I’m sorry
been having motivation and some mental health problems, but is feeling better
ill get around to it this weekend and at least have the 1st round out by sunday
Didnt realise how much would go into it
6 Likes
No worries! Hope everything is ok
3 Likes
Yeah
just been dealing with lingering effects of covid and some irl stuff
ill try to get it out tomorrow, im sorry for all the delay
might consider bringing in a co-host but i’ll see
5 Likes
IRL shit sucks like a muthafukka sometimes, I hope it all gets better.
2 Likes
Any update on this? I know you are going through a hard time right now, and I hope you’re okay. But we all are eager to know the results of this competition, so are you okay to make the post of the ratings right now?
3 Likes
Ive bern feeling better
Sometime this week ill get it going
Im really sorry for the delays, tine just zips by lol
8 Likes
Quick update: I am assisting as a co-host, and progress is being made. Still a lot to do, but entry stats have been compiled in a spreadsheet and preliminary engineering scoring has been calculated. This challenge will finish.
12 Likes
Reviews - Bottom 5
Thanks to @oldmanbuick for these writeups and the scoring on these and all of the pending reviews.
Big help in giving me the motivation to actually do it,
17. Sutasiko Hutikumi 3.5L V6 - @hilbert
Engineering: 9.73 pts. The Sutasiko is a standout for its low price, which, at $21,600, is the lowest of the bunch. It’s also easy on the wallet elsewhere, with relatively low service costs and good gas mileage of over 22 mpg. Sportiness is also above average, and on-road handling is decent for the class. Unfortunately, it falls short in conventional truck duties, with limited interior volume, below average torque and load capacity, and poor offroad capability relative to the field. Other metrics also lag behind the field. Ultimately, the Sutasiko would be a good choice for a budget-minded buyer who wants the look of an SUV but doesn’t really need to go offroad or tow and haul very much.
Design: 9/10, .93 pts. This is overall a very period-appropriate and attractive design with a lot of nice detail, and it’s clear that a lot of effort went into it. That effort was well done, as the extensive use of body molding is not obvious on initial inspection, and the inevitable jankiness that comes from use of lots of body molding and 3d fixtures is kept to a minimum. The two-tone look with cladding works nicely. The only minor quibbles with the design are that it is missing front windshield wipers, and it would have been nice to see some molding on the roof.
Dave: It looks nice but the way it’s actually set up seems underwhelming, and its not really what i was looking for. Not a lot of room, and trying to tow a boat it’ll be screaming considering the torque it does have arrives at 4000 rpm. That MPG will fall off a cliff trying to haul much. Overall, eh, maybe as Sara’s first car… its cheap at least.
16. Planar DO28 Tropen 4L - @lotto77
Engineering: 11.10 pts. The Planar could make a good choice for a buyer looking to carry passengers offroad, as it offers 7 seats and excellent offroad capability near the top of its class. And while it’s not as large on the inside as some competitors, interior comfort is still average for the class. While the $29,900 upfront sticker price is a bit steep, operating costs are reasonable, with decent gas mileage of almost 18 mpg and good service costs. But the Planar comes up short in conventional truck duties, with below average torque and load capacity. Other metrics also lag the field. But for getting your family to the campground–as long as you don’t have too much to carry–the Planar is hard to match.
Design: 6/10, .60 pts. There’s a lot of nice detail on this design, but there are some shortcomings in the overall design. The front fascia looks a little too busy and might have benefitted from less intricate grillwork on the bumper. The rear also seems to be doing a little too much, especially with additional brake lights that appear to be unnecessarily mounted on the liftgate, when there is already a set mounted to the body and additional lights down below on the bumper.
Dave: Hmm, its just kind of below average, comfortable but so are a lot of these, it seems.
and while its good off road, there’s not a whole lot else it excells in. Also again, the high strung engine, peak torque at 4700 rpm means that it’ll be painful to tow with or haul the family up hills, at least it’s quiet.
