Don’t sweat it, happens to the best of us. Literally.
2 Likes
Reviews
As Anna sits down at her workstation, she gets a text from Erica. “When we get home, let’s check out the new CarBlog comparison test, they’re looking at a bunch of compacts of all kinds, maybe it’ll help us out with our decision 
”
2013 Compact Mass Comparison Test
Welcome to the CarBlog Mexico 2013 Compact Mass Comparison Test, where we have gathered nine notable compacts currently available for sale in the Mexican market, so that we may determine the best choice in one of the most contested segments in our country. With a nice variety of hatchbacks, wagons and sedans, we’ll drive the cars and look at the stats to see which bodystyle lends itself best to the demands of the people.
Sedans
Takeda Dignitary EX @ChemaTheMexican
To start, we’re looking at this japanese sedan - one of the largest cars in this lineup. It’s also the best looking out of the sedans, with understated, elegant looks and a modern flair.
Taking it out for a drive, it’s immediately obvious that Takeda has put great focus in the way this car drives, receiving the best drivability and comfort scores in this test. In this application, the choice of a CVT plays in favor of comfort and ease of use, though there is an obvious tradeoff in sportiness and reliability, with the lowest score of the bunch in the latter. Practicality is also not great, close to the worst in this test. Safety is very middle of the pack, not horribly unsafe but also not stellar. The same goes for service costs, it’s not likely to drain your wallet, but it’s also not the cheapest of the bunch.
Great interior, with modern features and design, though it’s maybe a bit busy in the center stack.
Mara Xenia 1.2 LK @AndiD
Our next entry is technically a liftback, but due to its proportions it gets placed in the sedan category. The design of this car leaves a lot to be desired, with very simple features, short overhangs and small mirrors. The engineering side has some baffling choices, like a severely underpowered 1.2 litre engine and a four-speed transmission. The size of the engine gives it the best fuel economy of this test, with the tradeoff being one of the lowest sportiness ratings. Safety comes in lower than the Takeda, with an unremarkable rating. On the other hand, it’s the most reliable, has the lowest service costs and is near the top when it comes to reliablity.
All that can be said is that it has 75% of an interior, with manual shifter and pedals for an auto car, though everything is well-placed.
Tatsuo Exatima SE @nicholasrams774
For our last sedan, we have the sporty-looking Exatima SE from Tatsuo. Its aggressive design, even if it falls just short of greatness, certainly has potential. This is the only other car to equip a CVT, though it’s not implemented quite as effectively as in the Takeda, with an abyssmal sportiness rating, lackluster drivability and - somehow - the second worst fuel economy rating. Service costs are slightly lower than the Takeda, reliability is second to last and it comes in at the bottom of the list when talking about practicality and safety.
Hatchbacks
AMS Adepta 2.0i @abg7
Moving on to the hatchbacks, we’re starting off with the Adepta, a very modern-looking proposition, with a DRL signature ahead of its time. The design is otherwise very simple and unoffensive, not bad to look at but nothing to write home about either. It offers a good driving experience, with a high drivability score, though it flounders in sportiness and comfort. It’s not the cheapest on the long run, as fuel economy is third-worst and service costs aren’t great either. On the other hand, it excels in reliability and safety - also having the highest practicality rating of all the cars tested.
Primus Stratum 1.4 Select Export @Happyhungryhippo
Primus comes in with a pretty simple design proposition, again unoffensive, with conservative use of bodylines and fixtures. Engineering is a mixed bag - it has the second-lowest drivability and comfort scores, mid-pack fuel economy and it’s not very sporty, but it has great reliability, practicality and is the safest out of the lineup. It also has the second-lowest service cost, making it a good long-term economical proposition.
Good interior styling, though not the most up to date and the shifter seems a bit disproportionate.
Clari Clari Gén’Eta Bieni 2013 @Vento
Our last hatchback comes in with a face only a mother could love - with tiny mirrors, weird lights and a trypophobia-inducing grille. Engineering-wise, it has the best comfort rating, great drivability, reliability and practicality, though safety and sportiness are average and the fuel economy rating is the worst of all cars tested, which, when combined with the second-highest service costs, make this car the worst long-term proposition of all the cars.
