Motor World Review, August 1982
Model Year-In-Review Edition
(Side note – you will notice one of the category winners has a lower RR than some of the other entrants. This is because they won their overall category before penalties.)
Best Entry-level Car – 1982
Vermillion Igni 1900
Relative Rating: 100.00
Vermillion seems to be a perennial contender for the Best-of titles every year. This year, they take top honors again, with the Igni 1900.
Among its peers, the Igni stands out for being exceptional in several ways. Its road manners are excellent, even on rough, broken roads. It is easy to park, easy to see out of, and even the 5-speed manual transmission shifts with ease, its knob within easy ergonomic reach of the driver.
All 4 doors open wide for easy entrance and egress, and the front seats have a wide range of motion, giving both front and rear passengers plenty of space. The seats themselves are made from a durable, flat-woven cloth. Radio controls are well thought out, even if the radio itself is nothing spectacular.
Under the hood is a 12 valve overhead cam, fuel-injected engine that puts out 85 horsepower. That is on the more powerful end for this class. This leads to our only real gripe; the fuel economy of the Igni is acceptable, but not particularly good when stacked against its competitors.
Best Upscale Car – 1982
Fenton ET 300
Relative Rating: 100.00
The face of upscale motoring has changed here in the 1980’s. Small is the new big, and the Fenton ET 300 is leading the pack of this year’s available contenders.
It includes all of the touches you’d expect from a car of standing. Veloured cloth seats (with leather as an available option), a 4-speaker AM/FM stereo with equalizers, power steering, and air conditioning all come standard. As does something new; Fenton has made an air bag for the driver a standard option this year as well, ushering in a new era of safety.
Its motor is no slouch either. A 3.0 liter single-cam V6 worth 150 horses, mated to an electronically controlled 4-speed automatic transmission, allows the ET 300 to get up to 60 in under 10 seconds.
Handling is sharp for a car of this class, but its biggest coup comes at the pump. Our week-long test netted over 25 miles per gallon in mixed driving.
The ET 300 competes at a price point similar to the Takemi Ascera and the Birmingham 8000. While it is the most expensive of the trio, we feel it is worth the extra initial outlay.
Best Sport Car – 1982
Grehet Supremacy
Relative Rating: 93.00 (after penalties)
FIXTURE VIOLATION: Rear side markers the wrong color.
SUBMISSION VIOLATION: No ad submitted
Supremacy. Grehet certainly had a prophetic stroke when they named their new supercar.
It indeed rules supreme in the sports car world. 432 horsepower is a number we haven’t seen coming from an engine in over a decade. And they have squeezed it out of a turbocharged 4.2 liter twin-cam motor.
This engine is an absolute beast, and looks like an enigma when one pops the hood to look at it. But when you slip behind the wheel into the luxurious leather seats and wrap your hands around the leather-trimmed wheel, that becomes less concerning. And when you fire it up, well…
Hands down, the Supremacy is the best handling, fastest car out there today. And unlike sports cars of a day gone by, a joyride will not break your back or make your spleen bleed. Rather, the level of sophistication invested in the passenger cabin rivals that of premium sedans.
Alas, we must shatter many dreams here. The Grehet Supremacy is also supremely expensive. But if you can afford one, you will understand what it means to never compromise.
Best Utility – 1982
Deer and Hunt Buck
Relative Rating: 100.00
Deer and Hunt, known for many years for their rough and tumble trucks, shows us their civilized side with the Buck van.
Unsurprisingly, a 4.5 liter V8 motor powers this model. But what may surprise some Deer and Hunt fans is how pleasant it is for passengers.
Premium velour seating for five is standard, along with a 4-speaker AM/FM stereo with programmable presets, as well as air conditioning and power steering. The Buck also boasts a cavernous cargo area and, if that’s not enough to move your family’s gear, it also comes standard with a roof rack. And did we mention it has a half ton payload rating, and a 2500 pound tow rating?
Deer and Hunt knows their customers well, and they have shown that they can cater to their customers in more than just one way.
