Motor World Review, August 1979
Model Year-In-Review Edition
Best Sedan – 1979
Birmingham 1500 XLG
Relative Rating: 100.00
With a long history of building solid compact cars, it’s no particular wonder that Birmingham tops our list once again, this time with their 1500 XLG.
This 5-door hatchback comes with a reasonably powerful (82 HP) 2 liter four cylinder engine. Our test model was equipped with a 4-speed manual transmission, which puts down power to the front wheels. Off the line and around corners, the Birmingham gives rather sprightly performance, considering it’s geared towards the every-day driver market.
Full cloth seating in all 5 positions is a welcome touch, and the AM radio also comes with an 8 track player. Sound quality is very tinny from the single dash-mounted speaker, but both radio and climate controls were easy enough to use.
The 1500 XLG is priced very reasonably compared to its competition, yet gives you a lot for your money. This earns it our top spot this year.
Best Upscale Car – 1979
Erin Nedala GT-12
Relative Rating: 95.62 (after deduction)
FIXTURE VIOLATION: Rear side markers are the incorrect color
(Rear side marker may look red from this shot, but when I went into the editor and clicked on it, it was amber)
In the interest of disclosure, before our readers go any farther: Our winner this year is a toy for the elite. The likes of stockbrokers, executives, and high-power attorneys are sure to be particularly interested. For the rest of us peasants, we can only dream of owning such a car. Erin bestowed upon this lowly editor the honor of testing their Nedala GT-12 for a short period of time.
The 12 in GT-12, obviously, stands for the number of cylinders in the 5.4 liter all-aluminum motor. This amazing techno-marvel pumps out 395 horsepower, and drinks gas like I drink a Big Gulp.
Fine leather trappings for four await inside, along with other touches such as power steering, windows, and central locking, a 4-speaker AM/FM 8-track player with equalizers, a lighted glove box mirror, and air conditioning. Not to mention generous amounts of real wood grain trim throughout the cabin.
The ride is sublime, though as to be expected of a car the size of the Nedala, parking can be an interesting task. Then again, if you can afford a Nedala, chances are it’ll be a valet doing your parking anyway.
Best Sport Car – 1979
Vermillion Arsene V6 LX
Relative Rating: 99.71
Whereas many companies try to build the ultimate sports car and lure buyers to abandon reason for a set of keys, Vermillion has taken a different approach. With the Arsene V6, they have an “every day” sports car.
Sure, it doesn’t have the flat out speed or cornering of a TSR Kansai or Keika Katana, but it has something that they certainly don’t. Wrapping fun in a sensible package.
If you really want, the fuel-injected 3.4 liter v6 under the hood will take you to 60 MPH in under 10 seconds, and you can go over 120 miles per hour. You can also fit a load of groceries in the trunk, and fighting urban potholes is not nearly as big of a deal during everyday driving as with other competitors.
We found the full cloth seating (for four) to be very comfortable, supportive, and well-made. The radio only had one speaker, but played clearly enough. The 5-speed manual transmission was a joy to row in spirited driving, and its driving dynamics made doing donuts both easy and… well… smoky. All in good fun, of course.
Its price is about in the middle of the pack, which makes it a viable alternative to a boring sedan for some folks, but it’s by no means a “budget” sports car.
Still, we can’t overlook the overall package. And that’s why it’s our top pick this year.
Best Utility – 1979
Deer and Hunt Fallow
Relative Rating: 100.00
The stalwart truck of our roads, the D&H Fallow, tops our list in the utility field this year.
With a no-nonsense 5.0 liter V8 engine, cargo and pulling power to spare, and newer interior refinements, this was not a particularly difficult decision to make. And, of course, over two million buyers have made that same decision since the Fallow was introduced over 30 years ago. You can’t argue with that kind of crowd, now, can you?