Wagons
117 GWA @Ludvig
To start off the wagon category, we have a car that leans more towards the subcompact side - while its underlying platform isn’t the newest, it has evidently been brought up to date in the mechanical and the aesthetic departments, with a modern, pleasing design - subjectively the best looking of the wagons. With a focus on handling, it offers the highest sportiness rating, as well as the second-highest drivability rating. It’s also reliable and practical, though not the best in these categories. Elsewhere, it’s not quite excellent, with mid-pack safety, comfort, service costs and economy.
Good interior design, very stylish fabrics and materials, though the armrest might be a bit high.
Matsuma Mussa VT+ @mart1n2005
Our second wagon is another stylish small car, which shares much the same characteristics as the GWA - they have very similar ratings in practicality, safety, comfort and service costs. The Mussa beats the former in fuel economy, having the second-best rating, but falls short in driving dynamics, with lower drivability and sportiness ratings, as well as a not-so-great reliability score. Still, it remains a good competitor to the GWA when it comes to small wagons.
Kudos for the interior, it looks great (the best here) and rounds off the exterior design well.
Yagihara Bravo @hjuugoo
To round off the test, we’re looking at a larger, compact wagon from Yagihara. While it has a decent looking design - modern, simple and unoffensive - it truly falls short when it comes to engineering. It has poor road-holding, with the lowest drivability rating, as well as the worst comfort score. It also manages to have the same practicality rating as the two smaller offerings, even with its larger size. Long-term, it offers mid-pack fuel economy, but service costs are the highest of all. The positives here are safety and reliability, where it falls on the upper end of the list.
Conclusion
After driving and looking at the specs of all nine vehicles, following our judging criteria, we have determined that the winner of this comparison is the 117 GWA, with it having the highest combined score of all the tested vehicles. Though second place might edge it in drivability and comfort, the small wagon’s superiority in other two and three star categories - namely practicality, fuel economy and service costs - ultimately gives it the biggest score. With that said, the margin with second place was small, and the Takeda Dignitary remains a great choice if what you’re looking for is a somewhat larger sedan with an edge in comfort.
The full ranking of this comparison test is as follows
- 117 GWA - Ludvig
- Takeda Dignitary EX - ChemaTheMexican
- Matsuma Mussa VT+ - mart1n2005
- Mara Xenia 1.2 LK - AndiD
- AMS Adepta 2.0i - abg7
- Primus Stratum 1.4 Select Export - Happyhungryhippo
- Tatsuo Exatima SE - nicholasrams774
- Clari Clari Gén’Eta Bieni 2013 - Vento
- Yagihara Bravo - hjuugoo
And so, after reading the test, Anna and Erica decided to head to the dealership that same weekend to take a look at the winner. After looking at it in person, they fell in love with the design, and the interior practicality it offered for its small size won them over - they put down their deposit and not a month later they were driving around Mexico City in a brand-new 117 GWA.
10 Likes
Cool!
I think I can work something out for JOC5B (and keep it in this thread )
Just to be clear - Anna is the main character now, the rest of the family supporting cast?
3 Likes
The way I understand it, she is, but previous characters can be brought back
New round will be up friday/saturday for scrutiny.
Basic idea is Anna & Erica want a second car, the twist being it should be the main, more capable one, with a budget to facilitate this.
Set in the spicy year of 2016.
Core ruleset will be very similar to 5A.
4 Likes
Journey of Ownership 5B: 4 wheels good, 8 wheels better
Mexico City, 2016
Three years have passed. Anna and Erica are happily married, even if some states won’t honor their marriage until a couple more years of legal battles.
DINKs with decent salaries, they are now well established and living comfortable lives.
Still up for automotive adventures, their engineering jobs require some time away from home, sometimes in locations underserved by public transit, like the United States.
This causes some friction in their day to day life. “Where are you? I need the car…” is the start of more phone calls than they care for. The solution is, of course, more car.
They want another new, larger, more comfortable car to take them anywhere they want, and the Mexican government is gonna pay for it - indirectly, through their employers…
Their little car shopping round 3 years ago was a fun experience, and they look forward to seeing what’s on the menu in the hot new year of 2016. An “incident” at the local Swanson dealership recently has soured them on buying another one of those, even if the cars aren’t at fault.