15. Vermilion Primo 354 AWD - @flingang
Engineering: 11.66 pts. The Vermillion makes for a comfortable on-road hauler, with good cargo volume, above average torque, and decent load capacity. Ride comfort is also good, safety is decent, and the Vermillion even provides a nice dose of sportiness and prestige. But seating is limited to 5, and off road capability is below average. Reliability and gas mileage of only 11 mpg also slot in at the bottom of the field, and other metrics lag behind the competition. The Vermillion would make a reasonable purchase for someone looking to tow a boat who wants a plush ride and doesn’t need to go offroad much.
Design: 4/10, .29 pts. This one was admittedly a bit of a rush job, and it shows in the design. It’s one of several entries using the anachronistic 2011 Ford Explorer-based body that unlocks in 2003 in-game. The headlights look a bit unusual and seem a bit out of place for this era. The front side reflector required by US regs is missing, and the rear side reflector is incorrectly colored orange instead of red. The rear is fairly attractive on initial inspection but has some problems with details that soon become apparent. The tail lights don’t seem to be placed with any reference to the tailgate body panel gap, and the center third brake light is placed in a position and with a shape that makes it neither integrated with the rest of the taillights nor placed as its own distinct fixture. It also would have been nice to see a rear wiper, and the choice of a rear diffuser mounted low looks a bit out of place on an SUV. There’s some nice work on the roof with molding and a spoiler.
Dave: It drives well, and there’s some nice sports car aspects, but it definitely could’ve been better spent for what I am looking for. The high strung engine, already bad at economy, would be revving out to make its torque, and although i love a v8, hearing one drone at 4k wouldn’t be great on long road trips. A space frame isn’t what I’d consider best for towing, and its below par for reliability. Eh
14. IDK 32 - @Mausil
Engineering: 12.01 pts. The IDK is a comfortable, go-anywhere hauler with good load capacity and cargo room and very good comfort. Surprisingly, it manages to be equally easy to handle on-road as off-road. Safety is also decent for the class. Drawbacks, however, include below average torque, poor reliability, and high service costs. So for someone looking to haul–but not so much tow–and needing a blend of on-road and off-road capability, the IDK might be worth a look.
Design: 2/10, .09 pts. The IDK 32’s design just doesn’t seem to fit the bill for this brief, as it is designed as a crew-cab pickup with a locking bed cover instead of a true SUV. Like some other entries, it uses the 2011 Explorer body that is a bit out of place for 2003. The front is a bit messy, with some use of body molding that doesn’t seem to have been done as cleanly as it could have. It also appears to have an unusual asymmetrical air intake, and the posted photos unfortunately don’t show enough to determine if this is just an import error. This design does not meet US market regulations, with missing side reflectors and tail lights mounted on the liftgate that would be illegal.The saving grace of this design is a rather handsome side profile, with nicely executed trim and running board and some handsome wheels.
Dave: A truck without a usable bed, meaning it gets neither the interior room of an SUV or the utility of a real truck; it kind of just falls into a purgatory. It’s at least easy to drive and fairly comfortable, but rather underpowered for the size and weight and is rather low in reliability, and when it does break hard to service. Not really what I’m looking for.
13. Armor Pantheon Platinum - @GassTiresandOil
Engineering: 12.00 pts. The Armor is a good choice for towing and off-roading, with more torque and better off-road capability than most competitors. It also handles reasonably well on the road. Other than gas mileage–which is only about 13 mpg–the Armor is also fairly easy on the wallet, with a somewhat lower sticker price than many competitors, decent reliability, and reasonable service costs. Unfortunately, load capacity somewhat lags the competition, and ride comfort and safety are near the bottom of the pack. While people looking for comfortable around-town family haulers are likely to be better served elsewhere, the Armor could be a good option for someone looking to tow a camper offroad.
Design: 7/10, .75 pts. An overall attractive design executed with good attention to detail, but with some drawbacks that are in the eye of the beholder. The two-tone look and cladding work well. The front is attractive, although the headlights don’t look quite right for this era, perhaps benefitting from a bit of glazing on the glass. The design is also billed as “retro” but, since this is an early 2000s design, has more of the effect of looking like it’s just a bit of an outdated leftover from the late 80s that hasn’t been updated.
