The Open Road [SUBS OPEN]

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1992 Saarland Kosmos SR Hatchback
(Example Review #1)

---

Highs: OOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOO Masterful handling; Intuitive interior; Fresh design Lows: OOOOOOOOOI..OOOOOJarring ride; Rough, unrefined engine; Inadequate power Summary: OOOOOOIIOOOOA warm hatch/hot hatch identity crisis. Shell out on ES instead

6/10

From Issue #4 of 1992

Europeans do compacts better than we do. This piece of gospel truth has held true 40 years ago, when there was no need for small cars in America, through the 1970, where there was plenty need but no means, and to today, when the means are there but the effort isn’t. So when an American brand wheels out a brand-new model name for the foreigners to flatten, it’s no big deal. Maybe they make this one in Korea now, or maybe that one is supposed to be trendy. Whatever. With the Germans at Saarland, however, it’s different. The Adjunkt, their previous front-drive compact, had been in production since the 1960s, with numerous generations and refreshes in that time period. This new-for-1992 model could have just as well been another Adjunkt - but it isn’t. It’s a Kosmos. Cue a collective eye quirk at the Open Road office.

To be precise, it’s a Kosmos hot hatchback - despite this being the new compact’s first model year, it’s already had its trunk hacked off, turbine wheels bolted on, and an SR badge parked on the tailgate. And while it’s as rounded off and aerodynamic as most new models, this Saarland is surprisingly mean-looking. This impression is helped by the brilliantly shiny obsidian-black paintjob; we wouldn’t be surprised if you could fry an egg on it. And whereas most Kosmos trims are powered by engines in the 1-liter range, this one has a 2-liter mill, making it much more versatile and less likely to run out of steam on the highway. There is actually an even hotter version of the Kosmos, called the ES - but that car is more expensive and premium, with a price tag outside typical compact hatch figures - so we decided to test this trim first to see if you can get away with less.

We were surprised that for all its visual bark, the Kosmos was quite sane and rational on the inside: comfortable front seats, a rear bench that’s perfectly suitable for non-amputees, adequate storage space and proper climate control - though the sliders have a pretty long travel. The gauge cluster is clear and sufficient - there are no oil gauges, but you do get a coolant temperature and voltage gauge. Minor gripes we do have are manual windows despite the near-top trim and the position of the central cubby hole: behind the manual shifter.

So far, then, the Kosmos SR is a mean-looking hatchback with a clean-feeling interior. That felt confusing, so we went for a spin in the sleek new compact to clear everything up. Sure enough, right off the bat, the Saarland rode quite harshly and unevenly, with a reasonable front suspension response followed by a jarring bounce from the rear whenever we hit a bump. The overdamped rear’s effect was exacerbated by the low-profile sports tires, making the Kosmos uncomfortable on bumpy roads. The noise level was also above average even with this sort of vehicle, with the 2.0 engine being loud and rattly above 65 miles an hour - that’s the point at which you need to lay into the throttle in fifth gear. The drone is neither pleasant nor welcome, and the ‘sporty’ gearing attached to the vehicle gets much of the blame. On the plus side, even with this sort of gearing, the Kosmos SR hits its EPA-rated high of 37 to the gallon on highways.

So, a rowdy car that’d be at home on the track? We took it to ours, and it started making sense. The rear suspension, so merciless on a bumpy road, becomes magical in high-speed cornering, producing skidpad numbers rivaling serious sportscars. You can’t tune a twist-beam rear suspension to be both sporty and smooth, so that explains the rough ride. The low-pro sports rubber did its part, too, so road noise can be forgiven as well. The brakes are extremely powerful - if underventilated - and can terminate a 60-mph sprint in a mere 118 ft. And in spite of said brakes’ slight fade, the gas shocks and generally improved components means the car has a lot of staying power at the circuit. In fact, with the way the Kosmos tracks a perfect line, and the way it almost automatically recovers from powerslides with no snap, we would be tempted to call it ‘world-class’. Would be, however, is the key phrase here. To see why, let’s take a more detailed view at the iron-block, aluminum-head mill under the hood.

The 2.0 liter dual-cam Saarland straight-4, while a good highway performer, is a severely flawed engine even after 4 years in production. It does not use any balance shafts, making it rougher than it ought to be; the pistons are cheaply made and generate more friction and noise than is necessary; in fact, it feels like the twin camshafts and 16 valves are the only advanced thing about the engine at all. But this isn’t a performance engine, not like the superior mill in the ES trim: It has long, limiting intake runners, a lazy camshaft, and an ECU that knows the word ‘lean’ and little else. Yeah, the car sips gas and all, but is that the point of a hot or even warm hatch? but Worst of all, a conservative fuel cutoff system kills the engine’s revs immediately after its power peak, making our acceleration runs uneven and unsatisfying - so the prospect of the car being a fun, teenager-friendly power trip is ruined just the same. For all of the Kosmos SR’s immense handling prowess and chic styling, it is crippled by an engine in need of some serious troubleshooting.

So, there you have it. The Kosmos range is a practical, modern line of economical compacts, with a stylish look and everything you could ask for in a car of this size and expense. The Saarland Kosmos SR Hatchback, meanwhile, is little more an ES with most of the equipment, edge and expense, but without any significant display of the latter’s awesome twin-cam power. Retailing for AM$21000, it’s by no means a bad value, however it frustrated the better part of our staff by how much better it could have been if not for a couple of questionable design choices.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$21,000 Body and Layout: OOOOOOI.OOOOO3-door hatchback, transverse front-engine front-drive

Engine: OOOOOI122ci straight-4, 16-valve DOHC, iron block/alu head, electronic port injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO113 hp@5600
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO139 ft-lb@2800
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO5-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOI.I.OOOOO MacPherson Struts/Twist Beam Axle
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO 11.2in steel disc/9.2in steel disc
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO Alloy rim, 185/55ZR15 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OIO 97.6 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 154.6 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 64.8 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 69.6 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 2346 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 9.1 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 6.2 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 16.9 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 133 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 118 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.96 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 32/29/37 mpg

Thanks to @Knugcab for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Knugcab]

Very good, you’re obviously a skilled writer.

