2020 DGM Saskatchewan
A full-size truck with 5 seats, able to carry 1.5tons or 4,400L of cargo and tow its own weight comfortably.
Its 3.0L naturally aspirated engine is uncomplicated and tuned for torque. When matched to its 8-speed automatic transmission, itâs both economical and able to pull well with or without cargo.
2020 Fujimi Taiga 4X
The 2020 Fujimi Taiga seeks to show that the Japanese can still play with the big boys when it comes to full-sized pickups. It sports a 3.2 liter turbocharged inline-six engine producing 390 horsepower, a body partially made of aluminum and standard coil-sprung rear suspension, providing exceptional everyday comfort, drivability and fuel economy, all without sacrificing the essentials of a pickup truck, with great cargo and towing capacities, a large bed and lockable bed-side storage. The off-road oriented 4X trim adds all-terrain tires, purpose-tuned shocks, locking differentials and an aggressive exterior package which includes stainless steel skidplates, rock sliders and front tow hooks.
2020 Shromet Adirondack
Be Bold, Be Confident, Be Unstoppable.
With its bold, sculpted lines and commanding stance, Adirondack demands attention on every road, offering a level of sophistication and power thatâs impossible to ignore. Where Shromet leads, others follow.
Shromet: Push The Advantageâ˘
2020 ARMOR ANVIL 1500R
Powerful 5.0 liter V8, premium interior, push-button 4x4⌠what more could a 'Murican need?
GOBLESS!
And that's the game!
Iâve received 13 lovely Submissions in total:
@Kreator
@Amos
@DuceTheTruth100
@Capri78
@donutsnail
@sutarttt
@ShinyBat
@Dog959
@Dragawn
@AndiD
@the-chowi
@Doctornarfy
@GassTiresandOil
Iâll get to reviewing everything, & be back in a few days. :D
Note: as noted in the original post, safety and drivability are being graded jointly (with the latter viewed as an extension of the former), so I often use these terms interchangeably here.
Rule Violations
Soartan Hoplite - @Amos
Didnât follow the naming convention, requires 98 RON fule (a chore to even find in the US), and falls far short of both Emissions (WES 5/9) and Offroad (9.8/40) requirements.
Even if it had passed, a cursory search of this fairly handsome entry found severe safety issues (terminal oversteer + heavily rear biased brakes) that wouldâve prevented it from winning anyway.
Bolland L3500 HD - @donutsnail
Did not meet techpool, with 0 in Body Unlock (+5 required).
However, this is an incredibly minor violation that, as far as I can tell, affects absolutely nothing. So as a wise and benevolent host, Iâve decided to forgive this issue, fix it myself, and let it compete anyway.
Results
12th - DGM Saskatchewan - @Dog959
The all-white paint and basic styling/trimmings make this feel like some developing-world shitspec truck. And the engineering isnât too far from that too, being so dead simple that it has the best running costs and reliability of any entry; while also still being well appointed enough to be practical and comfortable.
Unfortunately, there are some glaring issues here. See, most trucks here get their torque from either turbos, or lots of cylinders + displacement. This truck has neither, with only a 3L V6 and less than 200hp. It also has a lot of outdated or inadequate tech, including a hydraulic (not advanced) automatic, rear drums, viscous AWD, and worst of all, basic 2000âs safety!
There is some good tuning here, to your credit, and thereâs a place for a hyper-basic, hyper-reliable truck. But this wasnât it.
11th - Mara Bizon 4.0 KEL AutoTrac - @AndiD
Another truck that sacrifices too much in pursuit of cheapness; this has by far the lowest purchase price here (a whole $10k below the budget), with good but not exceptional running costs and reliability. Its 3.2m wheelbase is the smallest one here, which plus its tall body gives it a stubby, top-heavy look, and a cabin too cramped to win at practicality.