Best Engine – 1979
Cascadia 1.7 liter 4-cylinder
(+5% relative rating bonus)
Of the engines put before us this year, we are most impressed with the 1.7 liter 4-cylider from Cascadia. Just a decade ago, it would have been unthinkable that something that put out a mere 69 horsepower would ever make this list. But as times have changed, so have our criteria. Cascadia has put a slick throttle-body fuel injection on their little 1.7 liter, giving it incredible efficiency. Add to that reports from our testing labs that predict this motor to be long lived and you have a winning combination.
Sedan Class Reviews
Ardent Sentinel Sport
Relative Rating: 93.33
“…available in a wide variety of bodies and trim levels. The base “Sport” model is a prime example of how Ardent is catering to entry buyers, with its low price and superb reliability…”
Pros: Best in class reliability, lowest in class purchase price, low maintenance cost
Cons: Low comfort, poor image
Epoch M30 Augustus
Relative Rating: 87.62
“…very comfortable sedan, aimed at those who can’t quite afford a premium car. Our biggest gripes are its fuel consumption and handling…”
Pros: High comfort, high safety
Cons: High purchase price, poor fuel economy, poor lateral handling
Sinistra Traville LC-260
Relative Rating: 90.48
“…a solid car for families on the go. We found it very easy to drive, good on gas, and able to move anyone and anything from point A to B, as long as there wasn’t a dirt road involved…”
Pros: Best in class drivability, reasonable fuel economy, high practicality and utility
Cons: High purchase price, poor reliability, somewhat high maintenance costs, poor rough road handling
Cascadia Combo
Relative Rating: 98.33 (after bonus)
“…compact commuter that should stun the world. Under its hood is our Engine of the Year award recipient, and that’s not all that we love…”
Pros: Engine of the Year, high drivability, good fuel economy, low maintenance cost, high reliability
Cons: Mediocre handling, low image
Kimura Auriga SKR
Relative Rating: 85.71
“…very fun to drive car. If that’s important, this is the car for you. However, it falls short of competitors in many every day aspects…”
Pros: Great handling, high sportiness, good rough road handling
Cons: Somewhat high price, poor practicality, poor drivability, mediocre fuel economy
Bogliq Mutineer Engage
Relative Rating: 87.62
“…a bit of a design enigma. It tries to be a sports sedan, but fails. When you consider it as a family hauler, there many others that do a better job…”
Pros: High sportiness, high safety, good rough road handling
Cons: Poor fuel economy, poor lateral acceleration, mediocre reliability, poor drivability
Everette Bellevue SR6
Relative Rating: 91.43
“…a more reasonably priced alternative to a premium car. It rides well, with decent handling as long as it’s not pushed too far. The interior is one of the most comfortable in the class…”
Pros: High comfort, best in class safety, high utility
Cons: Worst in class fuel economy, high purchase price, high maintenance cost
Takemi Ascera GR
Relative Rating: 93.24 (after penalty)
FIXTURE VIOLATION: Rear side markers are the incorrect color
“…fun little gas-sipper with a potent turbocharged engine. It’s great for blasting around corners and bombing down the road. Just expect it to bomb your wallet now and then as well…”
Pros: Great gas mileage, great performance
Cons: Poor reliability, high maintenance cost, poor rough road handling
Znopresk Z217 Ecomfort
Relative Rating: 90.48
“…like other Znopresks over the years, it’s inexpensive, comfortable, and easy to handle. Quality seems to have been going downhill as of late, however, and the Z217 is also a bit frightening to get up to speed on a busy freeway…”
Pros: Best in class drivability and comfort, relatively low purchase price
Cons: Poor reliability, very slow, less than stellar cornering, somewhat high maintenance cost
Sakura Ronin ES-T
Relative Rating: 72.38
“…while we are not engineers, we do seriously question some of the choices Sakura made when producing the Ronin. For instance, the two-speed manual transmission and tiny engine…”
Pros: Best in class fuel economy, low maintenance cost, good reliability
Cons: Poor drivability, worst in class comfort, low practicality, very slow, poor safety
Upscale Class Reviews
PMI Usurper Consul
Relative Rating: 85.71