Dave: Hmm, I’m mixed on this one. I like the looks but underneath its such a mixed bag. Easy to drive, but harsh ride. Good engine, but uneconomical, and somewhat high-strung. Nice room.
12. Yamaguchi Sherpa 2.0 SLX - @happyhungryhippo
Engineering: 12.22 pts. With the Yamaguchi, what you see is what you get. It doesn’t look like a traditional SUV, and, for better and for worse, it isn’t one. With its crossover design, it offers class-leading fuel economy of 26 mpg and good on-road handling with a nice dash of sportiness to boot. It’s also pretty easy on the wallet, and not only because of its fuel economy. It has a fairly modest $26,700 sticker price, very low service costs, and solid reliability. But somewhat surprisingly for a more car-based vehicle, the Yamaguchi lags behind in interior comfort and safety. And while it’s a competent off-roader, it simply doesn’t have the necessary torque and load capacity to do much in the traditional truck departments of towing and hauling. Still, for a budget-conscious buyer mostly looking for an around-town runabout with a dose of all-weather or off road capability, the Yamaguchi is likely to be worth a look.
Design: 7/10, .75 pts. This is a competent, well-executed design that does a nice job of emulating the overall body shape of an early 2000s crossover like the Chrysler Pacifica. But while the design is well done, there’s not much visual panache to make it a standout looker.
Dave: It seems like a decent economy family hauler, but its not quite what I’m looking for overall. A bit expensive for what you get. Overall not for me.
Part 2, 11-5th place, to come this week
Thank you for your patience, with buick’s help I should be able to finish within a week or 2, I want to give the higher cars some more effort in reviews.
13 Likes
I saw that coming, because I had little time to make the submission after I decided I wanted to do that. I mean, I missed some stuff and I’m below average when it comes to engineering and stuff. The best I’ve ever been in a competition was like 13th of 26, which is very average, and that counts 7 eliminated entries, and that’s because I’m better at making sports cars than anything else. But anyway, good luck for everyone else!
2 Likes
Just a little clarification of how scoring is going to go from here. Places 11 through 6 will be ranked solely according to their preliminary scoring calculation (the same metric that has been posted with the reviews so far). We have then identified 5 finalists that meet three criteria (1) they are in the top half of the preliminary scores, (2) they have practicality/utility preliminary scores that are at least average, and (3) they have raw design scores of at least 5/10.
This does mean that some of the finalists will have lower preliminary scores than some non-finalists. But these preliminary scores are just based on one method of calculation that has its pros and cons, so we are selecting finalists more holistically and doing the final rankings of the finalists more holistically as well.
If you want the long-winded technical explanation or have concerns about this approach, please let @bdub1 and I know so we can adjust the scoring approach from here on out if needed.
4 Likes
Reviews Pt.2 - Midpack
Thank you again to Oldmanbuick
11. Mara Ranger 4.0 KE7 - @AndiD
Engineering: 12.39 pts. As expected for a Mara, the Ranger is an unbeatable option for the budget-conscious buyer. In addition to having the second lowest sticker price of $22,100 (edged only by the Sutasiko), it also has lower service costs than most and top-5 reliability. Fuel economy is also a reasonable 19 mpg. In addition to its budgetary virtues, the Ranger provides good on-road handling and a sportier driving experience than most competitors. Unfortunately, the Mara comes up short on many traditional truck duties. Although torque is only slightly below average, interior volume and load capacity are limited, and its off-road capabilities are worst in class. Comfort and safety are also poor. But for someone looking for a reasonably practical, inexpensive around-town family hauler, the Mara could be a reasonable choice.
Design: 6/10, .60 pts. This design is all-around OK, with a reasonably attractive overall appearance and fair levels of detail. Front side reflectors (not turn signal repeaters) appear to be missing, as well as a third rear brake light–both required in the US market. It would have been nice to see some body molding on the roof. Overall, the design is competently executed but just doesn’t do much to differentiate itself from the competition.
Dave: Hmm, some decent, some not so decent qualities. This could be good for a fleet, but its fairly harsh ride and lack of both space and abilities off road make it simply mediocre in my opinion. The inside is nice though.
