CSR26 Reviews and Results, Part 3
Having reviewed twenty cars so far, I had been through a roller-coaster ride of emotions, from stratospheric highs (such as the Lightning’s performance) to barrel-scraping lows (of which the Sofa’s shoddy workmanship was the absolute worst). And yet I still had to review several more entries. So, in the order in which I received them, here are the reviews for the last few entries submitted this round.
After getting over the mild disappointment over being unable to place the Elysios on my shortlist, I turned my attention to the Smooth Keelen GT, which was another front-engined, rear-drive coupe. It’s a very smooth-looking machine indeed, with slim, simplistic fixtures and no aero appendages. The metallic dark gray exterior color, while very subdued for a car as prestigious as this, clearly suits the curvaceous, perfectly proportioned styling very well. In addition, with full carbon-fiber construction, it tips the scales at just under 1.3 metric tons, which should allow the car to easily make the most of its engine.
And oh boy, what an engine! I popped the hood and was greeted by a 4.8-liter, normally aspirated, 60-valve V12 developing 560 horsepower at 8600 rpm on premium unleaded. Its 9500-rpm redline makes it one of the best-sounding engines I’ve ever experienced, but it’s not without its problems. This is an undersquare engine (i.e. the stroke is larger than the bore), and as such the high redline leads to reduced reliability (although not to the point that it falls below my minimum threshold). An oversquare engine, though larger, would have been more suitable for reaching a high redline. That’s my only complaint about the Smooth’s engine, though; the linear power delivery is a breath of fresh air in a world filled with turbocharged engines.
Typical of this field, the Keelen GT has a seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox, but the gearing is extremely long – much longer, in fact, than it should have been. I suspected that the engineers at Smooth used such long ratios in an attempt to reduce fuel consumption. Apart from that, I couldn’t find anything else to complain about regarding the drivetrain. The wheels and tires provide plenty of grip, while the brakes resist fade even after repeated panic stops. Interestingly, while the front brakes use cast-iron rotors, the rear brake rotors are carbon-ceramic items. I suspect Smooth was trying to get as close as possible to a 50/50 weight distribution.
With a lightweight sports interior, this car felt like a real road-racer inside, but at the slight expense of comfort. It did have a premium infotainment system, though, which made the road drive bearable, at the very least. It was then that I discovered just how fun it was to drive. The active anti-roll bars kept body roll to a minimum, and the balanced weight distribution allowed me to steer the car on the throttle with ease as if it were a video game. With handling as precise as this, it was obvious that I had plenty of fun setting a lap time of 2:01.12 at the test track, and reached a top speed of 237 mph, helped largely by the Smooth’s clean aerodynamic profile. The 0-60 time of 3.4 seconds wasn’t the fastest, but it was fast enough. And it was quite economical as well – 9.16 L/100 km is very good for what is obviously a hardcore supercar.
Overall, despite comfort and reliability issues, at just $145,400 the Smooth Keelen GT did well enough to earn a spot on my shortlist. I was now relieved to find out that I would soon have a few finalists to choose from, instead of just one or two. Before I could get to that stage, however, I still had to review a few more cars. My task, it seemed, would only become even more difficult from now on…
I couldn’t stop laughing at this small, wedge-shaped, metallic green coupe, or the lowercase L in its name. It clearly looked like a kit car, despite its huge active rear wing, and certainly isn’t a contemporary design, even though it had full carbon-fiber construction. It also seems to have been built and engineered cheaply, and the cost-cutting even extended to the engine; in fact, no quality sliders were used in the whole build, except +8 in aerodynamics.
The normally-aspirated, 32-valve direct-injected flat-crank V8 developed 456 horsepower at 8600 rpm, just shy of the 8800-rpm redline. However, in addition to requiring super unleaded, the mild cam profile and aggressive VVL profile rob the engine of much-needed midrange torque. Also, the lack of quality leads to a reliability figure of just 71.1, which is a bit on the low side. If this engine had been better optimized, its melodious exhaust note would easily make up for its shortcomings.