Car did what it was supposed to do. All show, no go, punish you because you were too cheap to buy an ES.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1996 Kaizen VFC
(Example Review #2)

---

Highs: OOOIIOOO Luxurious and loaded; Wonderful grip and technology; Surprising economy Lows: OOOII.OOONo selective ride; Power-to-weight could use work; Needs more excitement Summary: OOOOOOOIOOOOOA seasoned middleweight boxer wearing weighted clothing

9/10

From Issue #9 of 1995

Kaizen has always been gutsy. Other Japanese brands have been taking on their German rivals using practicality, bulletproofing, bargain prices, the like; Meanwhile, Kaizen has been challenging the Germans at their own game, power and technology being their great selling points. The VFC sports sedan - the top-of-the-line, fire-breathing version of the FC premium compact - has always been one of the company’s testbeds for space-age gizmos, and this year, this roadgoing Zero fighter has a few new tricks up its sleeve.

The 1996 car’s facelift is the third update the car is getting in its four years of production, and it’s arguably the most important one. Kaizen’s new, all-aluminum straight-six now lives below the hood of the VFC, displacing 3 liters as usual but now sporting a massive array of smart valvetrain tricks which we’ll get to later. The car’s exterior has only undergone minor tweaks, keeping the car’s handsome and muscular appearane; the most notable change are the new ring-shaped running lights - though you won’t notice them too much unless you’re Canadian.

Our test car was finished in a stunning jet black, with a black leather interior. Inside, there are all sorts of luxury like a good-quality CD player, a spacious console storage unit, cupholders and even rear climate adjustment. The controls are mostly intuitive - with the notable exception of the hazard light switch, which is positioned annoyingly between the radio and climate controls. We would have definitely put it up higher, perhaps even in place of the out-of-place analog clock. Speaking of analog, gauges are large and clear.

On the road, the Kaizen is extremely stable and confident, if a little harsh; the fixed-rate gas shocks are tightly wound, doing wonders for roll mitigation. The car’s disposition is generally very taut, running counter to our assumptions that a heavier (over 3400 lbs), more luxurious car such as this would permit itself to wallow a bit. The 6-speed manual has tall enough gears that cruising is rather quiet and dignified, not running into the “3000+ RPM drone” issue that some other, 5-speed sports sedans tend to catch. Most bizarrely, however, the VFC’s engine is extremely economical, running north of 30 mpg combined and knocking on the door of 40 on the highway. This is enabled by the new aluminum engine’s comprehensive variable valve control, with variable phase on both camshafts and continuous variable lift. Now, mind you, the lift portion of the system is extremely heavy and still largely behaves like a sanded-down traditional VTEC system, but the fact that Kaizen has been able to implement continuous lift variation and get such economy from it is an achievement in and of itself.

We had very high expectations for the VFC as we lined up our track tests - so high, in fact, that the car’s actual performance has left us slightly underwhelmed. The aluminum block’s weight savings are welcome, but offset a fair amount by the complex cylinder head and new safety systems. Armed with a lavish interior, dual airbags and all that sort of stuff, the stocky Japanese took 5.8 seconds to get to 60 - slower than even some less powerful German rivals, though ultimately still fast. A notable complaint from our test driver had to do with the 1-2 gear shift, which he called mis-spaced; sure enough, if the gearing charts are to be believed, the first upshift corresponds to a jarring 70-horsepower drop. And whereas the Kaizen was steady and sharp through a corner, there is a slight plow as if to say: I’m forgiving. I won’t let you crash me. And in a sports sedan, that’s not exactly what we’re looking for.

But maybe it’s our expectations that are the problem, not the car itself. When we took delivery, the Kaizen VFC looked purpose-built to beat the best of Munich - but looking closer, it’s much more of a Stuttgart beast, or, dare we say, a Detroit one. The VFC is still cheaper than its premier German rivals at 44,000 AM$ and is much cheaper to run due to its economy, and it does deliver an ever-satisfying mix of performance and luxury. Just don’t expect it to beat lap records in stock form. The Kaizen is in the same place as it used to be: Still a bold and direct rival with neat tricks up its sleeve, and still not quite able to pull away from the competition. Though that’s mostly because the competition’s so darn stiff.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$44,000 Body and Layout: OOOOOOO.OOOOOO4-door sedan, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOI.OIOI183 ci straight-6, 24-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, electronic port injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO270 hp@6800
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO225 ft-lb@5600
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO6-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOI.I.OOOOOOO MacPherson Struts / Multi-Link
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 13.0 in vented steel disc / 11.0 in vented steel disc
Wheels(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOO Alloy rim, 225/45ZR17 / 245/40ZR17 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 106.3 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 175.2 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 69.7 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 84.8 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 3419 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 5.8 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 3.7 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 14.2 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 175 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 112 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 1.04 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 32/29/37 mpg

Thanks to @66mazda and @Portalkat42 for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[abg7]

@Texaslav

roadgoing Zero fighter

Those words could not have been more apt for the VFC, which may not be the fastest car of its kind, but handles well enough. It actually reminds me of a contemporary Toyota Chaser Tourer V, but with an all-alloy naturally-aspirated I6 instead of the Chaser’s turbocharged iron-block 1JZ/2JZ.