“…a premium offering from PMI that just doesn’t rise to the occasion. From the small 4-cylinder engine to the poorly tuned suspension, we’re just not fans…”
Pros: Relatively low purchase price, low maintenance cost, good rough road handling
Cons: Poor performance, poor lateral handling, poor reliability
ACA Traveller
Relative Rating: 90.48
“…an affordable premium compact that may actually claim some sales victories from the entry classes. It’s efficient and comfortable, at least compared to the lesser class. And when one considers that it’s less expensive than a Sinistra or Everette, the value becomes clear…”
Pros: Lowest in class purchase price, good economy, good practicality, great drivability, good handling
Cons: Poor image, lowest in class comfort, marginal safety, mediocre reliability
Olympus Virgo Luxe
Relative Rating: 95.24
“…well-rounded luxury car with a phenomenal safety and reliability record. You’ll pay a lot up front, but in the long run definitely get your money’s worth…”
Pros: Best in round safety, best in class reliability, great comfort, high prestige
Cons: Poor fuel economy, poor drivability, poor handling, high maintenance cost, high purchase price
Sport Class Reviews
IP Pandora 1300S
Relative Rating: 85.71
“…looks sharper than it handles. If you’re looking for a sporty car and your budget is tight, this is your only choice. But we’d recommend saving up a little more…”
Pros: Lowest in class purchase price, low maintenance cost, good rough road handling
Cons: Low image, very slow, poor lateral acceleration, poor drivability
Grehet Emotion
Relative Rating: 90.96
“…a far worthier budget sports car than the Pandora. It won’t break the bank, nor any speed records, but it is far more fun in every condition…”
Pros: Good drivability, high sportiness, best in class economy, low purchase price, good reliability
Cons: Poor comfort, expensive maintenance, low image, subpar performance
TSR Kansai GTR
Relative Rating: 89.21
“…the performance of the Kansai seems to be a little off from the previous generation, with no corresponding relief on the price tag. Don’t get us wrong, we think it’s a great supercar, but it could have more bite, we think…”
Pros: Very fast, extremely prestigious, good safety, good comfort
Cons: Extremely high purchase price, extremely expensive maintenance, poor economy, poor reliability
Keika Katana 2000
Relative Rating: 89.21
“… blends several characteristics of its competitors, while in a way attempting to emulate the TSR Kansai. It’s a competent and fun car, but we wonder if it will find the right market in the current conditions…”
Pros: Low maintenance cost, high sportiness, good performance
Cons: Poor comfort, poor safety, relatively high purchase price
Caliban Thunder Infinity
Relative Rating: 87.46
“…radically styled and fast hatchback. The Thunder Infinity is a pretty ridiculous car in many ways. It’s fantastic fun to throw around a track, but terrible for everyday use…”
Pros: Low maintenance cost, high sportiness, extremely good cornering, high reliability
Cons: Backbreaking comfort, worst in round safety, poor image
Utility Class Reviews
Rado Adventure 140 Base
Relative Rating: 95.65
“…outdoorsy wagon from Rado, a company with a severely tarnished reputation. Don’t hold that against them here; the Adventure is nothing like the Communts that they used to import. Versatile, reliable, and efficient…”
Pros: Low purchase price, best in round offroad, good economy, good reliability, low maintenance costs
Cons: Poor drivability, poor comfort, poor cornering
Round 8 - 1982
The 80’s have arrived with a terrible bang, or more than one. John Lennon was assassinated, Mount Saint Helens erupted in a devastating manner, and the USA mens’ hockey team upset the USSR at the Winter Olympics. Iran and Iraq are at war, causing instability in the Middle East. Reagan has been elected and sworn in as president, and the first Space Shuttle mission blasts off. The economy is in definite recession, with inflation almost out of control. Times are challenging all around…
Economy
Unemployment: Moderate-high
Inflation: Very high
Economy: Recession
Short-term economic forecast: Deepening recession
Notable Social and Political Happenings
Ronald Reagan elected president. US Rail industry is deregulated. STS launches begin. Iran-Iraq war. Massive inflation. John Lennon dies. Mt. St. Helens erupts.
