2018 CBC Tanner,
The tiny car you buy when you can’t get a Quest.
Powered by a 1L Inline 3 turbo, this car has enough torque to keep up in traffic while having a premium interior. A bit dated for 2018 but the new facelift brings enough updates to make you consider one!
CBC Tanner, Gets the job done!
4 Likes
2018 Koto CityKei
There’s a new Kei in town!
🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨
🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨
This funky little citycar makes you smile just looking at it.
Keeping to tradition, this Kei is fitted with a 660CC engine.
A fuel efficient Inline3 with DOHC12v and a small turbo making 63hp and 102Nm of torque.
A manual 5-speed on a FWD platform results in a, modest but nimble,
0-100km/h in 13.9 seconds and a topspeed of 164km/h.
The interior is a standard enviroment
with 4seats and a Infotainment system.
It has a vibrant colourscheme, wich matches the outside.
Cupholders and electric windows front and rear
make it a pleasant place to be.
The Koto weighs in at a total of 1000kg.
Advanced Safety and ABS result in a comfortable and save ride.
With it’s modern and subtle sporty looks this car is
a satifying complete package for an affordable price and upkeep.
🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨
🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨 🙨
3 Likes
There are about two days until the deadline! 2025-03-01T12:00:00Z
I have full entries from the following, in no particular order:
@imnotchildish
@ddgs002_56056
@Ultimate_Billy
@AKA_NOBUDDY
@Knugcab
@mcoupe
@abg7
@Vento
@Nootyes
I’ve seen ads from, but don’t believe I have .car files for:
@DuceTheTruth100
@AndiD
Thanks all for your interest in this challenge! If I’ve missed you or missed your .car, please let me know.
4 Likes
9 Likes
80mpg…what the eco fuck…
Nevermind save the planet, buddy is saving the galaxy
3 Likes
Would any of you guys be willing to DM me your .car files for this challenge? I’m working on an automation magazine, and I’d really love to review these cars.
2 Likes
hi, i wouldnt care giving the .car file of the Sfiér but i cant find you in discord
Entries are now CLOSED.
In addition to those full entries already noted, .car files received, and entries completed, from @AndiD and @DuceTheTruth100. Additional full entry received from @Riley.
.car received from @Oreology, but ad in thread is missing. Please post an ad ASAP!
5 Likes
sorry i forgor!!!!!!!!!!
11 Likes
Preliminary Scores
These are 50% based on in-game normalized desirability scores on the “engineering” front and 50% based on a subjective design score on a 0-10 scale, with a dead average car achieving a score of 2.0. This is not the final finishing order; it just determines the order I will work in when selecting the five finalists–which might not be the top five in this ranking if they have committed any cheesy or min-maxing offenses.
Bins
There unfortunately were two bins.
The Sfier K1 France by @Nootyes was submitted under a prior game version that couldn’t be read in Ellisbury, so it could not be judged.
The Grift CiTi by @ImNotChildish failed Gasmean and Hetvesian safety standards.
11th - Ban Tiao Kuo G - @vento
Design: 1/10. Odd proportions and shapes overall, bug-eyed looking headlights, disproportionate front grille, door handles too high and back on the doors, side reflectors/indicators seem randomly slapped on, taillights don’t fit shape of rear and are oddly constructed
Pros: Comfort, Prestige
Cons: Sportiness, Fuel Economy
Verdict: Dead middle of the pack engineering-wise, the Kuo G is a reasonably well-engineered car that lags behind only in the fun-to-drive factor and fuel economy (which is still nearly 44 mpg). Unfortunately, poor styling sinks this one to the bottom of the ranking.
Total Score: 1.20 (1.00 engineering, 0.20 design)
10th - CBC Tanner NX - @AKA_NOBUDDY
Design: 4/10. Overall rather plain design. The front fascia looks a bit like there is one entire squished fascia mounted atop the lower grille. The rear is relatively simple and inoffensive. There is some effort put into some body contouring on the sides, but the overall look of the exterior is that it’s lacking in detail and depth.