[Knugcab]

I just hope that it is less prone to catch fire…
Another great review indeed.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 2022 Theta L400
(Example Review #3)

---

Highs: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOO Glorious driving dynamics, luxurious interior Lows: OOIIIOOOObjectively outdated transmission and design, cumbersome weight, high price Summary: OOOI.OOOA smorgasbord of genuine luxury and last-gen tech that just doesn't cut it.

5/10

From Issue #10 of 2021

Not all brand-new car models are, well, brand-new. All sorts of components are reused between a company’s various offerings, ranging from the most basic switchgear to entire powertrains. The reasons for this are myriad: budget constraints, production commonality, and the good old “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” rationale. So looking at the 2022 Theta L-Series luxury sedan, which has invited doubt from industry specialists due to some heavily reused features, our question was: How dated must a feature be before it’s “broke”?

Well, the first obviously dated feature on the Theta is the appearance. The car is slab-sided, with the doors being vast planes of nothing; the rear fascia is high up on the trunk lid, making everything below feel just as empty. The front fascia is better, as its obvious “conservative” design direction will appeal to people who are bothered by recent trendy huge grills; still, little to write home about here.

On the inside, the Theta does have most of your typical luxury bells and whistles: big screen, soft seats, panoramic roof, stuff like that. With the braced gearshift are and staggered cupholders, it’s actually artsy - but not practical, and the wood-adorned steering wheel is definitely not 2022 material. What is 2022-grade, however, is the safety arrangement, lauded as some of the best in class by the NHTSA.

That shifter is connected to a six-speed automatic gearbox; That number of gears in a longitudinal luxury transmissionsounds like something plucked from the last decade, and translates to rough, slowed off-the-line performance. The unusual, but competent 60-degree-angle 4.2-liter turbocharged V8 makes over 500 horsepower, and coupled with an advanced torque-vectoring differential, that should be enough for a better 0-60 time than 4.7 seconds - even with all of the car’s cumbersome 5000 pounds of weight.

There are other things that are outmoded. The brakes are pretty grabby and coarse, especially in the rear - the result of using one huge piston to brake each rear wheel. The turbochargers are laggier than most in this class: not a good look for a luxury sedan where power must come on demand. The mufflers are basically oversized gun silencers: Yes they work, but it’s not weight- or power-efficient at all.

That said, we did find things that worked for us. The active suspension is very good at its job, and the handling profile is surprisingly dynamic, with almost totally neutral steering and a skidpad figure of 1.02 g - on stock, non-performance rubber! The instrument panel also proved neat and intuitive, though it was perplexing when the test car was delivered to us with bits of packaging still on the dashboard (OOC: the dashboard model cuts through the gauge cluster. I am not a big interior buff, but this discrepancy made it impossible to get a good driver POV shot).

In the end, the L400 sedan is a perfectly serviceable luxury offering. You will feel comfortable in it, it gets acceptable gas mileage, and it drives pretty well. The kicker is, it costs close to 90 grand, which is where many of its executive competitors are. With the carryover last-gen tech, Theta could have made this car make sense as a value proposition, at least to some extent - but no, the L400 is being positioned as a full-bore, side-by-side competitor to modern warm luxury sedans, and it just falls short in that regard - no two ways about it.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$86,900 Body and Layout: OOOOOOOOOOO4-door sedan, longitudinal front-engine all-wheel-drive

Engine: OOOOOO257 ci V8, 32-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, direct injection, turbocharged
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO505 hp@6900
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO507 ft-lb@3700
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOO6-spd automatic

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO Control Arms / Multi-Link
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 15.4 in vented steel disc / 13.6 in vented steel disc
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOIOOO Alloy rim, 265/40R20 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 118.1 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 191.1 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 80.35 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O,OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O. 106.6 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 4877 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 4.7 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 3.1 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 12.8 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 180 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 117 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 1.02 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 22/20/25 mpg

Thanks to @Lanson for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1978 Anhultz Dione B
(Example Review #4)

---

Highs: OOOOOOOI.OOOOO Immaculate fit and finish; Practical and user-friendly; Rugged Lows: OOOOOOOOO.O.OOOSloppy, hesitant handling; Relatively thirsty; Underequipped Summary: OOOOIOOOOOOIf you hate mechanics and love your family, accept no substitute (barring the Dione C or D)

8/10

From Issue #11 of 1977

Mons is glamorous. Arlington is innovative. And Anhultz? Anhultz is unkillable. The midsize Dione has been a rare import staple on our soil since the 1950s, offering a stylish, moderate European alternative to the admittedly gratuitous offerings of domestic manufacturers. After first offering its unit body cars last decade, the Dutch manufacturer has focused on making its cars ever more refined and reliable: an evolution-instead-of-revolution approach. This new generation of the Dione - the eighth to date overall - brings a familiar yet modernized assortment of features.

For this road test, we have taken the basic B-trim of the Dione out for a spin. At AM$22,400, it’s nowhere near the cheapest midsize, and we weren’t sure if it was cheap enough to justify the working-class cloth upholstery we got to sit in. That being said, it’s good cloth, and the plastic that surrounds it is durable, well-fitted and refreshingly silent - no creaks and no rattles. The HVAC controls and radio are easy to use and well-placed, while the large steering wheel harkens back to the days of un-assisted turning and enables an unobstructed view of the equally massive gauges. Don’t worry, though, the steering is appropriately boosted. Over at the back, a fold-down rear bench offers sufficient leg room, and a hatchback rear provides a nice and large cargo space. It’s a practical car, have no doubt of that.