With a six-speed manual, closely-spaced gears and a mechanical LSD, the leaf should be a blast to drive, but sadly it isn’t. Those carbon-fiber rims are surrounded by hard economy tires; such a cheap tire fitment is out of place on any dedicated performance car, since it provides too little grip. At least the vented disc brakes, though rear-biased, are 100% fade-free. However, the interior was shockingly average; it may have been a premium item, but the infotainment system came from a mid-size family car. To make matters worse, the hydropneumatic suspension, with twin-tube dampers and passive sway bars, made the car feel more floaty during hard cornering than I wanted, and the excessive body roll didn’t help either.
After visiting the test track, where I set a lap time of 2:09.63, I was forced to reject this car altogether, simply because it gave no sense of quality. This is particularly evident in the low price of $85,500, but it was certainly a false economy. I was so disappointed by the shoddy workmanship in places that I considered the leaf to be almost as half-baked as the Sofa - but not quite. By now, my time and patience were running out, but I reminded myself about the cars that I hadn’t reviewed yet, and so I moved on to the next entry.
@Denta - Pragata Prima 1
Desperate to get over the disaster that was the leaf, I turned my head in the direction of a large, dark blue, wedge-shaped hypercar – the Pragata Prima 1. Wide wheel arches and relatively uncluttered styling convinced me that, if this car drove as good as it looked, it could be a finalist, despite weighing more than 1.8 metric tons. It was also all-wheel drive, while the quality of the body and fixtures was good, if not great. With some trepidation, I then took a peek inside the engine bay.
I quickly found out that this car had the heart of a monster – a twin-turbo 7.5-liter V12 pumping out well over a thousand horsepower (albeit on super unleaded), and with a fat, flat torque curve as well. The 8500-rpm redline does, however, cause some reliability issues, although these are not severe enough to disqualify the car. Still, there’s a lot to like about this engine. There isn’t much turbo lag, and the power band is wide enough for this engine to be surprisingly tractable in traffic. The ferociously brutal exhaust note is just icing on the cake.
With a 30/70 torque split front-to-rear, the Prima’s AWD system is certainly capable of handling the immense torque thrown at it, and the gearing is short, but not too short, with widely-spaced gears. The wide tires, wrapped around vast 22-inch cast-alloy wheels, provide plenty of traction, but there is considerable wheelspin, again due to the high torque figure. However, there is no trace of brake fade; the Prima is equipped with 300mm four-piston carbon ceramic brakes at each corner, which is more than adequate for my needs. In addition, the active suspension is well-sorted enough to provide handling commensurate with such a monstrous engine, and unsurprisingly, I had a huge adrenaline rush when I drove the Prima on the road.
The interior is the least appealing part of the Prima, though. It’s a lightweight sports interior with a premium infotainment system, but neither of them have been given enough quality points. However, this is the least of my worries during the track test, where I managed to set a best lap of 1:56.85. With a 0-60 time of 2.3 seconds and a top speed of 234 mph, the Prima is one of the top performers in this round, and justifiably so, since it costs $179,700 – just under my budget. I really wished the Prima had a better-built interior, though, but it will still be on my shortlist, for this is a genuinely well-sorted hypercar, and one that certainly drives as good as it looks, just as I’d hoped.
Sadly, I don’t have the body for this vehicle, and therefore can’t test it on the track. Judging from the sole screenshot of the car, however, I have to say that it looks a lot like the A-Team Van, with a similar color scheme. Its 8.9-liter twin-turbo V12 drives all four wheels and pumps out an incredible 1,400 bhp on super unleaded. With a 9200-rpm redline, this is one of the fiercest-sounding engines I’ve ever listened to, and quite reliable as well, but there are a few issues with it.