Pros: Footprint, Sportiness
Cons: Practicality, Prestige, Fuel Economy
Verdict: Fun to drive and even more compact that much of the competition, it’s sunk in the rankings mostly due to lagging fuel economy and worst-in-class practicality; it’s the only entry with only 2 seats.
Total Score: 1.52 (0.72 engineering, 0.80 design)
9th - Axxus A1 City - @DuceTheTruth100
Design: 5/10. There’s an interesting design concept with the flowy headlights and taillights, but the execution seems to lack depth and detail, with trim pieces (especially the side molding) too much like tacked-on bits instead of integrated parts of the design. No obvious fuel-filler cap or other small details you might expect to see depending on the market, like a center-rear brake light, side reflectors, or side turn signal repeater.
Pros: Sportiness, Prestige
Cons: Fuel Economy, Comfort, Practicality, Drivability
Verdict: With over 150 horsepower and a manual transmission, it’s by far the most fun to drive of all the entries. But practicality trails with only two doors, comfort is poor, and 32.5 mpg fuel economy is worst-in-class for this fuel-sipping category.
Total Score: 1.53 (0.53 engineering, 1.0 design)
8th - Risa Porto VE - @mcoupe
Design: 5/10. Generally a fairly simple and inoffensive design, but with a few false notes. the headlights nicely contour to a body line, but they seem to sort of clash with the grille shape. It’s not quite clear exast what the tiny amber lights at the very bottom of the front fascia are supposed to be; they look positioned to be visible only exactly from the front quarter, seemingly defeating their use as either a turn signal or side reflector. Side body molding that is interrupted by the door seam–rather than flowing in a smooth line the whole way–looks a bit off. The rear is generally fine, if a bit plain and begging for at least a logo or something to add some more interest.
Pros: Comfort, Reliability
Cons: Sportiness, Prestige, Fuel Economy
Verdict: An OK car as long as you have no desire to have any kind of driving fun, with worst-in-class sportiness by a large margin, and 45 mpg fuel economy counts as worse than average. [Note: Adjusted emissions optimization level to avoid bin and pass WES standards]
Total Score: 1.91 (.91 engineering, 1.00 design)
7th - AMS Abella II 1.0T-CVT - @abg7
Design: 5/10. Overall fairly bland design. Proportions look a little bit odd, with a very swept back-looking windshield that seems like it would cut into front headroom. Center-rear brakelight placement on top of the roof seems unusual, and something just looks a bit off about the shape and construction of the taillights.
Pros: Footprint, Drivability
Cons: Sportiness, Prestige, Safety, Comfort
Verdict: Small and maneuverable, but bland styling and too many drawbacks in various categories prevent it from rising higher.
Total Score: 1.95 (0.95 engineering, 1.00 design)
6th - Mara Zora 1.2 K - @AndiD
Design: 3/10. Body looks dated (which could be excused as just Mara being Mara to some extent), but the overall shape is unattractively bulbous. Headlights and taillights seem disproportionately small, and the headlights also look too low on the front fascia. Door handles look oddly misaligned, perhaps due to the lack of any kind of body line to visually tie them together. Some well-used additional detail/creases/molding in general likely would make the design more interesting.
Pros: Drivability, Reliability, Fuel Economy
Cons: Sportiness, Safety, Prestige
Verdict: As one of only two entries to rise above the pack in both reliability and fuel economy, it’s cheap, basic transportation for only $16,700, as one would expect from Mara. But it is dragged down in the rankings by styling that makes it somewhat reminiscent of a Beluga whale.
Total Score: 1.98 (1.38 engineering, 0.60 design)
5th - Wurther - @ddgs002_56056
Design: 4/10. Where are the headlights? While they’re technically there, they are absolutely tiny. Otherwise, it’s pretty visually plain, and the taillights look oddly bulbous. Even though city car dimensions can be rather odd, the hood looks both very short and a little high.