10. Akabira Kamui RALLi DZT AWD - @supersaturn77
Engineering: 12.15 pts. The Kamui is a good option for someone looking for a trouble-free offroader. Off-road capability is nearly best-in-class, and it boasts a very good reliability record. Fuel economy is also an excellent 24 mpg for the diesel engine. Traditional truck capabilities are fairly solid, if unexceptional, with decent interior volume and torque, although load capacity is below average. But comfort is poor, service costs are among the highest in class, and other metrics are below average. But if off-road capability and reliability are priorities, the Kamui is a sensible choice.
Design: 9/10, .93 pts. This is an attractive and well-executed design with great attention to detail. The two-tone look with cladding works nicely, and the roof carrier is a nice touch. The only nits to pick are that the grille up front looks just a tad disproportionate, and the rear sliding doors are a bold but somewhat questionable choice.
Dave: Interesting. A diesel flat 4, and a good setup overall for off-roading. Would be a good option if that was my focus, but it isn’t right now, and the on road and hauling manners are only ok, but those yearly average service costs… ouch, even if it is reliable.
9. BOAR Rummage - @AMuteCrypt and @happyfireballman
Engineering: 13.77 pts. The BOAR is more of an on-road cruiser than off-road brute, no matter what its looks might suggest. Although interior space and torque are better than average, overall utility is somewhat subpar because of one of the lowest load capacities in the whole field. On the other hand, it’s one of the easiest and sportiest vehicles to handle on-road. But take it off-road, and it will struggle. The interior is reasonably comfortable but only seats 5. With the air of prestige the BOAR carries, combined with its on-road capabilities, the BOAR is ultimately a good fit for a buyer who wants an impressive-looking around-town vehicle rather than true truck capabilities.
Design: 4/10, .29 pts. On first look, the design does a nice job of invoking a mid-2000s Hummer, but a closer inspection shows the execution and details come up short in a number of areas. The headlights and taillights, while obviously trying to invoke a utilitarian sort of look, just seem a bit odd and out of place. The side mirrors look a bit too thin, and the door handles are placed unusually close to the edge of the doorframe. Rear side reflectors and a fuel filler cap appear to be missing, as are exhaust pipes.
Dave: I think my nephew Gerry drives one of these in Iraq… Interesting how they’ve made it work for civillian use. But they’ve went too far in converting it over and it’s lost its utility. Interesting, though.
8. WM Wulfen 3.0 AWD - @abg7
Engineering: 15.64 pts. The Wulfen is a car-like crossover that provides an excellent on-road experience, but that struggles with traditional truck duties. It’s the easiest vehicle to drive in the whole class, has good comfort, and delivers a good dose of sportiness as well. Fuel economy is a good 21 mpg, safety scores are above average, and service costs are low. Perhaps the only drawback of the Wulfen as a daily driver is a reliability record that is rather mediocre, although not bad. It even has some bona fide off-road capability that places it in the middle of the pack on that metric. But for all of its positive attributes, the Wulfen ultimately struggles at real truck tasks, with one of the lowest utility/practicality scores in the whole field. Load capacity is middling, it only seats 5, interior space is rather limited, the torque rating of its engine is one of the lowest in the field. So for a buyer looking for something more car-like and not truly needed traditional truck capability, the Wulfen is a good choice
Design: 2/10, .09 pts. The design is very basic, looking like something that was put together in a hurry. While the front fascia is reasonably attractive, the sides are lacking in any kind of character or contour, and the vehicle looks oddly proportioned from the side, with a long nose and a stubby rear. The rear doesn’t have any discernible reverse lights, the license plate is oddly sticking out of its frame, and the brake lights and text for the model name and trim were applied without any regard to the tailgate panel gaps. It looks like it could use more of a rear bumper as well.