The engine’s first cam profile is so mild, that after full boost arrives at 3300 rpm, by which time the immense torque surge has already sent me and the van flying up the road, there is a noticeable torque hole, and one that interrupts the intense onrush of acceleration. Also, the high redline reduces the engine’s reliability somewhat, although it is surprisingly efficient for an engine as monstrous as this, with an efficiency rating of 27.73%. Overall, it’s impossible to argue with an engine as potent as this. If only this engine had been installed in a much more appropriate vehicle…
The idea of a high-performance van certainly appeals to some enthusiasts, but in the case of the Monster, the excess power actually botches the execution. This is certainly a case of the right engine stuck in the wrong body. No matter how much the resulting vehicle costs, turning a van into a full-blown hypercar is like making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear – it seldom delivers the desired result. In fact, a van with the heart of a hypercar, for all its performance, is still a van, and I just couldn’t escape the fact that such huge amounts of power don’t feel right in a vehicle with a high center of gravity such as this one.
For a supercar, the Type 455 has a fairly restrained exterior design, with slim light fixtures, a blade-like active rear wing, and few but functional air intakes and vents that all complement the cab-forward design perfectly, even in pearlescent creamy white. The carbon-fiber body and chassis help keep the weight down to 1.4 metric tons, and it had double wishbones front and rear. However, to my disappointment, the body, chassis and fixtures were all of average quality (no quality points, in fact), which is clearly at odds with the money-no-object feel of a hypercar. I had to disregard this for a while, though, because I had to take a look at its engine, and for good reason.
Under the rear deck was not a 455-cubic-inch (7.5-liter) V8, as its name suggested, but a 3.8-liter normally aspirated 24-valve V6. At first, I thought the car’s name was misleading, but then I understood that the 455 referred to its power output of 455 horsepower, distributed across all four wheels. That’s a good figure for a normally-aspirated V6, especially one as robust as this, but with a 13:1 AFR it isn’t very efficient, especially since it requires super unleaded. At least it’s not turbocharged, so it sounds rather like Alfa V6s of days gone by instead of a vacuum cleaner.
The Type 455 has a 7-speed dual-clutch transmission, and the gearing is not too long or short for this application, even though the individual gears are quite widely spaced. Also, the AWD system’s 40/60 front-to-rear torque split provides a balanced mix of drivability and sportiness, which should have allowed me to fully exploit this car’s performance envelope on the road without any fear of losing control. However, the front tires are just 195mm wide, which leads to more understeer at the limit than I’d hoped. Fitting 245mm-wide front tires would have eliminated this problem altogether without losing too much drivability or comfort. The two-piston carbon-ceramic brakes, however, are more than adequate considering the Type 455’s relative lack of power.
Stepping inside the cabin, I was again disappointed by the average quality of the lightweight sports interior and luxury infotainment suite. Such cost-cutting is definitely at odds with the Type 455’s aim of being an everyday supercar. Also, the suspension, while generally well-sorted, uses cheaper monotube dampers instead of adaptive or semi-active items, which is especially jarring considering that the active anti-roll bars keep the body roll under 1.5 degrees. There was only one thing left for me to do with this car: a test session at the Automation Test Track.
Despite the understeer, I was able to set a best time of 2:06.27 at the test track, and reached a top speed of 207 mph, while the 3.6-second 0-60 time was faster than I expected of a car powered by a normally aspirated V6. However, the undersized front tires again proved to be the car’s Achilles heel, since they made turn-in more difficult. Overall, at $138,600, this car just doesn’t feel special enough to make it onto my shortlist. Its appeal is undermined further by obvious cost-cutting in several key areas.
@4LGE - Helvetic Concorde XT
Aesthetically, the Concorde XT is a conundrum. The rear end strikes a balance between sporty and refined, with its large diffuser and small fixed rear wing, while the functional side vents are well-placed, being sited near the top of the front fenders. However, the cross-eyed headlights and gaping grille ruin the car’s looks, and the glass T-tops either side of a tacky roof scoop (on a front-engined car!) are equally out of place in my opinion. This is tragic considering that the Concorde XT looks good in the red-on-white livery of the example presented to me. But would this car drive better than it looked? To find out, I had to take a quick look under the hood.