The focus on durability shines through yet once more in the chassis construction: The Dione is galvanized and features thick steel body panels along with carefully layered paint (Which can be any color as long as it’s orange: All other options are at least AM$300 more expensive). We are guessing it will never rust. The drivetrain is traditional rear-drive with a three-speed automatic; this allows those of us with a lead foot to order a V8 on higher trims of the Dione, and a powerful one at that. This car, however, is stuck with the good old 2.4 V6 engine: Practically the aforementioned V8 but debored and with two cylinders less. Anhultz’s venerable twin-carburetor manifold can be found perched atop it, improved with auto-choke and given even more robustness. We appreciate the clockwork-like operation of the setup, but the question remains: Is there really any benefit here over a single twin- or quad-barrel carb? What does this costlier setup accomplish? The engine itself is typical Anhultz fare. Overhead cams, passable emissions system and 100 horsepower. The crummy fuel economy is the only real miss here.

We were satisfied with the Dutchman’s ride: expensive, soft gas shocks keep impacts manageable even in the face of stiffer than normal springs, and a front sway bar keeps roll at bay. Not much more positives to mention here: the Dione is still anything but sporty, and the narrow, economy-minded tires are only just enough to keep you confident. Brakes only start to fade after several stops - but powerful as said brakes may be, the aforementioned tires didn’t let us make even a single short and uneventful stop. The only small mercy is that the front disks lock up first.

Still, we think the Dione B is a fairly competitive midsize package, lack of sixth seat notwithstanding. It’s just enough of everything you might need and will see Rapture before it sees rust, so it’s genuinely a good choice for everyday transportation. That being said, since the Dione is liable to last as long as it will in your service, it might be a good idea to wait until the next engine refresh: perhaps we might see less restrictive emissions equipment or a less primitive intake, and it’ll be less than a bore to drive.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$22,300 Body and Layout: OOOOOOIOOOOO5-door hatchback, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOOOOOOO.I146ci V6, 12-valve SOHC, iron block/iron head, dual 1-bbl carburetors
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO100 hp@5600
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO117 ft-lb@2800
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOO3-spd automatic

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOO Control Arms/Diagonal Trailing Arms
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOO 11.2in steel disc/9.2in drum
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOO Steel rim, 175/80R15 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 109.1 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 184.9 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 67.7 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOI 86.9 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 2858 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 14.9 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOIOOOO 10.5 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 20.1 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 109 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 149 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.70 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway, period-correct): OOOOOOOO.O 18/16/22 mpg

Thanks to @Elizipeazie for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Knugcab]

I start to believe that in one way, Anhultz in the 70s is kind of what happens if you combine the best of Volvo, Mercedes and Saab of the era.

[66mazda]

Yes, and I find them pretty inspirational too

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1962 Saarland Adjunkt

---

Highs: OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOI.OOOOO Very low cost; Very efficient; Quite reliable Lows: OOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOO.O.OOO Physically tiny; Highway racket Summary: OOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOONot smart enough to be this small. Get a Volks.

5/10

From Issue #5 of 1961

The German auto maker Saarland has recently made landfall in the United States, and is now offering several models here in the United States. As with most European cars, each car is more equipped than comparably-sized domestics; This is because space and materials come at a bigger premium overseas than they do here. This means that the Saarland Kardinal, for example, competes with full-size domestic vehicles in price and equipment despite being just slightly larger than, say, the new Arlington Alpha - a large compact in our book. The car that competes with the Alpha itself, meanwhile, is over 10 inches shorter, and that’s plenty short even for someplace as crowded like New York City. Saarland, however, has decided to import something smaller still - something that would look diminuitive in the French Quarter of New Orleans. The car in question is the Saarland Adjunkt, and we’re here to tell you all about it.

The Adjunkt is cheap. We feel the need to start with this because it serves to explain a lot of the design choices we will shine light on today. The tiny car seats four - while the manufacturer states that the rear bench could fit three, the cutouts in the seats for the structural wheel arches tell a diiferent story. Even if those weren’t there, the interior of the Adjunkt measures just 46 inches at shoulder level - meaning you’d be hard-pressed to fit three middle schoolers in there. The gauge set includes a fuel gauge, a speedometer and a coolant temperature gauge; neither an oil temperature gauge nor a tachometer are provided, though they are not strictly necessary on an automobile like this, either. The four-speed shifter for the standard transmission is mounted on the column - we’d like to see one on the floor and with a pattern decal with this number of gears. The tightness of the interior remains pervasive: despite the novel sideways-engine layout, space is not used in a particularly smart way: in particular, the firewall intrudes far too much into the interior, leading to driver legroom being utterly abysmal. That said, our test car was equipped with an interior fan and a radio - good for a car this size and price.

The small and light body does provide one advantage to the Saarland pintsize: it’s light. The 1-liter engine, while small, is more powerful and lively than those of the Adjunkt’s competitors, and the car accelerates to 60 in around 22 seconds - which is several seconds faster than other European supercompacts. Handling was also pleasant: steering on the skidpad revealed no abnormal behavior, with neutral response right up until the vehicle runs out of steam. The ride is more than a tad harsh, however, with our biggest gripe being with the front suspension. This is no car for road trips - especially not on the highway, where each of our test drivers agreed they’d rather pay twice as much for gas than listen to the raspy four-cylinder engine furiously work away at near full blast for hours on end. In the city, while it is much more bearable, the Saarland is still far from an enjoyable experience, as there is so little space that more often than not you’ll accidentally smack your knee with the gear lever when trying to shift. As said in the beginning of this review: This car is made for a culture where space is at a much more serious premium, and as such worth more sacrifices.