Regulations
Fuel: Regular Unleaded (universal), Premium Unleaded (common)
Bumpers: 5MPH bumpers. Most cars with “integrated” bumpers qualify. Cars with no discernable integrated bumper must have a bumper added.
Front lights and fixtures: At least one pair of headlights required. At least one pair of turn indicators required. Turn signals may NOT be placed in bumpers. Exactly one pair of parking lights are required. Parking lights MAY be placed in bumpers. Parking lights and turn signals may not be part of the same lens/fixture. There has to be some form of visual separation.
Front light colors: No red may face forward.
Rear lights: At least one pair of brake lights. At least one pair of turn signals. At least one pair of reverse lights. NO lights may be placed bumpers (however, optional red reflectors may be). If turn and brake lights are in the same fixture AND of the same color, there must be a minimum of THREE bulbs in the fixture.
Rear light colors: Brakes must be red. Reverse must be white. Turn signals cannot be white.
Side marker/signal lights: Front side markers required. Rear markers required, may be placed either on the side or the rear.
Side light colors: front side may be amber only, rear side may be red only.
Mirrors: Driver’s side required.
Aerials: Long mast or retractable antenna required if car has a radio.
Fuel fillers: Must be placed on the side of the vehicle. Front-engine cars must have the filler somewhere in the rear quarter, mid- and rear-engine cars must have the filler somewhere in the front quarter.
Emissions: Catalytic converter required.
Safety: All passenger vehicles must have a minimum of 26 safety. All trucks, vans, and utes must have a minimum of 20 safety.
File Naming Convention:
Model: Gen9-(username) Trim: (MFR Model Trim)
Engine: Gen9-(username) Variant: (Whatever you want)
Export and PM me the .car file, make a post about your car in your lore thread (if not already there), and post an ad in this thread BEFORE the round deadline.
If your company hasn’t registered for the competition yet and you want to participate in this round, please PM the required company information as well as your submission prior to the round deadline.
Round 9 deadline: Sunday July 1, 9:00 PM PDT (UTC-8)
NO FURTHER COMPANY REGISTRATIONS ARE BEING ACCEPTED.
EXTENDED ROUND DEADLINE FOR THIS ROUND DUE TO ME BEING OUT OF TOWN FRI-SUN NEXT WEEK
Oof…How did I miss an extended deadline? Welp I’ll try not to miss this one…
- track car
- bad dailyability
- reeeeeeeee
WELL HI THERE COMPETITORS
I need to make something clear here… some of you have been violating the spirit of this competition. The core premise: make this thread fit your company’s lore. Not vice versa.
Too many of you have released an “all new” model on EVERY single round. Statistically speaking, this should not happen if your company is following regular product cycles. I should be seeing more cars based on models that are a few years old. While it’s normal for the randomly selected years to coincide with redesigns now and then, it shouldn’t be every. single. time.
Just so you have an idea of what I mean, here’s the history of my own cars with respect to the generations:
1946 - New model (duh, cause the game can’t go any farther back)
1951 - 1 year old
1957 - 2 years old
1961 - 3 years old
1964 - 1 year old
1969 - 4 years old
1973 - 9 years old
1979 - New Model (and FYI, I had actually built this model in UE before this competition ever began)
1982 - My most likely models are 1 and 3 years old. While in lore I have a brand new model in this year, I am unlikely to use it based on the economic conditions in this generation.
To those of you who are consistently sticking to your lore and submitting cars that aren’t always newly remodeled the same year, kudos to you… to those who aren’t, please start making a stockpile of lore ahead of time and play by the spirit, mmkay?