Pros: Sportiness, Prestige
Cons: Drivability
Verdict. Madonna. Prince. Adele. Wurther. Apparently needing only to be known by one name, this car is exceptionally fun to drive and otherwise keeps pace with the competition other than in the ease-of-handling category.
Total Score: 2.00 (1.20 engineering, 0.80 design)
4th - Strenus Familier AeRoof - @Knugcab
Design: 8/10. A fun, clean, simple design with just enough detail to keep it from looking plain, but it also doesn’t get in its own way. The color scheme and some pops of chrome add visual interest, and the retractable roof is a fun touch. My biggest gripe is the taillights with just a thin strip of red glass and totally clear glass on either side, accompanied by some rather oddly shaped and placed fog lights (I guess? I’m American. We don’t do rear fog lights. But the shape and placement still look a little weird whatever they are.)
Pros: Sportiness
Cons: Comfort, Footprint, Practicality
Verdict: While it somehow manages to be both the largest car in the field while also being one of the least practical (due to having only two doors) and least comfortable, it’s a decent car with charming good looks that make up for some of its practical shortcomings.
Total Score: 2.38 (0.78 engineering, 1.60 design)
3rd - Rusa Kura - @Oreology
Design: 9/10. Clean, sleek, well-executed design. Some jankiness on the rear bumper, which is also an area that looks like it could use a little more visual interest, like an exhaust pipe (which is missing) and some reflectors. But on the whole, a very good looking car.
Pros: Comfort, Prestige, Drivability
Cons: None
Verdict: A good-looking, well-rounded car with some notable strengths and no real weaknesses to speak of, it’s a great car that’s bested in preliminary rankings by two cars with standout attributes in important categories.
Total Score: 2.88 (1.08 engineering, 1.80 design)
2nd - Koto CityKei - @Ultimate_Billy
Design: 8/10. It has the boxy proportions of a kei car, and it’s not the most ornate deisgn, but it has detail where it counts, with good-looking, detailed front and rear fascias. The assymetrical door handle nestled into body molding on the rear is clever but also throws me off a bit as unusual. The color is a nice touch to make the design look fun and spunky. The exhaust dump to the ground near the axle–rather than exiting the rear where there seem to be obvious places for exhaust in the vent area–is a bit odd.
Pros: Comfort, Footprint, Sportiness
Cons: Safety
Verdict: Being a tiny little Kei car with the smallest footprint gives this car a big advantage in a category where small size is something to be prized for tight roads and tighter parking spaces, and an appealing design consolidates its high placement.
Total Score: 3.02 (1.42 engineering, 1.60 design)
1st - Oni Go - @Riley
Design: 8/10. An overall attractive and well-executed design with some sporty flair. The taillight design is well-executed technically, but it’s a stylistic choice that looks a little oddly bulbous to my eye. The front is attractive, but a lot of the headlights sort of disappear into the side when viewed from head-on, making the headlights look a little too small from that angle.
Pros: Fuel Economy, Reliability, Drivability
Cons: Comfort, Sportiness
Verdict: While it has some notable drawbacks, its best-in-class drivability (89.0), absurd top-ranking fuel economy (66.8 mpg), stunning reliability (101.9, nearly 7 points better than 2nd place), and good looks secure the Go the top spot in preliminary rankings.
Total Score: 3.22 (1.62 engineering, 1.60 design)
9 Likes
Totally forgot to reply to this, awesome thanks p1 in preliminary, is the next part market scores? It’ll be interesting to see how I do there
1 Like
So the next round of judging will be a comprehensive review of the five finalists. It will look at factors including appeal to other markets, but it will also look at things like engineering choices, interior design, metrics not factored into the desirability (e.g. performance)–basically anything that I think will help at identifying the “best” car.
Also, this challenge is unfortunately taking longer to get reviews out on than I hoped, but I expect I will be able to get out the final round reviews later this week. Thanks all for your participation and patience!
