FIND YOUR OWN ROAD WITH THE ELHART RANGER LX
With over 100 horses to spare and a locking differential underneath you, you can rest easy that the Ranger will get you and your family anywhere in the world that you need to go.
The Elhart Ranger LX. Buy it now for only $15,300.
QFC49_-Draker585-_Elhart_Ranger_LX.car|attachment (56.2 KB)
(car originally sent in DMs before deadline. Was not aware of how challenge submissions normally took place. My bad, Donut!)
Judging is approaching completion, but I see I never took roll call. If you submitted but are not on this list, please comment below.
@abg7
@AndiD
@Aruna & @Est_Nbmstr
@bdub1
@Ch_Flash
@Chaedder
@Danicoptero
@draker585
@DuceTheTruth100
@fallenvalkyrie
@GassTiresandOil
@Happyhungryhippo
@Hilbert
@Kevin980
@Kyorg & @vero94773
@lotto77
@mart1n2005
@Mausil
@moroza
@nvisionluminous
@oldmanbuick
@Riley
@Rise_Comics
@SunnyZephos
@supersaturn77
@Texaslav
@toxicnet
@Vento
missed me, Mi amigo.
Missed mine
wish I coulda joined this, just finished the build a little late
Pontam Adventurer
Rules Broken: naming convention (Model and Family name QFC - 49), drive type (RWD), tire stagger, techpool limit exceeded ($89.6M), price cap exceeded ($27,200)
Literally Jeep Fucking Cherokee
Rules Broken: drive type (FWD), emissions (WES 6). I did not know prior to this entrant that automation still allowed FWD on solid front axle layouts.
Elhart Ranger LX
Rules Broken: Techpool limit exceeded ($42M)
Pittsburgh Pioneer
Rules Broken: Emissions (WES 5)
Fenic Overtour
Scores poorly in all important metrics other than price, particularly in the utterly dismal 10.9 comfort, almost 8 points worse than the 2nd least comfortable. While fuel economy is not a major factor, 12.2 MPG was tied for worst. High marks for practicality and and environmental resistance can’t save it.
Drake Grizzly
Another general under achiever, aside from the middle of the road price. The very worst drivability score of all entrants. Interestingly, like the Fenic, scores well in low priority practicality and environmental resistance.
Pioneer Nomad
A moderately good drivability score surrounded by poor scores, including the worst reliability and among the lowest offroad scores
Accurate Trooper
A good offroader at a bargain basement price, unfortunately paired with no other redeeming qualities and one of the lowest styling scores in test.
Wells Activ Sport
A general underachiever, particularly in comfort. One of quite a few entries with the ugly combination of near-maximum diameter tires with a relatively low ride height, albeit hardly the worst offender.
Planar Tropen DO12 4x4
Poor comfort and drivability at a fairly high price make a strong finish difficult for this truck.
Capable Delver P 7S 90
Like the Accurate, cheap and strong offroad, but poor everywhere else and highly questionable styling.
Yajirushi Karoo 2600 AWD
Very nicely styled, I hoped this car would finish higher. However, drivability, looks, and low priority fuel economy are its only strong suits. Nearly maximum price with subpar reliability, the 2nd worst comfort, and poor offroad.
Perseo Cetera 2.8 V6
A pretty good drivability score combined with below average stats across the board elsewhere. Styling of the front fascia has some nice ideas, but the rest of the design is a huge let down. Generally barren, and sparse in detail, the rest of the design feels it simply checks enough boxes to try to not appear unfinished. It is probably the worst offender of the entrants of the surprisingly common issue of stuffing far too large a diameter tire under a low ride height, the huge tires stuffed deep into the fenders.
Mara Kanyon 2.0 KEL
I commend you for this choice in body: absurdly tall flanks and a bugged engine bay make this a very difficult base on both the statistical and styling fronts. That said, unfortunately the end result is easily one of the least pleasant vehicles to look at. When using this body, I highly recommend cutting away some of the lower portion of the body to fix the innate, horrible proportions. Trying to work with them, instead you get something like this; the bumper sits extremely low, a large mustache bullbar is needed to help hide the front’s emptiness, and even forces the badge to sit not centered in the grille, lest it be hidden by the mustache. At the rear, the height once again unfortunately creates a look that is much more van than SUV, and, though better looking than the front, is simple to a fault. Under the skin, what does the Kanyon provide? The cheapest entrant by some margin for both price and svc, and among the most reliable. Comfort and styling were the high priority weakpoints, but it is worth mentioning that, despite their fairly low priority scoring, the safety, prestige, and environmental resistance on the Kanyon are so poor that they caused it to tumble a few places down the order.