The choice of engine for this vehicle was very unusual: a slightly undersquare, 6-liter, turbocharged 30-valve straight-six. It’s so large, in fact, that it isn’t as refined as I’d expect a straight-six to be, and the rev limiter is set quite low, at just 6900 RPM, although the 0.85 bar of boost is delivered fairly early. This big six has no shortage of power either, with a peak power figure of 811 bhp. Also, the midrange torque is so strong that I felt that this car would need an AWD system just to remain drivable.
Sure enough, the Concorde XT was in fact AWD, with a 50/50 torque split, and it had a six-speed dual-clutch gearbox, although it should have had a seventh gear, and I would soon find out why. This is a closely-spaced gearbox, and as such the Concorde XT feels very accelerative, but it would have been even better with the seventh gear and wider spacing, which would have smoothed out the power delivery somewhat. I couldn’t fault the tires, though, which were 285mm-wide items front and rear. Unusually, only the front brakes were carbon-ceramic discs (the rear had cast-iron vented discs), yet there was no fade at all. And the active suspension system was set up to deliver a sporty driving experience, despite the 1.6-ton curb weight.
However, although the sports interior was of high quality, this was not the case with the luxury infotainment system, which took away from this car’s feeling of refinement. And despite the 230-mph top speed, a best time of 2:01.47 at the test track, and a 0-60 time of just 2.4 seconds, I remained unconvinced. At $135,000, this car is cheap, but turned out to be poor value due to the lack of quality in certain areas. Given that the Concorde XT is also aesthetically challenged from some angles, and only returns around 19.6 US mpg, I ended up having to exclude it from my shortlist, and so I moved on to the next entry.
In complete contrast to the Concorde, the Socala is a much better-looking machine from every angle, especially in midnight blue. Its body, chassis and fixtures are finished to a very high standard, and somehow, the tall, graceful arc of the fixed rear wing complements it beautifully. Everything about this car suggests power, and I was certainly expecting the Socala to have lots of it. So, naturally, I decided to take a look inside the engine bay.
What I found was clearly not what I had expected. Instead of a six-, eight- or twelve-cylinder engine, the Socala was powered by a 3.3-liter turbocharged straight-four – a highly unusual choice for a supercar. Like the body and chassis, though, it had been treated to a lot of quality points, resulting in excellent reliability and 613 horsepower at 8200 rpm – on premium unleaded. Such a high output from a big straight-four does not come without drawbacks, however; the turbo doesn’t kick in until 3600 rpm, and from there, the torque curve climbs steadily until reaching a crescendo at 7300 rpm. I would have preferred a flatter and more consistent torque curve if I had wanted a turbocharged engine. Another problem with using a big four-cylinder engine is the lack of refinement; the Socala’s engine sounds rather generic and uncouth compared with, say, a big V8 or V12.
I had better things to say about the drivetrain; the seven-speed dual-clutch gearbox has closely-spaced gears, which makes it feel very fast indeed, while the AWD system’s 36/64 front-to-rear torque split provides a satisfying mix of agility and stability in all conditions. However, the 17-inch cast-alloy wheels are too small for a car of this stature, although with wide high-performance tires as standard (305-mm fronts and 335-mm rears), there is never a shortage of grip. The braking system is unusual – the 2-piston front discs are actually smaller than the 1-piston rears – but there is no brake fade at all, despite the absence of brake cooling. And with high-quality aerodynamics, the Socala is a very slippery car indeed.
The Socala comes with a high-quality premium interior and infotainment system as standard, and as such, would be easily usable on a day-to-day basis. Nevertheless, it would still be quite fun to drive, thanks to active suspension with adaptive dampers. The track test, quite frankly, was just as thrilling as the road drive; in addition to setting a best lap time of 2:03.11 at the Automation Test Track, the Socala was able to reach a top speed of 243.13 mph and completed the 0-60 sprint in 3.5 seconds. Clearly, the performance matched the post-markup price of $177,000, but in the end, I was regrettably forced to cut this car, for although it easily appealed to the head (especially with a fuel consumption figure of 8.30 L/100 km), it did not satisfy my heart enough for me to put it on my shortlist, especially with just a four-cylinder engine under its rear deck, and a very large, unrefined one at that.