Despite its much-appreciated V8, torque is barely any higher than the Saskatchewan, and delivered less responsively than most of this roundâs turbos. That, plus rear drums let down what otherwise shouldâve been a high utility scorer, and itâs unacceptable basic 10âs safety ruins what would otherwise have been a great drivability/safety record.
10th - Wells Overland SL1 - @DuceTheTruth100
Undersized tires + a lot of overhang give this truck goofy, âkidâs-drawingâ proportions⌠and also some pretty poor handling and stopping distance. It also has an underpowered 3.0L 6-cyl (inline, this time), putting out the lowest torque of any entry. To make up for this, the transmissionâs geared really low⌠which hurts comfort and drivability.
It lacks any other glaring flaws, but nor does it really stand out in any meaningful way. Itâs best qualities are its reliability and service costs, but not even these are particularly high.
9th - Testar Elbrus LightDuty - @sutarttt
This has a very exciting, rugged aesthetic; but thereâs a weird mismatch with the rear, mainly because the black cladding is only on the front. The mismatch extends to engineering, with a pure monocoque and independent rear suspension;* itâs built more like a car than a truck.
On the plus side, its turbo V6 finally makes a high amount of torque, while maintaining good reliability and prestige. The roof rails and door steps also help practicality some. But that car-like foundation ruins utility, the turbo hurts ownership costs, and Testar, too, has committed the cardinal sin of basic 10âs safety.
*Did you perhaps read that Ford or Toyota or such had a âmulti-linkâ suspension in a truck, and decide to put that in your build? At least, thatâs what I did once. But the suspension that was referring to is a type of solid axle, completely unrelated to the luxury-car independent suspension that Automation calls âmultilink.â I know, itâs weird.
8th - Armor Anvil 1500R - @GassTiresandOil
This handsome Dodge Dakota lookalike has a really tough construction, with dual solid axles and a smooth, powerful 5.0L V8; offering excellent utility for $5k under the budget limit.
Unfortunately, itâs midsize wheelbase and high ride height (and lack of a door step) make its cabin tight and hard to enter (especially for kids), hurting practicality. And that front solid axle hurts its drivability. Itâs a great truck, itâs just not the best for a family.
7th - Shromet Adirondack Ascension - @DoctorNarfy
Visually, this really pulls off a âluxury truckâ aesthetic; looks classy, but not like a complete pavement princess. And this theme continues into engineering, with best-in-contest comfort, plus great prestige and safety; owing in part to a full luxury interior and an independent rear suspension.
Unfortunately, said rear suspension does hurt utility. Itâs turbo-6 engine is fine, but laggy and underwhelming (itâs the only turbo here to be outperformed by an N/A engine). And it has the worst reliability and service costs here.
6th - Dukes Raider SX - @Capri78
Aesthetically, this has strong, car-like vibes (reminiscent of an Aussie ute) that feel a bit out of place here. But under the hood, thatâs less so, with a well corrosion-protected 4x4 ladder setup, that ensures good utility even despite the small bed; shrunken in exchange for greater cabin space.
Itâs weakness is, once again, torque; actually, it makes less torque than the Saskatchewan, despite being a V8. Yes, this does mean stellar reliability and service costs, but at too high a loss to utility and cool factor.
5th - Dragotec Endeavour F.O.R.D. - @Dragawn
Another attempt at the âluxury truckâ theme, pulled off a bit better on a full-size wheelbase. Wider doors, a door step and a roof rail help this guy ace practicality, and itâs also got good safety with its partial monocoque, plus excellent comfort and prestige. The surprised-Pikachu aesthetic doesnât really convey its luxury, but is well proportioned and overall good looking in its own right.
Unfortunately, even though its turbo-6 has the highest output in the contest (580nm torque), utility is still let down by an independent multilink rear suspension, and it too suffers poor reliability and service costs. Itâs a better execution than the Adirondack, but itâs still not hardcore enough for the challenge.