Globus Montana
Great comfort and offroad scores, but middle of the road elsewhere. At the budget cap, it’s simply overpriced for what it offers. The unimpressive looks hurt too; one of a number of entrants to use this moustache-shaped bullbar ficture to partially hide a very uninteresting, arguably unfinished front fascia. It is also not alone in sticking a tow hitch haphazardly onto the bumper rather than styling it into a surround or making a bar for it to hang from. The rest of the design has some odd scale issues; huge corner marker with tiny mirrors and badging. The lozenge shaped rear plate surround is the only rounded styling detail on the whole car. The black plastic bumpers and steelie wheels give the appearance of a cheap truck, but this was the most expensive entrant of all. While overall not a bad effort, I would have liked to have seen the effort spent on making the interior spent more on a more thoughtful and interesting exterior design. Either way, as mentioned up front, primarily it simply can’t overcome its pricing.
Ariete Solterra CS0-8
Let’s start with the strong points. Comfort is best in test and drivability is above average. Unfortunately things fall apart from there for the Ariete. Just $100 cheaper than the maxxed out Globus, and with subpar reliability, the Ariete cannot justify its price. Styling, hmm. The front fascia is an interesting idea, perhaps inspired by late squarebody Blazer and Suburban, but when applied to a much narrower body, the result is very tall, and worse, a bit uncanny; as if the grille design was unintentionally replicated and stacked on itself by an AI. The white accents mike a nice bit of contrast, for the roof and side stripe, but is jarring in its contrast when applied to the black front bumper. Along the side, while I appreciate some attempt was made to do something with the body’s flat sides, the rectangular cut out along the doors looks like a total afterthought, and, like the fully rectangular taillamps, clash with the lozenge-y shapes of the rest of the design.
Gladiator Tomahawk
Despite appearances and the rather powerful 244 hp V8, the Gladiator brute forces its way into the best drivability score with a lot of tech: AWD, 5 speed advanced automatic, variable power steering, and traction control. This, of course, comes with tradeoffs: the reliability is low, the price is high, and little budget it seems was left to spend on comfort. Styling is a mixed but overall unimpressive bag. There are certainly uglier entries and it is not necessarily poorly crafted, but it resides on a body that really needs to be transformed to not look derivative, and the Gladiator does not.
Zephorus Rossi
Thematically a very similar truck to the Gladiator. A huge 6.3 liter V8 powers the Rossi to fast acceleration times, but still manages strong drivability thanks to the exact same suite of tech as the Gladiator. It also comes with the similar weaknesses with a high price a poor reliability, as well as quite poor 12.2 MPG, though it pips the Gladiator on comfort. Styling is well crafted, but awkward. The large hood buldges flanking the comically large hood scoop, the rather tiny headlamps, the excessive number of fender vents, and the running boards that stop short of the rear doors to make way for side exit exhausts leave an overall impression of a well-crafted parody of a sports SUV rather than an honest one.
Vizzuri NatriX
Among the best on appearance, the front fascia includes much more detail than seen at first glance and is the star of the design, well crafted and handsome. While the rest of the design is more sparse, it is all well proportioned and nice enough to still carry the truck to one of the best styling scores. A low price and fairly good comfort help its case as well, but nearly worst in test drivability tank the chances of a better result here. I think mostly to blame is the engine; a turbocharged 4cyl displacing 4.1 liters pushing 313 lb-ft of torque well before 2000 rpm is not something this game likes for drivability, especially paired with a 28 mph top speed in 1st gear. More budget could have been spent on drivability goodies lilke an advanced auto or ABS, but I think this engine holds the important drivability stat back, not to mention gives an only average reliability score and astronomical service costs.
Ayatsuji Fraxinus GS
Remember the Perseo? The Ayatsuji feels like where that design could have landed with more time and care. While it isn’t knock-your-socks-off exciting, it’s generically handsome and works everywhere besides the rear fascia, which is oddly car-like for the rest of this SUV design. Scoring is actually fairly good; slightly above average in many categories. However up here at the high end of mid pack, the competition is getting tight, and being just slightly better than average while being a touch pricey and not so stellar offroad can’t get this SUV further. Another negative mark is the costly svc costs due to the turbocharged engine.