They have noticed SUVs and more expensive looking cars are now more common, and some of them, are even built in Mexico.
As open-minded and curious people, they will consider any sort of car, and don’t really care whether it’s called a SUV or wagon, coupe or sedan. They prefer to judge the car on it’s merits, and looks. They do have some likes and reservations:
- Anna thinks a SUV would be a good idea, as they are supposed to be more “bad road” capable.
- Erica has always wanted a sleek sedan, a “proper car” as opposed to Beetles and the like.
- The car should have the same basic capabilities as their current car: 5 seats, decent luggage space and ease of entry.
- While they have only begun discussing adopting children of their own, Erica’s family and their friends often ride along. A little more legroom than the GWA offers wouldn’t hurt.
- Based on their otherwise positive experience with the 3-door Menschen City, they want rear doors.
- Their garage has a ceiling height of about 210cm/7ft, and they would prefer to use it.
- They don’t really care for convertibles - riding in an enclosed space with filtered, cool air is nice.
- While buying domestic would be the patriotic thing to do, the VUHL 05 is far too extreme for their tastes (and budget).
- They like all the colors of the rainbow, or a classy shade of grey or white. They associate black cars with government agencies and unsavory characters.
Ideally their new car should be better and more capable in every metric, considering their increased budget. At the same time, they are engineers and understand complex products involve compromises. They don’t expect a larger car to have any better fuel economy, at least.
Overall, they are happy (so far…) with the Swanson and plan to keep it until the “Hoy no circula” applies (2021) or…something happens, like it gets totally eclipsed by the new one.
In a slight twist, I’ll provide the relevant stat from their current, soon-to-be-second-fiddle car as a reference value. Go ahead, beat my car. It’s possible these are different from 5A due to updates.
Rules
Model/Family/General
Stable genius game version only.
Techpool: Maximum $60M total costs, minimum +3 on every category, except for naturally aspirated engines, which can have 0 techpool in aspiration.
Model and family years between 2009 - 2016.
Body unlock year doesn’t matter.
Trim and variant years must be 2016.
Wheelbase between 2.6 - 3.0 metres, rounded.
Body type: Any, as long as it has at least 4 doors, and isn’t mid-engined.
Maximum cost of $26.000 hard cap.
No race parts or semi-slicks.
Trim
Any sort of of All/4-wheel drive strongly preferred.
Four doors minimum.
At least 5 full seats
Minimum standard 10s safety.
Mandatory TC+ABS, ESC preferred.
Mandatory power steering.
Tyre width must end in 5.
No cross-ply tyres. (Is this really necessary?)
Advanced trim settings: Ride height adjustment up to +/- 3 on each axle. The rest allowed within reason.
Aero fixtures: allowed, we aren’t doing time attacks.
Interiors are not required/judged but they are encouraged/commented.
Variant
Fuel type must be regular 91 RON.
Three-way catalytic converter required (any subtype).
Minimum WES 10 emissions.
Maximum 40 loudness.
Priorities
Drivability - The GWA’s effortless,surefooted handling, adaptive steering and modest size have spoiled them, and they expect a high level of drivability, even in a larger vehicle.
Reference value: 84.4
Reliability - They are now fully converted to the “buy once, cry once” New Car Experience.
Reference value: 85.3
Design - A sharp, well proportioned but not overtly aggressive design is appreciated. By 2016, most manufacturers are capable of insularly decent designs, but will your offer stand out in the crowd?
Anna finds the Swanson a bit doughy for her tastes now, while Erica thinks the front looks too angry.
Safety - Part of their motivation for a larger car - the GWA may be well enough rated in standarized tests, but feels like a little fish in a big pond.
Reference value: 56.9
Practicality + Utility - They want a car that can hold at least as much as their little wagon holds under it’s cargo cover. (Most sedans, wagons etc. in this size range should be fine)
Reference value: 59 + 20.9
Service costs - The less pleasant part of the new car experience,as they found out, is keeping up with expensive service programs. They’ve heard some tales of turbocharged cars being particularly bad at this…but the current game version of this is rather exaggerated, so turbo engines get a 10% discount (stat x0.9).
Reference value: 756.9
Comfort - some of their trips will be very long - including across the border, which is a minimum of 15 hours.