Dave: This is a hatchback on stilts. A nice one on paper, very comfortable but its not capable where I need it, and its not really what I’m looking for. Another option for Sarah, if they have a facelift later perhaps. Also a typo in the name. (OOC: missing the c in RKC lol)
7. Capable Delver - @Vento
Engineering: 17.79. This Capable is, indeed, capable, and it secures a relatively high ranking by having relatively little in the way of glaring flaws. In fact, the only places its engineering really falls short of the field are its limited seating capacity, low torque rating, and subpar sportiness and prestige. But thanks to generous interior space and good load capacity, the Delver finishes near the middle of the pack for utility, and off-road capability is excellent. 25 mpg fuel economy nearly leads the class. Safety scores, service costs, and reliability are excellent. As an on-road vehicle, handling is only so-so, but not markedly poor, and comfort is good. The Delver is ultimately a well-rounded package that is likely to appeal, engineering-wise, to a broad audience, with only the buyer needing significant towing capacity likely to be turned off by its limited torque.
Design: 0/10, .02 pts. This design just doesn’t work. Starting from the front, the overall scheme isn’t too bad, and it resembles a Dodge design of the era. But the headlights look like much more of a late 80’s style and oddly clip into the grille. The vertical bars on the front bumper are out of place for this era–and also seem to clip into the headlights. On the side, the mirrors are too thin. Side body molding abruptly starts in the middle of the front door, making it look needlessly tacked on. A running board similarly starts near the rear of the front door, making it useless for the front seat passengers. Door handles are unusually long and mounted low. The dual-tipped exhaust venting through a cutout on the side of the car is unusual and doesn’t add to the visual appeal of the vehicle. In the rear, the lights are mounted oddly low and lack discernible reverse lights. There is no rear bumper and no handle or latch to open the liftgate. Instead, a keyhole is mounted extremely low, next to the license plate–which is not on the liftgate.
Dave: What is this? The spec sheet sounds so good overall other than the engine power, but then I look at it, and try not to reverse lunch. This would be great, if they had more than a first draft for an exterior design. Maybe if they fixed it in a facelift or used this chassis elsewhere… (Top 3 in engineering dear gods above)
6. Megocom Balst BM - @LennoxV10
**Engineering: 17.78 pts. The Balst is a vehicle with very few true weak points, with cargo volume, prestige, and sportiness being the only categories where it scores well below average. Torque is somewhat below average, but overall utility ends up in the middle of the pack thanks to seating for 8 and good load capacity. On the road, it handles well, rides more comfortably than most, and returns a respectable 20 mpg. The $27,600 sticker price is on the lower side, and excellent reliability and service costs mean that operating costs are low. With few weaknesses and much to like, perhaps the only buyer who wouldn’t like a Balst on paper is someone who really needs a lot of towing and hauling capacity
Design: 4/10, .29 pts. The wide headlights that seem to be a bit of a Megocom trademark would look a bit out of place were it not for the fact that the Saturn Vue of this era had similarly wide headlights. The overall look from the front isn’t bad, although the lower grille is a bit busy. The body, although available in 2003 in-game, looks out of place for an actual 2003 model year car, as the body appears to be based on the 5th generation Ford Explorer launched in 2011. There’s little in the way of body molding or trim, and the overall look is pretty basic, including in the rear. Rear side reflectors required on US-market cars at the time are missing.
Dave: Hmm. Seems nice, in many ways, but I had a hard time picking it out of the lot. Its great, but its not quite all I want.
And there’s 11-6. Hopefully i can do the top 5 more quickly this time with some motivation back. On to the next…
8 Likes
The BOAR is ultimately a good fit for a buyer who wants an impressive-looking around-town vehicle rather than true truck capabilities.
So… A Road King, if you will?
2 Likes
Great review my car! I expect low torque due I use 3.8L I4 which is largest I4 engine. I made this because few cylinder, lower service cost. But this is petty reac limit of I4 size and cannot larger any further, so horsepower and torque is limited out of this.
2 Likes
Looks like I brought a knuckleduster to a gunfight, so it wasn’t the optimal tool for the job, but looked damn cool doin’ what it did. Was hoping stuff like offroad being a 2-star would really help it out, as well as that reliability and fuel economy… but maybe I banked a little too hard on that!
(That, and those +2 third row seats really messed up comfort. Was kinda hoping those would be considered with a grain of salt, with how brutal auto is about the comfort of those…)
4 Likes
i’ve never heard of a liftgate before this review lol
Definitely a very nice design! I think the biggest thing holding your entry back was that it was pretty much average in the practicality/utility department. I think you’ll see in the finals that there are a number of entries that were inconsistent but were able to pull up their overall score by good practicality/utility scores, even if they didn’t consistently execute in the other priority categories. And your entry was also actually one of the best in off-roading!