4th - ACZ HAC Bullhorn - @Kreator
This is a really well-executed retro design, with many old-school elements (flappy mudflaps, large amber signals, that white 4x4 branding), but also enough modern bits to make it seem intentional. Engineering wise, itâs absolutely cracked at utility; thanks in part to a fancy 5.4L V10! Awesome! Itâs prestigious, but still reliable & servicable, while making an incredible⌠375nm of torque. Huh. Not bad, but, I expected more from that.
Unfortunately, itâs just a bit too hardcore; that very same LWB and high ride height arenât helping its practicality, and its also worst-in-contest in both comfort and fuel economy. But it fails most egregiously in safety, with lacking drivability and a 61.5m stopping distance. And its standard 10âs safety, while not outright shameful, is still behind most of the competition.
3rd - Hart Allways - @ShinyBat
This is a weird case. Design wise, it doesnât fit the challenge at all, with a car-based-ute aesthetic that appeals to me, the host, personally⌠but isnât what the fictional client wanted. But, aesthetics are a 1 star priority. across all the other lower priorities, it scores pretty even. its only real weakness is in service costs.
Itâs design minimizes bed space in exchange for a larger cabin, which combined with its step makes for good practicality. But it doesnât sacrifice too much utility, with dual solid axles, top spec equipment (other than drum brakes), and a strange-but-powerful turbo-boxer-6 (odd choice for such a tall vehicle). And yet, drivability is fine too, and its really well equipped with safety tech.
In a more design focused challenge, or one where realism was a greater priority, that design-aesthetic mismatch would have hurt it more. But this oneâs engineering focused, and this entry just does good (if not great) at most scoring areas, with few flaws.
2nd - Fujimi Taiga 4X - @the-chowi
This has to be the best visual design here, you absolutely nailed the look of a modern USDM truck, and without any jank! And it only took you⌠249 FIXTURES JESUS FUCKING CHRI-
Itâs engineering is as polished as its design, getting good marks all across the board and probably the best utility in the contest; a good foundation, great equipment, no flaws or fade or such, and a turbo-6 that makes incredibly high power, while still having great reliability and service costs.*
Itâs good (if not the best) at safety, with great drivability and stopping distance, and some fair safety equipment. Itâs full-size wheelbase also gives it great practicality, plus rock rails that kind of serve as a step. itâs weakest are in comfort and prestige, but even these arenât terrible.
*The Taiga actually had the best SVC of any turbocharged entry; however, this was still higher than literally every N/A entry. This challenge honestly made a great illustration of why so many automakers are embracing turbo engines nowadays⌠but ALSO why large N/A engines are still so sought after by truck buyers despite this.
1st - Bolland L3500 HD - @donutsnail
Huh. You seem familiar.
In many ways, this entry is highly flawed. Its fuel economy is terrible, itâs so large that itâs size actually starts to hurt practicality, and while utility is good, itâs hard to picture a â3500 Heavy-Dutyâ label on something with AWD and an open diff.
But well, utility is good. Itâs heavy duty ladder is well cooled and rust-protected, and given ample, smooth torque by a 6.4L V8; maintaining good reliability and service costs, great comfort, and the contestâs highest prestige! Shockingly though, the other thing this giantâs probably best at is safety. It has excellent drivability, top-spec safety tech, and the contestâs lowest stopping distance.
It does feel wrong to award victory to a truck that technically didnât qualify.* and yes this truck has flaws; but in the end, said flaws are only a product of how well it committed to the bit. And I respect those who commit to the bit.
*To be fair, I did make the decision to let it compete before most entries had even arrived, thus before I knew how competitive itâd be.
Final Ranking
1: @donutsnail
2: @the-chowi
3: @ShinyBat
4: @Kreator
5: @Dragawn
6: @Capri78
7: @Doctornarfy
8: @GassTiresandOil
9: @sutarttt
10: @DuceTheTruth100
11: @AndiD
12: @Dog959
Congrats to @donutsnail, and thank you all for participating; These really were 13 
lovely submissions, and itâs been an honor to get to grade them! Also an honor to host the 69th QFC specifically. For no particular reason.
