@xsneakyxsimx
'82 - Nisemono Chukibo 1.5
N:“Alright, where the hell are we?”
K:“Can’t you read? Says Nisemono on the sign there.”
N:“Never heard of that company. Wait, is that the car you were talking about? The Chukibo? I think I’m getting depression from just looking at it.”
K:“The less money you put to styling, the more you get in everything else. It’s fairly impressive speed-wise, above-average in reliability according to that red book or something. Pretty good on fuel as well.”
N:“Okay, but look inside. I don’t think we can fix that.”
K:“Good point I guess. Don’t think we can find a replacement computer thing if something there breaks. Don’t know if it will, the sensors are probably more likely to break. Oh well, it’s only single-point anyway, basically a less dumb carburetor.”
N:“We keep it mind, no?”
K:“I guess. Engine bay’s roomy, pretty simple, pretty fun, not the roomiest on the people side though.”
[OOC: Small, surprisingly peppy, very well rounded all over. Advances.]
@AndiD
'82 - Mara Kanyon 2.5
N:“Frank’s Cars? We still looking at only new cars?”
K:“No, no. What we’re looking at is new…just not from here.”
N:“Why are we looking at a darn Mara? There’s never been something more out-of-place than showing up to consider buying a Mara in a Norðwagen.”
K:“There’s less embarassing cars around here too, if you want to feel a little better about the car’s dignity.”
K:“Besides that, we’re looking for something dead reliable, easily servicable and simple. That screams Mara to me.”
N:“But still, it’s a darn SUV Mara. We’ll probably be shot in Archana because we’d have been mistaken for a rogue militant group.”
K:“Listen to me, it’s easy to drive, it’s a Mara so it’s reliable, it couldn’t be easier to service even if they put all of the budget in to it, it’s pretty comfortable according to some publications, and it’s not even that bad on fuel considering it’s size. And look at it, it probably kills off-road. 4x4 and lockers back that up to me. Cavernous on the inside, too. Plenty of space for anything.”
N:“Eugh. Fine, but I’m going to veto buying this until we’ve looked at all cars and there’s nothing better.”
[OOC: Extremely well engineered. Well-rounded, lots of space, stupidly easy to service, good off-road, comfortable. And of course, reliable. Advances.]
@yakiniku260
'82 - Gemma Wagon EC
N:“This one looks good!”
K:“And this isn’t used? Looks like someone’s gotten work done with it already.”
N:“Nope, it’s new! They’re probably showing off its practicality.”
K:“I don’t think I’ve ever sat in something more uncomfortable in my life.”
N:“Why? It looks so good though!”
K:“The seats are nicely built, and there’s a surprising lack of rattles, but in the end the darn floor isn’t even furnished with some carpeting, and it doesn’t have sound insulation at all. The gearing is attrocious, who in the hell decided that a 38km/h first and then 56km/h second gear was a good idea?”
N:“It’s not an automatic, you can just skip first gear and start off in second with a reasonable ratio.”
K:“Still, now you’ve got a three-speed gearbox. I thought we were clear of the ‘three-on-the-tree’ days. Even considering it a kind of low range gear, it’s front-wheel-drive and has an open differential. Ain’t offroading shit with that.”
N:“Come on now, it’s not that bad. It’s easy to drive, less suffering controlling it has to count for something.”
K:“No, I refuse. Not this one. There’s better out there. And the sheer difference when you get back in to the Norðwagen. I don’t think I want anything less than, like, a fifth of this. The Gemma didn’t even have a stereo. Mono AM radio…”
N:“That’s still like 10,000 for a fifth of the L-12 trim.”
K:“And I don’t care. We don’t deserve that level of discomfort.”
[OOC: Lowest comfort in the field. While its other stats are pretty good with high reliability, good servicability and excellent economy, having a single digit comfort (7.3) when the next lowest is in the double digits at least puts it in a bad position. It’s good at the three-star priorities, but cars equal this and surpass it in the other stats. Does not advance.]
@Mad_Cat
'82 - Kalisz Tancerz II 1.1 P Export
N:“Okay, another flavour of good looking. It’s cute! It’s stylish!”
K:“Oh, but I know this thing. I’m pretty sure it’s Polish and has a massively old chassis. Like, it’s got a solid axle with leaf springs on the rear. Sound antiquated to you? Most other cars have independent suspension now.”
N:"Does that really matter? It’s cute, it’s nice on the inside as well. Economical as well!
K:“Engine bay’s not all too big, even considering it’s an 1100-cc inline-3 engine. And I’m not entirely sure small size and pathetic engine power is exactly a benefit in our case. Interior isn’t even as nice as you say, it’s built like crap. No good offroad either, front-wheel-drive and open differential. It’s already slow as-is, can’t imagine it being much more enjoyable carrying stuff.”
N:“Small size means easy to drive. It’s simple as well, and okay in reliability.”
K:“This is too small and slow to be a good cruiser. It’s a city car. We don’t really want a city car for this.”
[OOC:Too small, too slow. Slightly below average in most stats, and its small size prohibits all too easy service, as its mounted longitudinally, and thus gets pretty cramped length-wise, despite having an inline-3. Anemic engine performance, even with a 4-speed non-overdrive gearbox, results in an 18.5 second 0-100 despite 780kg weight. Being slow is expected for a heavier car, but this thing weighs nothing. Does not advance, even if I may really like the design.]
Advancing:
@xsneakyxsimx - '82 Nisemono Chukibo 1.5
@AndiD - '82 Mara Kanyon 2.5
. Two others achieved higher sportiness, by like 4 points more.]
