Round 2: The Wheat from the Chaff
But first, an error correction: the Otori Virgo GR4 by @Rise_Comics is binned, for it has four seats while five were the minimum (although five are modeled).
Otori Virgo GR4
Valerie’s response to greeting the Otori’s face was to give it the exact same look back: a hard forward-leaning frown. Sharper than anything seen since the early 80s, it ruins what might’ve otherwise been an alright upper fascia. The lower one, meanwhile, has some sensible-looking grills but the lights aren’t well integrated. From the side, the proportions are just off. Valerie likes short overhangs but this is just too much; more rear length would’ve improved both practicality, looks, and weight balance.
In 1988, the wheels would’ve been praised as “rad” or even “tubular”, but ten years later they look rather silly, particularly with bright red calipers in odd (default) positions. At the back, the lower valence is well-placed but unfinished, while the taillights are downright sloppy. Valerie scored the looks at 65. Alex liked it a lot more (90) but wasn’t around to ask why.
Engineering isn’t a strong point, either. The suspension is significantly imbalanced, wastes development resources on the most basic hardware selection, and the alignment settings are odd and counterproductive, the result managing to be ok but with a lot left on the table and increased SVC meantime. Brakes exhibit no fade but the fronts are weak.
The engine, a 2.1L flat-4 named Pandora, is an odd box too. On the small side for a 3.0m wheelbase, it has two twin-scroll turbochargers huffing a full 1.2 bars of boost. However, they’re sized and tuned not for outright power - which, at 287hp, is there anyway - but for an extremely linear yet ascending powerband. Valerie pondered what it must be like to drive something with this kind of steadily climbing torque curve. Good stuff! Unfortunately, it appears to have arrived at this result by accident, with a lot of errors on the way: the bottom end can’t quite take the power, there’s some knock, idle is quite high, it’s fairly loud for a turbo motor, and fuel efficiency is low.
Stat-wise, it manages to be mostly acceptable, redeemed by the virtues of its basic chassis choices: full alu paneling on a long-wheelbase stainless steel frame. Sport, comfort, and safety are ok. Reliability is on the low side, as is prestige. Despite the power, it’s the third-slowest entry in 1km, ahead of only the Primus and Axxus.
18th out of 23. Accurate L300SW RKS
by @fabiremi999
[badges are missing, but Automation won’t tell me what mod this is, and won’t download it]
Where the Miller was all Show and no Go, this is the opposite: very strong performance and overall good stats, let down by design, and to a lesser extent cost. Highest top speed (312) and tied for second-lowest 1km time, very competitive cornering and brake grip with zero fade. Very good safety score (63.7). Decent if middling comfort (33.4 corrected), reliability (75.3), and drivability (68.1). Low-ish economy (12.5L/100 or 19.0mpg US) and prestige (56.3). Very high costs - maxed-out upfront price and 6th highest SVC (2279). Engineering is sensible and solid, if unremarkable; a little adjustment to brake balance (a bit less front), suspension tuning (firmer rear), gearing (taller), and cam profile (significantly lower) would’ve improved it further, albeit where it least needs it.
Where improvement would be better placed is design. Alex gave it a 50, tied with the Acrobat and Mara for second-lowest behind the Kite. Valerie was more charitable - 80 - though on further inspection she could understand why her partner turned his nose up at it. Proportions are properly wagon-like but that’s hard to not do with this body. Features are few and far between - no bumper trim, absolutely nothing on the sides apart from generic door handles, mirrors, and front side reflectors. The rear design is good, though the taillights look tacked-on with no regard for hatch seams. The front however wasn’t attractive to her (and probably not him either), and overall, to both of them the design quality doesn’t keep up with the performance. Pity, that.
17. Knightwick K6 25 Turbo-R
by @mart1n2005
And the style/substance pendulum swings the other way again. This beauty by Knightwick is tied with one other for the best-looking entry to Valerie’s eye (95), though Alex was more lukewarm about it (85). She wasn’t crazy about the color, but didn’t take that into account; the only visual flaws by her were two. First, the taillights don’t follow the hatch seam. Second, the lack of a rear side vent window, without which it looks a bit empty and the window can’t roll down more than a few cm.
Apart from that, this is detailed, tasteful, stylish, well-proportioned, and well-executed. The front especially, while not terribly original, is impressive. Could use a badge like the rear, perhaps?
Engineering… not so much. Third-lowest Sportiness (18.3) thanks to a four-speed slushbox, somewhat soft and unbalanced suspension tune, mediocre grip from average-sized medium-compound tires, significant brake fade with the third-worst stopping distance (45.6m), and nose-heavy weight distribution. The turbo 5-pot under the hood makes a healthy 300hp, but between the turbo lag and the transmission, the resulting 1km time is slower than average here. At least it’s comfortable, though not in the top ranks and despite being rather loud. It also incurs the fifth highest service costs, at $2333, offset somewhat by decent reliability, fuel consumption, and upfront cost.