I gladly invite discussion any discussion on the results/challenge/etc in this thread; If anyone has any questions or wants any more feedback, donât hesitate to ask!
Stats Spreadsheet :D
I did not expect to be on the podium for this even though it was more engineering-focused!! You could say it was more of a ⌠nice result than expected. Which is kind of ironic considering Iâm asexual 
Heck, even the design was apparently âgood at what it was apart from those awkward tail lightsâ (I think I was trying to have them wrap around a little into the rear corner for signal visibility and⌠nah didnât work). I guess I was scared to commit to the bit, and I think the front end in particular was basically me betraying my background as a Brit where things like âEU passenger safety requirementsâ exist⌠though I did like the way I made it work with the contrast roof!
I went B6 because I thought that the emphasis on smoothness would be a good call for a family vehicle, and while it probably is an odd pick for a tall vehicle maybe it needed every bit of CoG lowering it could get 
Obviously the top two get QFC70 priority, but if it does get to me, Iâd probably be up for specifically co-hosting it - because I donât trust my anxiety brain with judging alone generally and subjective judging in particular, Iâd want a second pair of eyes to look over the field.
Hmm, I didnât think safety would be considered holistically. If so, I wouldâve splurged for better equipment or tires. I had to tone down the engineâs performance by quite a bit to give it a chance for decent fuel economy. I originally wanted a 7.8L V10, but
Still, happy with the placement and that my design wasnât a pitfall (second time itâs happened). Thanks for hosting, Edsel!
yes
Considering it didnât exactly fit the brief, Iâm surprised how well the Raider did against many trucks that did fit it, 6th place for a truck that I had doubts about seems quite good.
I feel you on the doubts part, my 2nd build was on that bodyâŚbut then I had doubts lol smh. Im still building it tho, I got some plans.
@Edsel, thanks for the review/critique, how do you know if the transmission is geared too low? Also, I tried to overcome the proportions issue (front drl area), that shit looks weird. Im challenging myself to a redesign that addresses that part at least.
My âcheckâ for transmission gearing was to look at the drivetrain tab, and see what RPM the tallest gear runs at 60mph (well, actually Iâd see what horsepower it ran, then go to the engine tab and see what RPM made that horsepower).
2500 @ 60mph isnât terrible- like, a modern econobox or hot hatch would probably be the same -but most USDM trucks could easily run 2000 or less no problem, probably with a top gear over 200mph (despite a sub-120 speed limiter). Itâs better for fuel economy, engine wear, and cabin noise to be able to cruise at low revs like that, especially since most trucks have the power to handle it anyway (so the Overland not having power was the real problem here). Also, note that I still wanted the lower gears to be really low, for towing and such.
By the way, last call on @donutsnail to respond, since they won hosting rights. Itâs been over 24h, and this is QFC, so if they donât respond soon then the chance for QFC70 will pass on to @the-chowi
Iâll pass down. @the-chowi
Also, I didnât even notice body unlock techpool had been added to the techpool screen, how recent is that?
It has been like that for a couple months atleast.
canât host either, passing down to @ShinyBat
In my reaction to the results, I wrote:
if it does get to me, Iâd probably be up for specifically co-hosting it - because I donât trust my anxiety brain with judging alone generally and subjective judging in particular, Iâd want a second pair of eyes to look over the field.
Well, it did get to me, and this holds. Although Iâm definitely up for hosting on principle and am writing the lore as I speak (I was thinking about it in case this possibility panned out!), itâs the whole Making The Decisions (especially on design) that Iâm aaaaaa-ing about!
So a co-judge would be helpful but I should be able to commit without one. It might just end up being particularly engineering-driven. Which, considering thatâs the only reason I even had a sniff of this, is probably apt 