@strop - Gryphon Gear Jormungandr
There were only two cars left to test, and this one was easily the most outlandish-looking of them all, especially from the rear. Some might call it cluttered and fussy, others will say it’s excessively aggressive, but it is undeniably unique. As a car which has had the kitchen sink thrown at it in terms of quality, this RWD monster had better be a special thing indeed. So, in an attempt to dispel any doubts about its provenance, I opened the engine cover…
…and was flabbergasted to find the most powerful engine in the test: a 9.9-liter, 48-valve twin-turbo V12 developing a mind-boggling 1,930 bhp on premium unleaded. The power delivery, surprisingly enough, wasn’t too abrupt; the turbo boost built up gradually, from 3000 to 4500 rpm, after which the torque curve climbed a gentle hill all the way to 7000 rpm before dropping back towards the 8800-rpm redline. Incredibly, though, this was a highly reliable engine, although not the most economical one. At any rate, I just had to drive this beast…
…and oh boy, did I have the ride of my life! Everything about this car suggested that it was built around its massive engine, to the point that I was barely using any of its performance potential on the road. Fortunately, despite being purely rear-drive, the drivetrain, wheels, tires, brakes, aero and suspension were all in sync with the massive engine, further reinforcing the feeling that Gryphon Gear had built the ultimate hypercar. Overall quality was very good, too, but the real acid test would come when I took this car to the Automation Test Track.
Sure enough, with its immense power, this beast was the fastest around the test track by some margin, with a best time of 1:52.31 and a top speed of well over 300 mph. Surprisingly, though, it wasn’t the fastest off the mark, taking 2.4 seconds to get to 60 mph, but it was still the best performer among all the cars I’d driven. And rightly so – at $180,000, this sits right on the limit of my budget. As such, despite polarizing styling, and being very challenging to drive, this beast from Gryphon Gear ended up being the next car to be part of my shortlist. But would it be the last?
The last car I sampled was a terrible anticlimax after the unhinged Gryphon Gear Jormungandr, for several reasons. Despite having the typical supercar wedge shape, and a classy dark green exterior color, the front fascia was bland, with no discernible front intakes. Also, the eight exhausts seemed excessive considering the choice of engine, more on which later. Worst of all, it was build using a steel monocoque with aluminum panels, and there was no rustproofing in the chassis. In fact, there was no sense of quality anywhere on this rear-engined car, or its engine, for that matter.
Speaking of engines, this one was a 6.6-liter twin-turbo V6 – a bad choice for a hypercar, since the high capacity severely reduces refinement. Worse yet, this engine is not reliable enough to meet my requirements (the engine reliability of 66.2 is well under my minimum requirement of 70.0), since the forged internals clearly struggle to cope with the immense torque, and even then it arrives very late in the rev range, at 4000 rpm, especially considering the low 5800-rpm redline. In fact, the reliability concerns are so severe that I had to disqualify the Vapour on the spot, rendering the track test moot, and sure enough, I did not even bother with track-testing this car. The sub-$50K post-markup price is therefore a false economy, especially since it doesn’t even have an infotainment system at all. Along with the Sofa, this is a textbook example of how not to build a hypercar.
Now that I had reviewed every car, I was faced with an arguably more challenging task: determining a finishing order from the five finalists. The Ventnor Bambino, Solo Lightning SM V8, Smooth Keelen GT, Pragata Prima 1, and Gryphon Gear Jormungandr all earned their places in the top five by virtue of either simply being the best-performing cars money could buy, or successfully combining world-class performance with high levels of everyday usability. Picking a winner from these five would require a lot more deliberation than I had anticipated…
), or “this car is really hard to drive, I think I would die if I tried to drive it like it’s clearly trying to get me to.” But, well, that hasn’t happened yet. Don’t get me wrong, exceptions are perfectly okay if they’re exceptional but it should be clear why. It could be as simple as saying: “sure, the interior of this car is a bit spartan and this is definitely a track car/land-speed record production machine poorly disguised as a road car, but with THAT much more power and THAT much faster around the track the penis-compensation factor was through the roof, and for that alone I was tempted… not because I have a small penis”.