16. R
This mysterious machine, known simply as the “R”, enjoys several honors - some dubious, some genuine. Visually it’s pretty alright by Alex (90), less so by Valerie (80) who notes a generally sound design, good proportioning, but some hiccups as well. To wit, the lack of a rear side window vent not only looks off and reduces window function, but in this case not even Audi-grade contraptioneering would let it open all the way; the window is just too big to fit inside the door. The other blemish is significantly uncentered front wheels, as if there were major body or suspension problems. The latter serves as an apt visual cue to represent the first of the “honors” this car earns: worst reliability of all entries, at 65.4.
Apart from that, the design is attractive and reasonably well-executed. The engineering, less so, but unlike the Knightwick, hits some high notes as well as lows. Foremost among the highs is the honor of having the fastest 1km time by a small margin - 22.31s - courtesy of the second most powerful engine entered, and despite an unexpectedly bovine 1774kg empty weight. The costs of this accomplishment, however, include the highest SVC ($3117), some turbo lag, somewhat high fuel consumption (13.2L/100km or 18.0mpg US) and an overworked, underbuilt, and ultimately not very reliable driveline. Suspension tuning is somewhat unbalanced, the rear springs a bit too soft. Hardly a disaster, though… unlike the brakes, that is, which deserve their own paragraph or three.
In this QFC, the weight distribution slider was free of charge to use, and every single entrant, except some front-drivers, should’ve taken full advantage of it right from the start, before doing any brakes, suspension, or gearing. Among the benefits is improved braking, both in feel (nose-diving) and performance (stopping distance, which in the R’s case is a mediocre 42.2m).
On any car, whatever the weight distribution, the front brakes should be set up to slightly or somewhat overpower front grip, the rears to overpower rear grip by a smaller margin, and both with zero fade. On all but the most rear-heavy cars (think top fuel dragster), front brakes will be bigger and more powerful than rears. Here, we have 330mm rotors and 4-piston calipers up front, and the rears are also 4-pot but only 10mm smaller. The rear brakes have no fade, feel strong, and routine stops are flatter and more comfortable. In sporty driving, there’s also more front grip, improving cornering potential. It feels great to drive …
Until it doesn’t. Brake too hard, and the rear tires break traction while the fronts are still gripping, easily oversteering and leading to loss of control. Meanwhile, the front brakes are both weak - can’t even break traction except in a hard turn - and fade significantly (1.8%), hurting Sportiness among other things. This is in spite of using 60-compound pads, which hurts comfort (SQQUUUEEEEEEE!!!) while driving up purchase and service costs. The front can support up to 375mm rotors, but only 330mm were used - why? In addition to underuse of weight distribution and rotor size, here is also zero brake cooling to make the pads’ job easier, nor increased Quality.
All this saps away at its Sportiness, despite the straight-line performance and amply firm suspension. It ends up at 24.0, after further demerits including mediocre on-throttle response, even worse off-throttle due to a 19.9kg millstone of a flywheel and heavier internals. It’s loud (49.9), and owing to the 90 degree bank angle, not particularly smooth for a 3L six (63.7). How this works with a Luxury-grade interior is an open question, perhaps best answered by observing that 39.3 Comfort (corrected) is in the bottom half of entries, lower than many with Premium or even Sport interiors, and concluding, “It doesn’t.”
15. Primus Merit X280TA Avance
On the tall side, otherwise well proportioned, reasonably well executed, and attractive styling. The front in particular is a good-looking concept, though could use some refining in execution (headlight overlaps, grill blocking foglights). The rear follows a similar pattern, if a bit more anonymous in design. Lacks a side vent window, which further makes it look halfway to a small MPV. The styling is more conservative than most here, not flaunting its performance capabilties…
Which at any rate aren’t much to flaunt. With 220hp fed through a 5-speed automatic and put down by narrow (205mm) medium-compound tires, the Merit’s merits are neither in a straight line nor in a corner. The fourth-worst braking, though thankfully fade-free, the second-slowest 1km, fourth-worst low-speed and third-worst high-speed grip. None of these are outright bad, however, and top speed is surprisingly respectable (262kph), owing to the aerodynamic equipment and setup that perhaps hints at what kind of car it wants to be.
This isn’t a sports car, even by wagon standards; this is a cruiser. Sensible, practical, economical (10.7L/100), reasonably reliable (78.6), easy to drive (81.9 adjusted Drivability, third highest), easy to live with ($1238 SVC is the lowest of all entries, including the bins and the Mara), and comfortable (46.8, fifth highest). Its job is to get up to a good speed but in no particular hurry, and whisk you along a gently curved Autobahn without making a fuss in the immediate or long term. At this mission it performs acceptably, not excellently. The suspension is adequately firm but a bit sloppy, with excessive camber and insufficient toe. The brakes are too front-biased, as is the weight distribution. The engine is responsive and reliable, but loud and a bit rough for the job (47.9 and 67.2, respectively), a situation exacerbated by the somewhat short gearing (about 3400rpm at 130kph) and modest power.
Finally, there comes the surprise that this ostensibly more civilized, more responsible, more mature family wagon has the lowest safety score - 53.6 - of any entry. This is despite +5 quality on a steel monocoque chassis, and advanced 90s safety. How can this be? A glance at the detailed stat is unenlightening:
…and enlightenment will need further analysis that I don’t have time for at the moment. I believe @AMuteCrypt has some wisdom to share on this subject. For now, let this stand as a cautionary point to not take the in-game Safety stat too seriously. To be continued…