Best Engine – 1982 - TIE
Caliban Screamer II 1600 and Ardent Cygnus 2C-20Si
(+5% relative rating bonus for Caliban, no bonus for Ardent)
This year we have a tie for best engine.
First is the Caliban Screamer II 1600, which powers their Thunder Infinity. With 100 horsepower and 91 ft-lbs of torque, it does a more than adequate job of propelling the small hatchback. What impressed us most is that it is, despite its intended design for use in a sporty car, the Screamer II is quite smooth in operation. This may explain why our long-term lab testing indicates that it is going to be one of the most reliable engines available this year.
The second choice is Ardent’s 2C-20Si “Cygnus” series 4-cylinder motor. Much more mundane than the Caliban offering at 79 horses from a 2.0 liter displacement, the Ardent motor is very peppy and torquey in its application on the Piper. It, like the Caliban Screamer, also places very highly on our long-term reliability testing. As an added bonus, service for the Cygnus is both simple and inexpensive, saving in long-term cost.
Sedan Class Reviews
Ardent Piper 2.0 GL
Relative Rating: 91.43
“…seems to have more of a focus on performance and comfort than economy. This might make the most fun car to drive to work this year, but you’ll pay for it in fuel…”
Pros: Low maintenance cost, decent comfort, good practicality, best-in-class reliability (tie)
Cons: Poor safety, poor fuel economy, subpar handling
IP Urbana 1000S
Relative Rating: 81.43
“…super low-cost offering. Those looking for a new car, but with a used car budget, might be interested in the Urbana. On the other hand, its small size and poor performance make it rather outdated for the modern American road…”
Pros: Lowest in round purchase price, low maintenance cost, best-in-class reliability (tie)
Cons: Very slow, poor comfort, poor safety, subpar handling
Cascadia Combo
Relative Rating: 94.29
“…this model continues on from the previous year unchanged. Perhaps Cascadia isn’t changing it, however, because it’s so good overall…”
Pros: High drivability, good comfort, modest purchase price, low maintenance cost
Cons: Poor rough road handling
Epoch M10 A14
Relative Rating: 91.43
“…a solid overall entry in the commuter realm. It’s quite good on gas and handles well, though it’s not as comfortable as similarly priced models…”
Pros: Good fuel economy, modest purchase price, good handling, low maintenance cost
Cons: Poor comfort, poor practicality, rather slow
Sinistra Swift GS3900
Relative Rating: 95.71
“…by far the most thrilling of the entry-level cars we tested. Owners will pay for the thrill in the long run, however…”
Pros: Good drivability and handling, good comfort, best in class safety, good performance
Cons: Poor fuel economy, high purchase price, poor reliability
Maesima Celento 2.0
Relative Rating: 84.29
“…safe and inexpensive. The new Maesima does have several challenges, however, when stacked up against other cars…”
Pros: Low purchase price, high safety, good fuel economy
Cons: Poor drivability and handling, high maintenance cost, mediocre reliability
Upscale Class Reviews
Bush Andromeda 2150
Relative Rating: 91.30
“…reliability history that’s not particularly impressive, along with fuel consumption that is rather on the thirsty side. On the other hand, the Andromeda receives high marks for its road manners and safety…”
Pros: High safety, high drivability, good rough road handling, low initial cost
Cons: Poor reliability, poor fuel economy
PMI Usurper Consul 82 V6 Turbo
Relative Rating: 89.86
“…in testing has shown a tendency to have fuel system and top end failures at a rather alarming rate. But no other car in the class comes even close to the sheer thrill that the Usurper’s 3.8 liter turbo six provides…”
Pros: Fast, comfortable, great safety, great rough road handling
Cons: Poor fuel economy, worst in class reliability, high purchase price
ACA Traveller
Relative Rating: 88.41
“…while a mostly balanced, if not inspiring, entry into the world of premium cars, it’s just too slow for the modern American highway…”
Pros: Good fuel economy, good handling