Akabira Kamui XE
The first of a few entries that utilized a strong reliability score to overcome other shortcomings for an impressive result. Though pretty much straight down the middle or even slightly below average in primary metrics other than reliability, a well rounded suite of strong scores in minor priorities keep the Kamui from being completely a one trick pony. Speaking of tricks, an odd design choice for this vehicle are sliding side doors. While there’s nothing wrong with them, and the track looks clean and believable, it feels, well, like a trick. Not unlike what we have seen in more recent years with the Tesla Model X, the choice to use unusual rear doors feels like it is meant to provide distracting flair from an otherwise bland and uninspiring design, although not at all among the worst in this competition.
Yoshida Yuno LX 2.5i
A very MPV-like design that also behaves like an MPV, with drivability-enhancing tech like AWD, variable power steering, and traction control bringing the drivability score near the tippy top, shy of only the surprising Tomahawk. Below average reliability and offroad scores are to be expected given the choices, as is a slightly pricey cost. The design is an odd one. The steeply raked hood and low fascia add strongly to the MPV vibe, somewhat missing the mark for SUV styling. However even viewed as an MPV, the design still has some issues; the handsome, Toyota T100-like front fascia is boxy yet rounded, fitting the shape of the car, but the lower fascia is angular, all the window edges are sharply angular, and the anachronistically modern rear design is also angular. The end result feels confused; a lot of sharp design elements inside of a bubbly shape.
I expect nothing less from the best from you, as usual - regardless of whether my entry (which is guaranteed a spot in the final 8) wins or not.
My comfort ratings are hit and miss. Im still trying to get ride height, tire diameter, and suspension in one cohesive mix.
8th Place: @toxicnet Fredliner Bull II
While moving through judging of the entrants, I noticed a few “genres” of SUV seemed to form. Like the Akabira, the Fredliner Bull II utilizes a very high reliability figure to push its way into a high finish. Despite some major shortcomings: a fairly low drivability score, an above average price, and a very low appearance score, it still lands 8th. I think reliability unfortunately ended up with a bit of an outsized impact on the scoring, but nonetheless, the Bull II’s approach scored it into the sharp end.
Let’s dig in on its approach. It is one of few entrants to taking advantage of the double solid axle price cut without cancelling it out with coil springs in the rear. There are other money-saving options here: an SPFI feeding a 2.2 liter, SOHC 20 valve I5 making a fairly low 110hp, paired with a manual transmission to keep it from being too sluggish. So, the Fredliner has budget to burn in the name of reliability: 11 body quality, 6 engine family quality, 9 fuel system quality, 5 exhaust quality, 8 driveline quality, and with a manual transmission and maximized engine cooling, this makes for a big reliability score, 2nd in test, even despite a Luxury interior! Keep this approach in mind as we go forward.
In the minor stats categories, the theme of tall highs and deep lows remains: A very tall ride height helped keep offroad respectable while running somewhat small utility tires, but this makes accessibility poor, hurting practicality. But on the high side, the smallish utility tires, manual transmission, and fairly small engine put this at nearly the most fuel efficient entry, just .1 MPG behind the highest, the Ayatsuji Fraxinus. This is quite impressive considering this has SPFI while the Ayatsuji is DOHC and sporting a turbo. Overall, an odd duck, but an interesting one to dissect.
Not so interesting, unfortunately, is the Bull II’s styling. The front fascia is OK; boring and plain but acceptable. Things get worse from there though; The hefty chrome front bumper is not repeated in the rear, where we find just a very dinky body colored bumper. The chomed plastic wheel covers over steel wheels look extremely cheap, quite strange for a luxury-interior’d SUV. The taillamps and badging are distractingly large, and the spare tire placement; fully exposed below the rear bumper instead of tucked up, realistically should kill whatever offroad capability this had.
7th Place: @mart1n2005 Monterey Foraker Gold Line
Another “genre” are the AWD entrants. The Monterey Foraker Gold Line, like the Yoshida and other AWD entrants, brings high drivability to the table but pays for it in cost, reliability, and offroad capability.
The viscous AWD, viscous differentials, the absence of a skidplate, and the sporty, color-keyed body molding tell a story. This is a truck that is more than ready to eschew a rugged image to focus on a new role as a snazzy family hauler; quite progressive. Combined with a premium/premium interior and a 181 hp 4 liter V6 with twin throttle bodies, it proves quite comfortable and prestigious despite its rear leaf springs.
