THE JUDGING
C.M. Thandor looked at the files on his desk, making his thoughts.
Wow, this is really a … daring … design. Maybe you can build a low-end-brand third world car with such a design, simple, low tooling cost… but no CMT flagship.
Confirmity with year 1965: 3/5
Elegance 1/5
Sophistication 1/5
Sportiness 2/5
Fitting the CMT brand? 1/5
Wow, that is a lot of chrome, looks like an egg-crate grille. And those round taillights that form something like a leaf. Yes, this is really elegant and has the flagship-approach. But overall… this front looks like a 1962 Lord Thunderhorse or Candyllac… hmm… if I would have got this design in 1962, I would have built that car without any doubt. Not bad, but let’s see the others. Our new cars are always plain and progressive and this is Gasmean baroque but at least a quite tasteful one. Can be a license build if they want, to please the conservative people that consider our own cars as to progressive.
Confirmity with year 1965 3/5
Elegance 4/5
Sophistication 4/5
Sportiness 1/5
Fitting the CMT brand? 2/5
Meijer? Frunians design a Gasmean car? Hmm - this looks more plain and CMT-like… but its copying a lot from recent Gasman topsellers… it has a Potomac GTO front and a Chererovlett Corviar rear. Nevertheless, the perfect merge between “rushed and bland” and “ornate sophistication” must be near this car. I could see it as a good standalone coupe, but for the Excelsior sedans, especially the luxury trims, this one is too sporty. But provide them a few chassis and engines, they should sell their draft as Meijer via badge-engineering.
Confirmity with year 1965 5/5
Elegance 2/5
Sophistication 4/5
Sportiness 5/5
Fitting the CMT brand? 4/5
Oh, this is for us? At first I thought this was a brochure for the Chererovlett Chesselle or Impaler. Hmm… I like how our rear looks miles better with only a minor change… that’s genius. It looks simple overall, like a steel buddy that carries you to work and you can throw potting soil, gas cans, crumbling kids or anything else in. As for the entry-level 3000 V6, this would just be it, but for a premium car with V8, leather seats, phonograph… this looks too average - just like a Chererovlett. Let that guys build it on a ladder frame and sign a delivery contract for the new V6 engine. A badge-engineered low-end alternative using our stuff cant’be bad for us.
Confirmity with year 1965: 5/5
Elegance: 2/5
Sophistication 3/5
Sportiness 3/5
Fitting the CMT brand? 2/5
Wow. This is really ahead of its time. But that is not wrong as we go for a luxury flagship. We can easy relate the entry-level trim from this. The only thumb down is that it looks a lot mor Frunian than Gasmean. I would really like to go for it if there wasn’t that little problem. Give this a bookmark and proceed.
Confirmity with year 1965: 4/5
Elegance: 5/5
Sophistication 5/5
Sportiness: 4/5
Fitting the CMT brand?: 4/5
@CC9020
Interesting, it uses a 1963 Lord Fairway 500 front end without copying it too much, adding the rear end of a new Potomac GTO. It is not as elegant as number two and not as sporty as number three, more premium than number four and more Gasmean than number five. It as a good balance between all entries so far. But I can not find much similarities with our lineup. Bookmark!
Confirmity with year 1965: 4/5
Elegance: 3/5
Sophistication: 4/5
Sportiness: 3/5
Fitting the CMT brand?: 2/5
Excellent integration of our badges. Again a perfect match between elegance and sportiness. There is just one thing awkward that makes one point minus in sophistication - the headlights are too complex and the taillights too simple, otherwise I would have immediately selected it as it is still very Gasmean although it has some similarities to number five and fits our own design language. Hmm… bookmark for the next round.
Confirmity with year 1965: 4/5
Elegance: 3/5
Sophistication: 3/5
Sportiness: 3/5
Fitting the CMT brand? 5/5
Looks not luxury, but at least somehow premium. But it’s not really a comfortable cruiser at the first look. It shows reasonable sportiness, especially with that side stripe and the black vinyl roof. And the front sticks the most to our original design but is nowhere as ugly as our car. Good job, it looks very coherent allowing for a high sophistication score. But … I have to make hard descision. The better are the worst enemy of the good. Sorry, I like it and it can be built in license with the use of our parts by the sender, but this won’t be the real CMT.
Confirmity with year 1965: 4/5
Elegance: 2/5
Sophistication: 4/5
Sportiness: 4/5
Fitting the CMT brand?: 3/5