Cons: Poor performance, otherwise very mediocre
Birmingham 8000
Relative Rating: 85.86 (after penalties)
FIXTURE VIOLATION: No aerial for radio, no fuel filler
“…probably among the most reliable premium cars you will find. It handles competently enough, though that doesn’t save it from other demerits received during our test period…”
Pros: Good lateral handling, best in class reliability (tie), good sportiness
Cons: Worst in class drivability, worst in class comfort, somewhat expensive maintenance
Takemi Ascera 10th Anniversary Edition
Relative Rating: 97.10
“…a very close second to the Fenton 300 ET in the mid-range premium segment. While we prefer its interior slightly to the Fenton, the Ascera’s engine is underpowered, compromising both performance and economy…”
Pros: High comfort, great fuel economy, good drivability
Cons: Poor reliability, subpar performance
Olympus Libra Luxe
Relative Rating: 98.55
“…this luxury cruiser took second overall in the class, though its extreme cost will be a major consideration for most buyers…”
Pros: Best in class comfort, best in class safety, good drivability, prestigious model
Cons: Very high maintenance cost, highest in round purchase price, poor fuel economy
Sport Class Reviews
LMC Maladus M100 GT
Relative Rating: 95.59
“…nearly the performance of a Grehet Supremacy, at a fraction of the purchase price. Yet it keeps its overall balance…”
Pros: Great performance, high drivability, good safety, prestigious model
Cons: High maintenance cost, poor fuel economy
Keika Katana 2000RS
Relative Rating: 94.12
“…all things considered, it’s relatively cheap and fun to throw around. Insurance costs, however, are sure to be sky high due to poor crash test marks…”
Pros: Low purchase price, good performance, best in class fuel economy
Cons: Poor drivability, poor safety
Erin Nasaro 2.0I Turbo
Relative Rating: 92.65
“…powerful 2 liter turbo 4-cylinder engine revs willingly. While we feel it’s a good car, it just didn’t stand out in any way…”’
Pros: Low purchase price, decent performance and fuel economy, good reliability
Cons: High maintenance cost, poor drivability
Kimura Auriga Ralliart
Relative Rating: 92.65
“…in the similar vein, both price and performance-wise, as the Erin Naraso. Competent, reasonable, but nothing particularly outrageous or noteworthy…”
Pros: Low purchase price, decent performance and fuel economy, good drivability
Cons: Low sportiness, low comfort, poor rough road handling
Bogliq Coyote 240 Street
Relative Rating: 86.76
“…cheapest entrant in the field. That seems to be the calling card of Bogliq lately, and they are struggling to stay relevant in the field of performance…”
Pros: Low purchase price, good safety, low maintenance cost
Cons: Poor reliability, poor drivability, handling badly outclassed by competitors, low comfort
Caliban Thunder Infinity
Relative Rating: 94.71 (after bonus)
“…under the hood is one of our favorite engines, the Screamer II 1600. It’s very well matched to the car, which itself is rather rough and raucous, but great for a budget kick…”
Pros: Engine of the Year, good economy, best in round lateral handling (tie), low maintenance cost
Cons: Low comfort, poor drivability, poor safety
Utility Class Reviews
Sakura Asura Overland Republic
Relative Rating: 94.59
“…a 4WD truck built in the greatest traditions of domestic makers like Deer and Hunt and Dominion, yet from across the sea…”
Pros: High reliability, high offroad, high utility
Cons: Poor drivability, worst in round fuel economy, somewhat high maintenance cost
Rado Adventure 140 Turbo
Relative Rating: 91.89
“…Rado continues to show us that they are serious about carving out their market share. This unique offroad-geared wagon is intriguing, and builds on recent improvements from the manufacturer…”
Pros: High offroad, best in class fuel economy, high practicality, low maintenance cost, low purchase price
Cons: Poor drivability, poor reliability, poor comfort
Sorry for the delay getting this up. Busy with home stuff + holiday today. Will try to get the next round info up ASAP.