Special
G: Oh, OK. Here comes a weird one. ACA EcoFlow HD, $16144. A big van.
R: Er. Indeed it is weird. But it does seem to be equipped and modified for offroading but… still, there’s not much you could get out of such a large van. It should be lifted a bit higher for example, it’d be good for not so heavy offroading, but what we need? I don’t know…
O: It has a 2.2L turbocharged I4. It seems good, nothing to complain about here.
L: Well. The interior is at least very versatile. 3 full seats up front, and a row of 3 foldable seats in the middle, seems good.
R: Oh I found a big problem. No underside protection whatsoever. Couple that with the pretty low ride height and… no, I don’t think this thing can withstand the use we want to give it.
G: Oh, but it was so cheap…
Rejected. Very nice looking van. But no underside protection, small ride height. But well, it doesn’t have nearly as much offroad capability as everything else and there’s not too much such a large van could have.
Tanaka Biome 3.6 TR
By @Aaron.W
G: Oh, loooong truck incoming. Tanaka Biome 3.6 TR… $27502, I’m not liking that at all
R: And I’m not liking that it suffers from the same low ride height and low breakover and departure angle issues as the last one while not being a truck… actually, let me just skip straight to the point… ah, yup. No underside protection! Just some cladding. That won’t be nice.
O: Want another nail on this one’s coffin? Very late spooling and high strung I6 turbo. Not good at all.
L: Yeah for $27500 I’d say this is an outright no.
Rejected. Very unsuitable engine tune, no underside protection + low ride height for its length. At this price, not many things can slide.
CMT Gaucho
By @CMT
https://s17.directupload.net/images/190307/d5rtxtyz.jpg
G: Another truck, large one. CMT Gaucho for $23324. Oh look, it looks like a truck I drew as a kid! Damn it’s a bit ugly. And this two-tone doesn’t help.
R: Lacking equipment, hmm. Well at least it’s an actual truck.
O: The engine is a 2.6L V6. Needlessly high-strung. It has a mediocre low end. And being NA it might be a bit little for so much truck. But maybe if the gearing is short enough it can compensate?
R: Oh no, the gearing could be shorter too. And it has a manual so we’ll have to play with the clutch with this underpowered-ish engine.
L: Inside it sits 4, with quite a lot of space. Oh, this one has an electronic LSD at least. Rare sight among these trucks we’ve seen.
O: Hmmm rear axle load capacity is a bit on the low side…
G: What do we do then?
R: I’d say considering the engine and the gearbox it has, and considering we’ve seen things that offer roughly the same performance or more for less… I say no.
L: Yeah, the accepted pile has grown a bit too large, no need to add something that we’ll almost surely reject again soon.
Rejected. High-strung engine, low end is a bit too little for such a large truck. Manual gearbox with that poor low end means that it could end up being “try not to stall this”. Plus other vehicles have been better or as good for less
Grehet Kono
By @koolkei
G: Here comes another large truck. Grehet Kono, for $22038. Heh, interesting looks. Kinda reminds me of the Chinamobile we saw among the very first ones.
R: Looks well equipped. Full frame, pretty traditional for a truck… Suspension seems fine except for these fancy active sway bars. I mean, I guess they’re useful… but this kind is normally used in road cars or race cars. Doesn’t really contribute anything for offroading. I’d prefer them to be disconnectable, or for it to not have at all, at least on the rear. These will restrict articulation quite a bit.
O: Well, at least the engine is very good. 3.2L turbo I6, with no complaints to be had at all. Very good tune.
G: No complaints about its consumption either, 1.49L/h.
L: The interior seats 5: 2 full seats and 3 rear seats that aren’t as good, but could work I guess… Ooh, automatic 8 speed.
R: Huh, this one is AWD, interesting. Oh, no, this is not interesting. It has viscuous LSDs. They’re barely better than open differentials for offroading. That, plus sway bars… this thing can’t do heavy offroading.
O: And no underside protection either, only some aerodynamic cladding.
G: Ok then, this one is not it.
Rejected. Good design, very very good engine. But this thing doesn’t have much offroad capability due to various factors.
Geschenk Grand Ton
By @racer126
G: Ah, fucking finally! The last one! The Geschenk Grand Ton. Ooh, sexy truck. $19598
R: Looks reasonably well equipped, good. Pretty traditional layout for a truck. This one looks promising.
L: The promises stop there though. They didn’t do any of the modifications we asked for.
O: Oh an this engine tun… It’s atrocious. Good thing we don’t have to keep looking at it.
G: Oh good thing that it was a straight rejection then. I wanted to be done, yay!
Rejected. Didn’t have the required advanced 10s safety. And for the love of anything that’s holy, what was that engine? Turbo spools at 5100rpm and barely any useable band after that.
L: Don’t sing victory yet, we still need to see which ones will definitely go on the shortlist.
O: Yes, these are too many. We need to shorten that a bit.
G: AWWWWWWW. Ok, but can I take a quick break to go to the bath room and get a bit of food and coffe here? We can do that while eating.
L: Sigh, fine.
(I’ll do the shortlist shortening in another reply shortly to reduce confusion and to not have this one be so long)
11 Likes
Believe me that it was a complete accident. I’m not interested (and I think most other people too are not interested) in calling your atention so you can come make yet another bunch of completely useless comments in here.
4 Likes
As I stated before That was the MX trim. Also I only now start renaming engine variants. Because I am honestly too lazy to name them. Though I will start doing it.