Thus, we do not recommend the Adjunkt simply on the basis of it being so ill-adjusted to this country’s way of motoring. That being said, it’s not even the best vehicle in its class: the recent compact from Britain is even cheaper, yet has a more spacious interior. The only real advantage the Adjunkt retains is a larger, conventional trunk. Or if you pay around AM$800 more, you can get a Beetle - and lo and behold, people with regular knees and shoulders will actually fit in there.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$11,100 Body and Layout: OOOOOOIOOOOOOO4-door sedan, transverse front-engine front-drive

Engine: OOOOOOOOOO61ci straight-4, 8-valve OHV, iron block/iron head, 1-bbl carburetor
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI…OOOOOO40 hp@4400
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOO50 ft-lb@3400
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO4-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOOOOOOOO.O Control Arms/Dead Axle
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOOO 8.8in drum/6.6in drum
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOIOOOOO Steel rim, 145/90-12 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OO 80.1 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 146.9 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 59.8 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOI 61.0 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 1548 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 22.1 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOIOOOO 34.2 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 21.9 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.OOOOOOOOOO 79 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 145 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.65 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway, period-correct): OOOOOOOO.O 29/28/29 mpg

*Thanks to @Knugcab for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Knugcab]

I get “put it in H” vibes from the review.

[Texaslav]

Motorsport Spotlight: The World Rally Car

---

From Issue #3 of 1997

The World Rally Championship doesn’t grace our shores every year, and it doesn’t attract many US viewers - we’re satisfied with our short-track dirt racing, and the like. Nevertheless, over the past two decades US car buyers have taken a bit of an interest in the series. The reason is that up until this year, each car racing in the WRC had to have a limited-production roadgoing version which is known among enthusiasts as a ‘homologation special’. These cars pack tremendous power, maneuverability and technology into unusual and lightweight packages. However, this tradition might just be coming to an end: The new World Rally Car standard, introduced before the beginning of the currently running season, does not require the production of any souped-up road versions, and as such we expect most manufacturers to stop bothering with them entirely. One such manufacturer is Hakaru - whose rally team, Hakaru Castroil WRT, has offered our staff a close look at the future of rallying.

We arrived in Uddeholm, Sweden just a couple of days after the conclusion of the rally that took place there. Hakaru Castroil WRT (World Rally Team) had arranged several driving experiences for yours truly - a driver and passenger experience on the road stages, and a passenger-only one on snow. And before you label our field reporters and insurance consultants cowards, remember that the passenger of a WRC bolide has to provide navigation - that is, bark upcoming turns at the driver so that he may turn without thinking or even really slowing down. And bark loudly I did, because the spartan, rollcage-adorned body of the Hakaru Carica WRC had precisely zero sound isolation aside from the paper-thin panels themselves.

The engine, as required by current regulations, is a 2-liter, 4-cylinder turbocharged engine with a severely restricted intake that is supposed to limit peak horsepower to 300. However, there are no regulations on boost or torque - so new WRC cup cars, the Carica included, can generate said 300 horsepower at pretty much any RPM. This makes the car feel dangerously twitchy (as if you’d just dumped the clutch) at low speeds even in high gear. On the other hand, it means you hardly have to shift at all until you slam into the redline - and can tank speed drops that would bog conventional engines, as well. The cost is tremendous heat and pressure in the induction system and high overall pressure ratios in the combustion chamber, necessitating a heavier than usual engine overall as well as generous donations of high-octane race gas regardless of load and speed. This power is tempered by a four-wheel-drive system with torque-sensing differentials, just about taming the get-up-and-go on launch, but only evening out offroad traction, not eliminating wheelspin. As a result - as some of the readers will no doubt remember from documentaries on the ill-fated Group B - the cars are flung into dirt corners in a slide, never achieving full traction even in a straight line. That’s apparently largely why our insurance jacked up the price on putting me behind the wheel on the dirt.

Driving the Carica WRC on the road was a ball once I got used to it, with mountains of power, grip and yaw making the little subcompact formidable even to roadgoing supercars. Likewise, observing the offroad work of Parkins, the rugged Welsh driver of the car, was as fun as it was humbling. There is, however, a marked drawback to the otherwise breathtaking (and do trust me, it is) format of WRC: TV broadcasts are not nearly as all-encompassing as either oval, road course, or formula racing, as the rallies take place over hundreds of miles. And if the odd devout American fan decides to fly to another continent to see a rally, they will witness the power and fury of all the WRC and legacy Group A machines… Once, maybe twice. And now that the new regulations no longer require strict homologation, we’re not going to be seeing any rally-tuned road cars - and that’s a loss and a half.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOIOOO Not for Sale Body and Layout: OOOOOO.OOO3-door hatchback, transverse front-engine four-wheel-drive

Engine: OOOOO.I122ci straight-4, 16-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, electronic port injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO300-345 hp@4000-7500
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO440 ft-lb@2700
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO6-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO MacPherson Struts / Multi-Link
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOO.OOOOOO 12.8in vented steel disc / 10.2in vented steel disc
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Alloy rim, 215/40R17 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OIO 94.9 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 156.7 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 66.1 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOI 71.9 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 2743 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOO 3.7 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOIOOOO 2.5 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 12.2 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 155 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.OOOOOOIOOOOO 108 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 1.23 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway, period-correct): OOOOOOO.O.O 19/20/17 mpg

Thanks to @Executive for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1986 IVERA Executive

---

Highs: OOOI.OOOOO Unrivaled ride quality; Immaculate fit and finish; Startling performance Lows: OOOOOOOOOOOO.IO.OO Labyrinthine complexity; Questionable-at-best design Summary: OOOOIOOOOOOOOOIOOSweden hasn't built anything this grand in decades.