I feel the styling is quite nice. As mentioned, the color-keyed and somewhat sporty bumper treatments fit the theme of the vehicle, and it make for a quite handsome and believable design, aside from the pencil-thin C pillar. Aside from the C pillar, my main with for the design would have been to see the fun molding on the rear bumper make its way on to some more aggressive side molding and a bit more in the front lower fascia as well. I’m not a fan of the gold and silver wheels either, and the whole design is maybe it a bit too close to the S15 Jimmy, but I’m nitpicking now. Overall, this is still one of the best entries on appearance.
6th Place: @GassTiresandOil Armor Coyote
Another member of the AWD genre, The Armor Coyote avoids the typical AWD pitfall of poor offroad with torsen differentials, coil sprung solid axles front and rear, skidplates, and a very tall ride height. This is paid for with a tradeoff in drivability, but still on the good side overall. Comfort proved a strong suit for the Coyote, dipping into techpool to bring a CD player to its premium/premium setup.
As you may suspect though, this digs the Coyote even deeper into the other typical pitfals of the AWD approach: the price is fairly high and the reliability is unimpressive; the only contestant left on the board with a reliability score below the average.
Styling is interesting. Elements of the design are reminiscent of the ZJ Grand Cherokee, but applied to a wagon body, the only entrant to use one, almost feels like this is representative of what a Eagle wagon for the 90s could have been. The ideas are there, but a bit more detail would have helped bring the appearance score higher, and the rear end, though a good fascia, really fights the bubbly shape of this wagon’s butt.
5th Place: @abg7 AMS Antero 4x4 4.0
The AMS Antero does not neatly fit into a genre. It is unique in its approach. The only entrant to choose chunky offroad tires, the AMS scores the best offroad stat in test, and does so without a solid front axle or a sky high ride height. Impressively, despite the offroad tires and a lack of AWD, this also is one of the higher drivabilities in test.
Unfortunately this comes at the cost of comfort. Comfort here is by far the lowest of the remaining entrants; in fact, to find a less comfortable entrant you’ve got to move all the way down back to the Mara. This glaring of an Achilles heel makes the 5th place finish fairly surprising.
The styling is complete, but with faults. The skid plates dangle from the front and rear fascias, very low and shallow, and awkwardly look more like facial hair than skid plates, and alongside the low running boards, bely the high offroad stat. I don’t have a ton more to say about the styling. It is all there, but just a bit boring and oddly proportioned. Plenty worse in this test, but also plenty better.
4th Place: @oldmanbuick Flint Ozark 4x4 Limited
The Flint Ozark 4x4 is a well rounded package. While many entrants fell short due to specific weaknesses, the Flint never falls very short in any category. Average drivability but very strong reliability, comfort and reliability scores that are more than respectable. At this point there isn’t much to say other than that the 3 that remain just did a bit better.
Styling scored moderately. The design is patently quite simple, but the overall appearance is well proportioned and doesn’t get in its own way. Boring, sure. But belieavable, quite, and a touch handsome in its simplicity. The less is more approach isn’t the best school of styling in Automation, but when many designs seemed to get in their own way, a simple design without major faults can get the job done.
3rd Place: @moroza ADAZ 55265
Recall the Fredliner Bull? The ADAZ is another entry that bulldozes its way to a strong result on the back of the reliability stat. However, weaknesses here are far less pronounced than with the Fredliner, and the finishing position reflects the well roundedness of this entry.
Drivability is good, about right on par with the Coyote and the eventual winner. Achieving this result with a jacked up ride height, maximum tire size (both contributing to a respectable offroad score), and a manual transmission is quite a good showing, and that transmission no doubt goes a long way to the reliability push. That reliability accomplished with an even more aggressive smattering of quality than the Fredliner: 7 engine family, 10 fuel system, 10 exhaust, 11 body, and 9 driveline. It is unafraid to use negative quality to cut down on costs where it can, but this nonetheless results in one of the most expensive entries, which along with the appearance, hold it back from the very front of the field. On the minor scoring priorities, the extremely tall ride height and tall tires do hurt accessibility and thus practicality.
While certainly made with attention to detail, the Soviet military roots of this body are unavoidable. It looks believably of an old military vehicle that has been lightly modernized and civilianized. The large use of chrome up front and the chrome rain gutters hint that it is more luxurious than its roots; it all makes sense for what it is and scores moderately, but it can’t score as highly as more attractive and original designs.
2nd Place: @Kyorg & @vero94773 Westland Wayfarer LSX
There isn’t much bad I can say about the Westland Wayfarer LSX. A well chosen spread of quality puts reliability and comfort in the big leagues, and no major faults anywhere. Drivability is a touch weaker than other finalists and the price is, while not too high, a good chunk more than the winner.