3 Likes
Final Rankings
Thanks all for your patience with these reviews. I include here a final ranking of the five finalists, including discussion of factors not considered in the in-game desirability scoring and providing and overall verdict for each car.
5th - Wurther - @ddgs002_56056
Engineering Realism
This car has a lot of rather unusual engineering choices for this market segment, starting with a glued aluminum chassis.To my knowledge, this chassis construction is reserved for a handful of high-end cars emphasizing driving dynamics, like Lotuses. Another quirk is the tubular exhaust headers on a 117 horsepower, 1.4L 4-cylinder engine. The 17-inch wheels are big for this category, and the tires are very thin. Safety equipment shows an unusual combination of ABS and Advanced 20s safety equipment, which just doesn’t seem like a combination that would be sold in the real world.
Performance
A 10.3 second 0-60 time isn’t exactly fast, but it’s perfectly respectable for this segment, and 0.86 cornering G’s is solid.
Markets/Sales
Appeals to various City and Commuter markets, but the $22,700 price is on the higher side. It’s 4th among finalists for in-game projected sales numbers. Service costs are reasonable.
Interior
There are a few basic elements (seats and a dashboard) that make the car look more complete from the outside, but nothing more.
Verdict
It’s a good effort from a relatively new challenge participant that, with the exception of poor drivability, consistently receives average or better in-game statistics scores. But it comes up short in areas that tend to improve just with more time with the game and in challenges, like knowing what engineering choices are more realistic, and learning more about both exterior and interior design. A strong showing that I imagine will only be built upon in future challenges
4th - Koto CityKei - @Ultimate_Billy
Engineering Realism
There are some odd engineering choices starting with a glued aluminum chassis (already discussed with the Wurther) and a double-wishbone/ double-wishbone suspension setup that seems unusual for the market segment. The cast light pistons are overstressed. Wheels are a reasonable 15-inches. Steering and safety features are a rather odd combination of manual steering, ABS, and advanced 20s safety, which is an incongruous selection.
Performance
A 13.9 second 0-60 time is slow for this class, and 0.79 cornering G’s is the lowest number among the finalists.
Markets/Sales
With a $27,500 price tag, it ends up with the worst in-game sales projections, even though it appeals well to multiple city and commuter market segments. Service costs are reasonable.
Interior
It’s a nicely detailed interior with nice pops of color. There are some missing details and some issues with the chassis clipping into the interior. On the whole, a pretty nice interior that’s my second favorite of the finalists.
Verdict
Another strong showing by a fairly new challenge participant. It scores quite well by in-game metrics, and the design both exterior and interior is a cohesive, relatively well-executed concept. Unfortunately, it’s just too expensive for its market segment, and it’s further dragged down by some odd engineering choices. The design work for an inexperienced challenge entrant is quite impressive, and I expect we’ll be seeing more of it.
3rd - Strenus Familier AeRoof - @Knugcab
Engineering Realism
This is pretty dead-on for what I would expect to see in a car in this segment. Major bonus points for being the only finalist to use a MacPherson strut and torsion beam suspension setup, which, to my understanding, is what most real cars in this segment actually have. It also avoids the temptation of some other cars to put on too-large wheels, keeping to reasonable 15-inch wheels that also seem like something you’d see in the real world.
Performance
Performance isn’t outstanding, but a 10.9 0-60 time and .83 cornering G’s is satisfactory for this segment.
Markets/Sales
It’s the least expensive finalist at $19,900. It has rather mediocre appeal to various market segments, but it’s good enough when combined with the low price to end up in 3rd for in-game sales calculations. Service costs are on the higher side.
Interior
It’s what I consider the best interior among the finalists. While there are a few details missing and some issues with wheel wells clipping into the cabin, on the whole, it has a charming retro-modern design concept that is generally well-executed with considerable care and attention to detail.