Side note… I came very close this morning to just doing a /tablelflip and walking away from this whole thing. I don’t need a GAME to become a stressor in my life. I have children just in case I ever feel I’m too relaxed. So if YOU are getting stressed over something happening here… take a step back and evaluate whether or not it’s really worth it.
Just to be clear, are you talking about “all new” models or facelifts as well? I’ve mostly been looking through my lore spreadsheet for stuff that’s either all new or gotten a facelift that year to use (and usually with an old engine family or even variant in it) since I figured that’s what’s likely to be reviewed by a magazine. If you’d prefer seeing more cars that haven’t even gotten a facelift that year, then I’ll be happy to submit some of those as well. 
Well, I agree with you to a point there. But on the other hand, take some big manufacturer, with a huge range of models, Toyota for example, and you will see that there is new models released every year. Also, I can understand in such a scenario why you want to submit the newest model, because it’s the one that’s most up to date. My own lore is at 1988 now despite being at 1980 in the thread, because I don’t want to spam that thread all the time (or have the energy to do so). So (and I know that you aren’t talking to me personally), the fact that I will be using a new for 1982 model that is not in the lore thread yet, is not to create it for the competition. It was done a couple of months ago anyway, but I like to do my lore thread in chronological order.
With that said, I think that I have only used completely new models in 1964, and now then again 1982 so I know that I’m not the reason why you are upset, so it’s just a little reflection.
If the point of this competition had been to use just different generations of one single model through the ages though, I would have agreed with you 110%.
I mostly try to have at least 5 years between Facelifts. For the 82 round i will probally use a car which was available in the previous round. But i also dont have my whole lineup planned. I know what will be build not not when exactly. I do use this challenge to develop cars for DaH if they were not already made.
All new models. Facelifts are all part of a normal product life cycle. A platform generation lasts between, say, 5 and 10 years. It’s normal to have a mid-gen facelift (i.e. not creating a whole new “model”, but creating new trims at the facelift year based on the original launch). and Knugcab, most of the “new models” rolled out by major manufacturers are actually facelifts, not fully new platforms.
No one who has replied has done what I am referring to here.
I think I’m probably a bit guilty of this, as I have been playing catch-up for most of this comp (my brand almost didn’t exist prior to this thread). That being said, I’ve also been rotating through model updates, so there is a new (or facelift) model every year or two. :S
Yes, but even if we don’t count facelifts but only all new models, we can take Toyota as an example again, counting only all new models here:
1990 - Celica
1991 - Tercel
1992 - Camry
1993 - Corolla
1994 - Celica again (previous generation had a short lifespan for some reason)
1995 - Avalon
And so on.
When having lots of models in the lineup and quite short lifespans, like most japanese manufacturers have, new models have to be released everytime.
But still, I can understand what you mean and I agree with you too.
For Sakura Personally, I usually introduce the new models in the first 5 years of the Decade, and then do facelifts for the last 4 or 5. Just a side effect of how I plan my company.
I can see where the issue does lie, that is for sure.
Also, you will all probably notice one new company joining this round. That’s because I registered them 2 months ago and, like the giant potato I am, forgot to update the OP. Anyway… Maesima WAS registered prior to the close of new company registration, so it is legit.
My lore is loosely based on a light campaign playthrough in which, I amassed a sizeable tech pool, had familiarity, and a list of engineers. I was able to maintain a 4 years or less turnaround until the mid-late 1990s. The other half of the equation is real life counterparts; such as the G-body. The version in the game isn’t available until 1975, but its real life counterpart showed up in 1977 as a 1978 model.
I’ve been trying to stick to company lore, even if in the 70s-90s PMI Usurper is quite… Chrysler-esk. I do have to say the years randomly chosen have been horrible in terms of planning that Ihad for releases. I have tried to submit cars that were updates of existing models though, even though I could have designed a better newer car.