Reference value: 34.7
Offroad - They will both occasionally need to navigate rough roads, and feel a bit restricted and at-risk of getting stuck in the middle of nowhere with the GWA. They definitely want some form of AWD.
Reference value: 17.1
Fuel economy - Gas may be cheap-ish for now, but gas station visits aren’t all that fun.
Reference value: 6,7 L/100km
Sportiness and performance - It should be at least as quick as the 117, and not be a total drag to drive.
Reference value: 19.7
Reference performance: 0-100 9.3s, 80-120 6.4s, top 210 km/h
Environmental resistance - They won’t be visiting the rust-ique north much, but visible rot hurts pride and resale value.
Reference value: 43
Realism & congruence - The engineering should be plausible, and reflect the look of the car.
Inspirations
Changelog
09.02 Wheelbase, seats, body type rules and preference brief, additional inspirations.
12.02 Practicality->Practicality+Utility. Clarified body unlock year & AWD/4WD & aero fixtures & advanced trim settings & reference performance, 0.9x service cost for turbos
13.02 A challenge has a name.
Timeline
Deadline March 13, 2024 23:59 (Mexico City time).
Post a picture and/or an elaborate ad here, and send the .car file via forum DMs. Can’t into DMs? Level up your post count.
Family and model name: JOC5B - [your forum username]
Trim and variant name free (but it’s a good idea to have Trim = full car name)
10 Likes
Would opening up entries to compact mpv’s be reasonable too? I’m thinking of cars in the style of the Kia soul, Skoda yeti, ford c max or Renault scenic.
2 Likes
i forgor 
2 Likes
A couple of questions:
- So will this challenge be continuing in the same thread?
- I’m a bit confused about their priorities in terms of size and thus some of the rules, for example - why aren’t all body styles alowed (this style of rules is something I dislike very much, I think you should let people go their own way about accomplishing the goals you set out), I feel like it is a restriction for the sake of restriction, and I’m pretty sure some auto bodies are weirdly categorized; why the 4 door and 5 seat requirement (you should establish why they need those (and maybe reconsider whether they do))?
-
JOC challenges tend to happen in the same thread for each “number” (See: JOC1A through JOC1D).
-
In a challenge like this - with a story revolving around a fictional client - the only goal is to satisfy said client. In the 2020s, most people like buying cars with rear doors just because they are more convenient; This is fact.
I agree with you in that it’d be better to explain why the clients want rear doors: Do they party often and thus tend to carry their friends in the car? Are they planning on adopting children? And so on.
That being said, @Ludvig, are you sure alternate seating configs should be a no-no? My probable entry is very much completed by it, and I think it makes sense.
@mart1n2005 The Soul & Yeti are more or less the same size as their other car, but the others, and compact/intermediate MPVs are plausible. Arguably they are as much “sport” and "utility as the typical soft SUV.
@the-chowi How many doors did their Menschen City have?
@hjuugoo I’m inclined to agree, but also wary of making the challenge too unfocused. But considering the body classification inconsistencies, and that the “regular ass car (sedan)” vs “trendy SUV” is a theme already, I’ll open things up a bit
@Texaslav The “5 seat only” was an oversight. They are used to the convenience of rear doors, yes. I’ll elaborate on their needs.
I’ll patch the brief later today, heading out now.
3 Likes
Three
is there any posibility for exceptions? i started working on a car and realized too late that the wheelbase exceeds the limits by pretty much 0.01m…
What about a length limitation instead of a wheelbase limit? Or is the wheelbase limit there because of turning circle or something? As you can tell, I have no idea what I’m talking about XD
Is that the BMW body? Because if it is, then I’m running that same one (denoted as 116.something inches in my game) and may also be screwed
yeah it’s the bmw body
I buffed the wheelbase as I don’t see the need to stifle your creativity, but I’m drawing the line at 3 meters.
Post is updated according to previous discussion as well.
1 Like
since cars in this segment have turbocharged engines pretty frequently and right now the SVC impact for turbocharged engines is well, excessive to say the least, do you have any plans to do a slight SVC reduction for turbocharged cars to keep things fair?
That means at least as much as the swanson can hold under its cover? Or that the new car can hold under its cover at least as much as the swanson can hold in total?