Verdict
This car does extremely well on a lot of the “soft” judging factors but struggles with the numerical scoring. It’s a charming-looking car inside and out with a coherent and well-executed design concept, and the engineering choices–especially with the suspension setup–seem spot-on. Unfortunately, these factors can only bring this car so far up in the rankings. When it comes to in-game stats, however, there are consistently middling, overwhelmingly falling somewhere between exactly average and somewhat below average. There are certainly buyers who will be taken with this car’s charm, but it comes up short of delivering a whole package.
2nd - Oni Go - @Riley
Engineering Realism
Reasonable choices in general, but 18-inch wheels are rather large for this segment. The front-and-rear double-wishbone setup also doesn’t seem like something you’d be particularly likely to find in this segment.
Performance
It’s slow. Very slow. You don’t exactly expect a speed demon in this category, but 0-60 time is a dismal 18.1 seconds. Cornering G’s are good for the segment.
Markets/Sales
The game projects this as the best-seller of the finalists, and it has a reasonable $21,600 sticker price. It has broad appeal across a number of city, family, and commuter demographics. It’s cheap to service.
Interior
There’s a reasonably complete interior with a lot of the basics you’d expect, but with a lot of missing details and some odd/clipping fixture placements.
Verdict
The Go has a legitimate case for first place, but it’s an uneven package with high highs and low lows. Reliability is outstanding (at nearly 102), fuel economy is an absurd nearly 67 mpg, and it has low service costs. It’s also a very good-looking car with some sporty vibes reminiscent of its sister Zephorus brand. But it’s not comfortable, coming in second-to-last out of all entrants in that category. The 18.1 second 0-60 time is also excruciatingly slow. As a result, buyers that just want reliable, efficient transportation will love the Go–which is reflected in the game’s scoring. But I think that the game’s scoring might give too much weight to the categories where the Go runs up the score and not enough weight to the ones where it falls badly behind. As a result, I put the Go second behind a car that seems to present a more well-rounded package.
1st - Rusa Kura - @Oreology
Engineering Realism
Engineering choices are generally reasonable and realistic for the time and market segment. The 18-inch wheels seem quite large for this market segment, however, and the front double wishbone suspension–while certainly technically feasible–seems unlikely to be used in a car of this segment for space efficiency reasons.
Performance
It’s by far the quickest of any of the finalists, with a 7.95-second 0-60 time. Cornering G’s are fine.
Markets/Sales
It’s estimated in-game to have the second most sales. It has considerable appeal to multiple city demographics, various commuter markets and budget family car markets. The $22,100 sticker price is a bit higher than most but still quite reasonable. Service costs are high, likely due in part to the turbocharged engine.
Interior
There’s a rudimentary interior that will help the car look better in exterior photos but that looks obviously incomplete when looking inside.
Verdict
While the Oni took first place in the preliminary rankings, there are a few things that put the Kura ahead in my book in the final analysis. Essentially, it is a well-rounded car. It handles well, it’s by far the most comfortable vehicle in the class, it’s reasonably reliable, and it has good fuel economy over 50 mpg. And even though it doesn’t score as very “sporty,” it has by far the best straight-line speed of any of the finalists. It also looks good (at least from the outside). For the slightly higher price you pay (and higher service costs), you get a lot. I can see this car appealing to a lot of different people, which is also indicated by the game’s statistics, including city-dwellers, commuters looking for economical but comfortable transportation, and families looking for a capable car on a limited budget and/or with limited space for parking (good for the city).
Congratulations to Oreology!
8 Likes
I’m happy with third for a kind of “niched” model that is built for being chic rather than practical. As for the clipping wheel wells, interior is supposed to be shown with the chassis hidden.
2 Likes
Thanks for pointing this out as another thing to look out for that can go wrong during import/export. I think this also affected some of the other interiors as well, especially @Ultimate_Billy’s. But since the two of you had the best interiors regardless, it didn’t have any effect on the judging.
2 Likes