8/10

From Issue #5 of 1985

Here at The Open Road, we have always held firm to one principle: There’s more than one way to skin a cat. In the pasat decade, this has been proven time and time again: each and every market segment that’s solidified since the Oil Crisis contains automobiles that vary seriously in their layout, design and function. The ultra-luxury sector of automobiles is no exception, with new US front-drive unibodies fighing their traditional frame-bodied, rear-drive counterparts; and in the midst of it all, the European luxury sports sedan - both in price and power truly in a league of its own - looms ever larger over domestic offerings. The Swedes, of course, have a fourth option: The IVERA Executive. It’s… A hatchback.

To begin with, using a hatchback as a flagship is not necessarily unprecedented. Rover did it in the UK with its striking yet problematic SD1. However, the IVERA is hard to compare to an SD1 - it’s close to 20 inches longer, and it doesn’t crib Ferrari design elements. In fact, with that monstrous light cluster at the front - giving the illusion that the car actually has eight eyes - it doesn’t look like anything else. It does somewhat call to mind one of the boxy luxury cars we make here, but the roofline instantly lets you know that you aren’t dealing with a formal, elderly-friendly Detroit brick. In summary, the design is very strange, looking like an extremely elongated Arlington Analog Hatchback or something of the sort. It feels like the person who drew it tried to please literally everybody. We were pleased by the rock-solid, intensely comfortable interior - but IVERA suits told us to hold off on photographing that until the car hits dealerships next month. A pity, too.

Running gear on the Executive, though, is first-rate. The impressively advanced 5-liter V8 features aluminum 4-valve heads and a camshaft for each bank. The 276 horsepower it produces is not entirely class-leading, but no other executive sedan with that engine displacement matches it. The automatic transmission has an electronically-controlled overdrive, and the independent rear axle features a limited-slip differential. The result is that the car maintains a ride quality comparable (if not superior) to a Somervell, while turning much, much harder at the limit. This is helped even more by the sophisticated hydropneumatic suspension. Top speed? 155 mph. Now, all this performance does come at a degree of technical complexity not seen on most other cars, but it’s not like the IVERA Executive’s German rivals are particularly simple. If you can afford the as-tested LXT top trim, you can afford the service charges. The only real complaints we have are the overly grabby brakes, which are only tempered by the novel anti-lock system, and the insufficient overdrive.

Overall, in terms of objective specifications the Executive is a powerhouse. Its high-quality unitized body construction allows it to be stronger, lighter and safer than most cars in its class, and the aforementioned world-class suspension and drivetrain make it luxurious in a way few other vehicles can match. Now, it’s also true that it’s priced in a way few other vehicles can match, but that’s to be expected from Europe. If you’re looking at luxurious offerings from Germany and aren’t turned off by the lack of a hyper-formal roof, the IVERA offering is definitely worth considering.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$59,300 Body and Layout: OOOOOOIOOOOO5-door hatchback, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOOOOOOO305 ci V8, 32-valve SOHC, iron block/alu head, electronic port injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO277 hp@5300
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO307 ft-lb@3600
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOO4-spd automatic

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOI.I.OOOOOOOO Control Arms / Control Arms
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 13.2 in vented steel disc / 13.2 in vented steel disc
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIOOO Alloy rim, 205/65ZR17 tire
Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 117.3 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 203.4 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 71.6 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 101.1 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 3887 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8.2 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOIOOOO 4.7 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 16.4 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 155 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOO 138 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.80 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 15/14/18 mpg

*Thanks to @TheYugo45GV for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1984 Hinode MID2

---

Highs: OOO.O. Highest grip recorded on any non-supercar ever; eager engine; good sound system Lows: OOOIO.OOO Unforgivable ride and noise; Cheap interior materials; Insufficient prestige Summary: OOOOOOIO.O.OOOOThe best four-pot performance on sale today - if you dare.

7/10

From Issue #8 of 1983

What is Hinode? Faced with this blanket question, most will tend to identify it as a manufacturer of affordable and reliable, yet dimensionally-challenged transportation. And on that last count, the new-for-1984 MID2 will not challenge this stereotypical portrayal: It is very, very small. In fact, it weighs well under a metric ton. Where the MID2 stops sounding like an ordinary import is when you discover that the front subframe - engine at all - has been dropped into the back, not far behind the driver’s ear. It is thus a mid-engined sportscar, joining the illustrious ranks of premium Italian and British offerings which prioritize performance over all else. Can this bite-sized beast from the East upset the European aristocracy? Read on to find out.

Right from the start, the MID2 clearly shows that it doesn’t care about being an aristocrat itself. The stubby, boxy body resembles fellow Hinode products, with the roof actually being high up enough for regular people to situate themselves comfortably - and that’s with the space-sapping moon roof. On the inside, the driver is provided with a comprehensive cluster of analog gauges, power windows, and a cassette player… But also lackluster seats that might look sporty but are in fact just flimsy, adn don’t measure up. In fact, we broke one trying to adjust it. Visibility, however, is excellent - as it should be from a vehicle without an engine hanging off the front.

Understatement of the century: The MID2 is not a good highway vehicle. Whilst decently reliable as all Hinode products are, the angry twin-cam mill runs itself up to almost 4000 RPM at highway speeds, which would be a decent figure to accelerate at but certainly not to hover around for an extended period of time. The ride is extremely harsh for a road car, with the front struts in particular feeling welded; this is not helped by the overall low-profile tires. The wide-ratio transmission shifts harshly due to the unavoidable power drops between gears, a reality imposed by the narrow powerband. The brakes are grabby, and in an emergency stop you’ll find that the rear will lock up and step out before the front in many cases, chiefly at low speeds.