3 Likes
Part 3: The Top 5
Finally got around to finishing this, only 2 months late…
5. Accurate GXL400D - @fabriemi999
Prelim Engineering: 12.74 pts. The Accurate has a few standout features, especially with regard to towing capacity, but it doesn’t quite add up to a complete package. Torque is best-in-class at nearly 480 lb-ft, making the Accurate a good option for anyone who needs a lot of towing capacity, and fuel economy manages to be an impressive 24 mpg. But it doesn’t provide a full suite of traditional truck capabilities, as load capacity is actually lowest in class, and off-road capability is poor. It also doesn’t make quite a complete case as an around-town vehicle. While comfort is better than most and safety is excellent, on-road handling is some of the worst in the class. Reliability is decent. So if towing is a top priority, the Accurate is worth a look.
Design: 5/10, .44 pts. Of the multiple entries using the anachronistic 2011 Ford Explorer-based body, this one probably does the best job of making it look more appropriate to 2003 with the addition of large front and rear bumpers. The front fascia is an appropriate bold SUV look, but the way the headlights slant to meet the hood line looks a little bit off. The side mirrors look too heavy-duty for this type of vehicle. Side reflectors and a fuel filler cap appear to be missing, but there is some nice work on the side cladding. The rear looks OK on the whole, but the tail light placement doesn’t account for the liftgate panel gaps. It would have been nice to see some molding up on the roof.
Dave: I like the engine, and it definetly has the room I want, but it seems to be compromised otherwise, falling into a kind of medium area where the goods and the bads are basically cancelled out. That torque though, great for towing… but there’s definetly better.
4. Flint Blue Ridge 4x4 Standard - @oldmanbuick
Prelim Engineering: 14.73 pts. The Blue Ridge is pretty much what you would expect from a traditional full-size truck, for better and for worse. Overall utility is very good thanks to seating for 8, plenty of interior space, and the second-best load capacity in class. The engine, however, is a bit of a let down, with mediocre torque output that trails far behind the class leaders. Off-road capability is among the best in the class, and reliability and service costs are also good. Safety scores are also near the top of the class. But the drawbacks inherent in a traditional truck design also show through. Fuel economy is only about 15 mpg, on-road handling is sloppy, and it is the least comfortable vehicle in the class by a significant margin. The Blue Ridge would make a good fit for a buyer who truly needs well-rounded truck capabilities and is willing to put up with the drawbacks that typically come with a truck.
Design: 6/10, .60 pts. The overall design is era appropriate and with a good level of detail compared to many other entries, but the overall effect of the design is that it is rather bland and inoffensive, with nothing to make it stand out from the crowd
Dave: This looks, feels, and acts a lot like my Suburban. While I like that, im looking for something beyond a basic truck wagon, especially considering its price, which is on the high end of what I’m looking at, and for what I get.
3. Allure Q5 - @ducethetruth100
Prelim Engineering: 13.06 pts. The Allure is an excellent choice for someone looking for a comfortable around-town vehicle with SUV looks, but it stops short of providing a full package of truck-like capabilities. The on-road experience is excellent, with comfort, drivability, and sportiness all at or near the top of the class. Safety scores are also good, and the Allure is not entirely without some truck capabilities. Torque for towing is better than most, as is load capacity. But off-road capability is extremely limited. The Allure is also expensive to purchase and own, with high service costs, poor gas mileage, and a questionable reliability record. Still, the Allure is likely to catch the interest of buyers looking for a premium on-road experience with some legitimate towing and hauling capabilities–as long as offroading is not in the picture.
Design: 5/10, .44 pts. The design is overall relatively attractive for an upmarket-looking crossover SUV. But things break down a bit on the rear, where the taillights look a bit janky and the chrome stripes appear excessive. The design is also missing a third brake light and rear side reflectors that would have been required on a US-market vehicle of the time.