The styling is highly ambitious and makes an impressive first impression, and easily puts itself among the best here. If I must nitpick, I felt some aspects of the design are a little cartoonish and the paint color is too matte.
1st Place: @Texaslav Bowie A45 Alamo Sport
the Bowie A45 Alamo Sport is a very impressive machine. Slow acceleration and coming a little bit shy of 4th-2nd on reliability (although still well above average) are the only places you can fault it. Drivability is good, comfort is excellent, offroad capabilities are strong, all while being more affordable than any other finalist by some margin. A slightly more cautious approach to quality usage than the other podium finishers, and a smaller but still competent powerplant attribute to its value advantage.
Styling is my favorite of all the entrants, very believable, simple yet handsome at a glance but with no shortage of thoughtful detail up close, with a consistent design theme throughout, right down to the wheel choice, that falls short only at the plain tailgate.
All reviews are done in place order.
First of all, thank you for bearing with me on an unusual approach to the rules. I don’t need to re-hash the conversations that followed the initial creation of this ruleset, but I recognize that I had asked of you the community to build cars the way I build my cars; building a range of measurable parameters based on real vehicles to ground what I do to something I feel could easily have actually existed. I enjoy giving myself these limits, as that grounded feeling is important to me, but the reaction to the ruleset seemed fairly negative. At the end of the day, we all have our own way of doing things, and it would not be the first time that a host was panned for asking contestants to build like they build. However, the final turnout was decent, so hopefully people did not find these rules too frustrating in the long run.
Regarding the price adjustments, I hope the contestants found these fun to work around. I was quite please with the end result, not needing to hand out realism bins nor simply letting the typical meta choices dominate.
Regarding the judging, I decided to take a more numerical approach than I typically do for judging. My typical system is to get the stats onto a sheet, put the relevant statistics together, see how they stack up to one another, and eyeball the rankings. It is not a scientific approach, but scant few car buyers are scientific either. Looking at the figures and then eyeballing a favorite I feel is pretty representative of a real buyer. In any case, I took a new approach here. In-game stats were normalized by z score with diminishing returns above a certain point, variable based on priority, but no diminishing penalties below, with the idea that creating a one-trick pony should not take you too far, but catastrophically bad scores should still be punished to the full extent. Normalizing by z score had an unintended consequence of slightly over-emphazing reliability while slightly de-emphasizing styling: across the top priority metrics, one standard deviation of drivability covered 23.3% of the range, one stdev of styling covered 28.4% of its range, but one stdev of reliability covered just 18.3% of its range. Oh well; there is no such thing as perfect analysis, and two of the best looking cars in the group finished 1st and 2nd, so styling still had plenty of impact, and letting the numbers rule instead of more subjective analysis took some stress off of me, as well as allowed me to rank all entrants aside from the instabins.
I’ll take that considering its positioning as an entry-level trim. A full premium interior and stereo sound system would have elevated its comfort closer to the class norms, but at the expense of affordability and reliability.
Good round! I didn’t mind the ruleset, and it gave me an idea: split the QFC series into two (or start another). Both are to be quick-fire, but one specifically meant to be easy, predictable, and otherwise newbie-friendly, the other more advanced and experimental.
Bah, even when I try to make another brand, I fall into the same old rut: strong performance/stats, but high price (even when I set a personal limit well below budget); detail aplenty (though this was one of my plainer cars ever) but still the looks fail. I tried going for an Eastern Bloc equivalent of a G-wagen, but in 1990 neither they nor Hummers were on the US civilian market.
Out of curiosity, has anyone before cracked 100.0 reliability in any challenge?
Not yet, as far as I am aware.
And even though I am still hosting CW7, I can host QFC50 if none of the top four can (or want to) do so.
Was a fun contest! Glad the NatriX got praised for the visuals I think we spent lots on the exterior, sadly the faux turbo-diesel destroyed it lol, the choice for less features was mainly because of it being derived from military vehicle, as a sort of alternative entry 
That 100 reliability is INSANE. Has me thinking that Flint Motors has to rebrand to “Sorta Quality.”
Unrelatedly…One of my designs BORING? Shocked! Shocked I say!
Congrats to Texaslav and the other very usual suspects on the podium! And thanks to donutsnail for the nicely detailed writeups and good photos in the reviews!
Certainly happy with this result -
it’s a vindicating one, given I tend not to do well with SUVs. Well done to all contenders, and congrats moroza on yet another stat limit break.
I’ll host 50; Please stand by.
Fuckign Spronts Joop frfr