That said: These same qualities above make the Hinode runt a force to be reckoned with on the track. The tires are most certainly too wide for the car’s weight; combined with a sticky factory compound and a functional rear wing, grip exceeds that of much higher-end sports cars. The peppy engine, churning out 124 horsepower - over 75 a liter - propels the MID2 to 60 in a measly 7 seconds, a full second less than many current luxury coupes and convertibles with 2 to 4 more cylinders. The two above achievements are partially due to the sophisticated torque-sensing differential on the rear axle, enabling a wheelspin-free experience in almost any situation. We at The Open Road would go as far as to say that the MID2 is the most focused and brutal four-cylinder mid-engined sports car ever conceived - and yes, that includes the Lotuses.

All this performance obviously comes at a price, and for 1984 that price is AM$27,300. That’s a big lump of money for such a tiny car, one with few amenities, a suspension and seat combination that’ll shatter your spine and the most utilitarian badge you could possibly come across. Make no mistake, though: this Hinode is a pro-stock track weapon, and we expect many velocity-minded invidiuals to pick them up. We only hope that the resources Hinode gets from them are enough to refine the car in the years to come… Perhaps get some civilian sales, as well.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$27,300 Body and Layout: OOOOOOO.OOOOOOO2-door coupe, transverse mid-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOI.OIOI97 ci straight-4, 16-valve SOHC, iron block/alu head, electronic port injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO124 hp@6500
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO115 ft-lb@4900
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO5-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOI.IOOOO MacPherson Struts / MacPherson Struts
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 10.8 in vented steel disc / 10.4 in vented steel disc
Wheels(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOO Alloy rim, 175/60UR14 / 205/50UR14 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 90.6 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 150.9 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 63.8 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 66.9 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 1956 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 7.0 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 5.3 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 15.3 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 124 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 109 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 1.06 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 26/25/28 mpg

Thanks to @S_U_C_C_U_L_E_N_T for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 2006 Apex TriStar

---

Highs: OO.I Superior performance; Good value for money; Forward-thinking entertainment system Lows: OOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOO Muted engine; Jerky gearbox; Confusing segment shift Summary: OOOOOOOO Germany's 575 is now Germany's Corvette, and much better off for it.

7/10

From Issue #5 of 2005

The current generation of the Apex TriStar came onto the scene several years ago as a supposed grand tourer. It ran into a very embarrassing problem, however: It was not a very good grand tourer. Too short and cramped, too unpretentious - and also somewhat mismatched in its component parts. It was not a hit. The refreshed-for-2006 TriStar, then, aims to make things right.

That being said, it’s not that easy to fix a car that’s physically too small for its intended purpose, so the new “GT2” Apex simply got a different purpose. Instead of a GT, the Apex flagship is now a true two-seater sports car, with the remaining interior space has been earmarked for mere storage space. The remaining passengers are well-cared for, though, with plenty of legroom, a new and highly stylized interior - yes, Apex, we can see the toggle switches - and last but definitely not least, a state-of-the-art navigation system with the highest-resolution screen in any production car to date. It also features a voice system that also doubles as the warning light alert, and has one single voice setting that’s supposed to reflect its personality. We are pretty confident whose idea in the Takahashi corporate hierarchy this was: Never change, Japan.

The pivot from GT to OMG has predictably bruised the public road driving experience. The standard transmission is now an electronic clutchless manual (which would love to pretend it’s actually a sequential) which requires you to jab at a meaty lever in the center of the dash to shift. You can go up, you can go down, or you can go to hell. The shifting action is stiff and jarring, and the fact that you might lose up to 100 horsepower per shift certainly doesn’t help. We would have easily picked an actual stick-shift with an H pattern over this. The previously-standard auto is still available as a no-cost option, and unless you’re a track maniac we frankly recommend that. That being said, the seats are a masterpiece of both bolstering and padding and the TriStar retains its predecessor’s revolutionary active suspension, and on the highway - where you don’t need to shift out of sixth gear - the car feels great. Honestly, we’d eagerly go on a roadtrip and just sit there, on top of the highway food chain, for hours with 550 horsepower just three downshifts and a broken neck away.

Speaking of the performance: It’s real good. A judicious use of aero, the powerful Apex twin-turbo V8 and that road-hating transmission come together for a 3.6 second time to 100 - enough to outrun anything this side of AM$100,000. There is a computer-controlled differential, thick and highly staggered tires (255 in front versus 315 in back). There is also a stability control system to tame all the power, but no speed limiter - the car only just stays on this side of 200 mph. The steering is excellent, just on the predictable side of neutral, and the car is heaps of fun on the track. Hell, we even appreciated the visceral feel of dragging the shift lever back as the speedometer climbs. Our main complaint about the track experience, though, is the engine’s sound: It sounds remotely like a Ferrari, except you’re listening to it through a World War II radio with Messerschmidt jets in the background. The turbos… Definitely, unmistakably ruin the exciting noise of the flat-plane V8, and we can’t help but think that with all the variable-valve and direct injection technology, Apex could have made the TriStar’s V8 mill make the same power with a bit more revs and displacement rather than the twin turbos and kept the sound and fury. This is an old issue, though; we’ve had the same complaint since the TriStar GT1 came out years ago.