Dave: Its a luxury car on stilts. It’s so comfortable to drive, and that engine just pulls forever… but a luxry car is not all what I need, and where it counts otherwise its only middling to decent. My wife Anna might like it though…
2. Vagus XL - @thpethalK
Prelim Engineering: 13.03 pts. The Vagus offers pretty much what you would expect from this big, bold truck. Interior space (with seating for 7) is generous, torque is plentiful, and load capacity is very good. In fact, in terms of practicality and utility, the Vagus places third overall in the field. It’s also extremely comfortable, being edged out only by the Allure for the title of most comfortable in the class. It’s also the sportiest entry in the field. But for as many superlatives as the Vagus deserves, it is not without its drawbacks. Off-road capability and safety scores are only so-so, and the Vagus handles on the road like the big truck it is–which is to say, not very well. It’s also an expensive ride across the board, with a class-topping $31,800 sticker price, high service costs, poor reliability, and fuel economy of only 12 mpg. So for the buyer who wants big truck capability and big comfort, the Vagus is a good choice–as long as you can afford it.
Design: 7/10, .75 pts. This design does a nice job overall of conveying the sense of a big, burly SUV, and there is some nice detailing on it as well. There are a few drawbacks. The front fascia looks a bit disjointed, perhaps a bit too busy toward the bottom with multiple grilles and lights, and perhaps a bit too plain towards the top. The headlights and grill up top also look like they want to move a bit higher and perhaps be a bit taller to fill the large space. It’s a bit questionable if the headlights and taillights wrap around enough to include the required US-market side reflectors, and reverse lights appear to be missing from the rear.
Dave: Now this is very near what I’m looking for. Comfort is good, the engine is powerful but very high strung, it’d moan when towing… but otherwise its a great package, and i like it. But the cost is above what i’m looking for, and there is something that beats it for less…
1. DCMW Qabiruz Six Standard - @moroza
Prelim Engineering: 18.32 pts. The Qabiruz is a massive–and massively capable–vehicle with only very few true drawbacks. Its only real competitors for overall utility are the Flint and the Vagus, as the DCMW has generous interior space, a nearly-top-of-class 455 lb-ft of torque, and class-leading load capacity. It is only prevented from being the hands-down practicality champion by having only 6 seats, compared to the Vagus’s 7 and the Flint’s 8. Its truck credentials are rounded out by good–although not exceptional–off-road capability. But the Qabiruz excels in ways that either or both of those other big trucks struggle. It’s prestigious, extremely safe, and comfortable for passengers. Reliability is outstanding, and service costs are kept better-than-average as well. In spite of its bulk, the Qabiruz manages a respectable 19 mpg. Really the only thing the Qabiruz struggles with–and perhaps inescapably so given its sheer girth–is drivability, which is at the absolute bottom of the class by a substantial margin. But with its many other virtues, the Qabiruz makes up for its few drawbacks. Any buyer who isn’t put off by the Qabiruz’s sheer mass is likely to find much to like about this vehicle.
Design: 8/10, .86 pts. The Qabiruz has a handsome, burly presence, and the design is detailed and impeccably well-executed. But the chrome-toothed hood scoop looks a bit out of place, and there is a general excess of chrome trim for something of this era and market segment. Overall, a handsome, well-done design with a few minor quibbles that are only in the eye of the beholder.
Dave: Wow… its huge. But it’s exactly what i want, the best mix between comfort for long trips, capability, and space. The engine is excellent, the room is enormous, and overall this feels like exactly what i wanted. ITs not even all that expensive given how massive it is. Nothing I cant handle, I’ve driven larger…
And finally, it’s done,
Thank you to everyone who made and submitted vehicles for RKC, I’m truly appreciative of your patience and am open to any feedback if I ever do host another challenge!
10 Likes
Damn…that’s a pretty significant point differential between first and second place in engineering…
2 Likes
Totally happy with 5th place. I did the car at a time where I was about to quit participating in challenges, because of how many got binned. So I can’t claim I gave it my best 
Congratulations to @moroza for winning!!!
3 Likes
Theres a few that are in between in terms of engineering alone but they failed mainly as a design score below 5/10 got excluded from the top 5