Don’t let these minor gripes of ours get in the way of one certainty, though: The TriStar is still a monstrously powerful, track-capable coupe with GT-level appointments - minus the 2 rear seats - for under 90 grand. It’s beautiful to look at and exciting to drive - at least much of the time - and has the best entertainment facilities short of an S-class. We do encourage any sports car aficionado with the means to own a TriStar to give it a spin and see if it’s your kind of dragon.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$82,900 Body and Layout: OOOOOOO.OOOOOO2-door coupe, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOOIOOIOI262 ci V8, 32-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, electronic direct injection, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OIOItwin turbo charger
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO558 hp@6900
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO455 ft-lb@3700
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO6-spd semi-automatic

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOI.OIOOOOOOOOO Control Arms / Multilink
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 15.2 in vented steel disc / 15.2 in vented steel disc
Wheels(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOO Alloy rim, 255/35YR20 / 315/30YR20 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 101.6 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 176.3 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 81.0 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 99.2 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 3480 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 3.6 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 1.9 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 11.6 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 197 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 105 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 1.15 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 21/21/20 mpg

Thanks to @ldub0775 for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 2021 ZKF C140t

---

Highs: OOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO.O. Great comfort; Potent chassis; Lots of features Lows: OOO.OO Unhinged pricing; Underwhelming powertrain; Boring shape; Generally soulless Summary: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Simply put, a stretch. Get a Gran Coupe.

5/10

From Issue #8 of 2020

The ZKF brand went down with its playboy CEO forty years ago. That’s a very long time. Even when the brand was revived in 2012, the downtime was enough for the auto industry to be turned on its head several times over: ZKF cars at the time of its demise still used carburetors, whereas the reboot immediately kicked off with direct injection. The current workhorse, the C-car, has recently been given a new generation, and has attracted some interest here at The Open Road HQ due to its… Ambitious pricing. Now that we’ve gotten our hands on the new C140t - a midrange model - we may at last figure out where the money went.

Straight away, the interior gives off a distinct air of ‘up to the task’. Comfy seats, clean dash, gorgeous futuristic steering wheel, advanced audio system, even real aluminum inserts - if there’s one thing this car doesn’t lack, it’s stuff. The presentation of the whole thing is very clean and tidy, and there is sufficient - if not outstanding - rear seat room. It’s just too bad that we can’t say the same at all about the outside of the car: apart from the obviously eh form-factor of a flat-back hatch, the C140t is also an absolute teardrop, with all design elements feeling so flat to the aerodynamic surface they may as well not be there. It looks less premium than a Gold from out here… Not a good look.

Highway performance is nothing special, and passing isn’t all that quick - not helped by the fact that until the turbo spool happens, you’re stuck with all of 1.4 liters - however, the transmission deserves high praise. It’s very well geared, with overdrive allowing totally stress-free driving; just generally, the small engine is incredibly smooth and quiet. Thumbs up there. Ride is good; unlike some wannabe-premium manufacturers, a true independent multilink suspension is standard in the rear, so bumps are soaked up beautifully.

That engine which passed trial by highway, however, struggles with any sort of spirited driving. It’s simply too little and too small; equivalently-priced and at times even cheaper cars in the premium compact segment will give you anywhere from 30 to 60 extra horsepower compared to this sorry lump. Now, it is extremely efficient - in fact, it’s been blessed with expensive individual throttle bodies, virtually frictionless pistons, and a proper twin-scroll turbo with precise electronically-controlled boost in the service of that goal. It still doesn’t excuse the chasm of a power gap its rivals have on it. We’ll just say this straight: No 1.4-liter, 170-horsepower car should cost what the C140t costs. This boring engine sends power to the ground through the boring front wheels sheathed in boring hard, economical tires - which, while not disturbing our highway test too much, did disturbe the maximum grip numbers we could achieve greatly. Mind you, the car’s suspension is rather well tuned for these tires, as if to say: don’t even think about fixing this problem we have given you. With the chassis’ potential - and the huge leeway the aerodynamic shape gives in terms of allowable economy numbers - it’s a crying shame that the car’s handling has been thrown to the wolves.

For the length of this review, we haven’t actually mentioned the C140t’s price. The price of the model as tested can be found in the section below, but the bottom line is: Your base model with less bling than what is seen on this car costs over AM$40,000, and the top-level easily breaks through 50 grand. The body panels are apparently pure aluminum and the chassis’ steel components are space-grade, but what does it matter on a premium hatchback? It’s still all this car will ever be. It lacks the character, the power or the brand name to make itself anything more than that. The car might just pay for some of its price with its excellent fuel economy, but then all you’re left with - again - is a weak-engined, well-blinged, frankly faceless compact. Even the so-called Gran Coupes of today are less cynical and tasteless. Sadly, this generation ZKF C-series is just what we feared ZKF would devolve into ever since its restoration by the current owners: A “luxury utility”, like a Chinese-market luxury minivan.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$48,700 Body and Layout: OOOOOOOOOOOO5-door hatchback, transverse front-engine front-drive

Engine: O.OOIOI85 ci straight-4, 16-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, electronic direct injection, OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOItwin-scroll turbo charger
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO168 hp@6400
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO155 ft-lb@3800
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOO.OOOOO7-spd dual-clutch semi-automatic

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOI.OIOOOOOOOOO MacPherson Struts / Multilink
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOO.I.OOOOOO 13.2 in vented steel disc / 11.6 in vented steel disc
Wheels(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOO Alloy rim, 215/50VR18 / 215/50VR18 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 106.3 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 172.1 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 68.7 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 82.1 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 3145 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8.0 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 5.2 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 15.9 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 149 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 125 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOOIO.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.89 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 45/41/54 mpg

Thanks to @BannedByAndroid for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Vento]

Cool, I like the style! You chose the background colour well. This reads like a real car rewview!!

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1994 Isshin Concerto

---

Highs: OOIO Rear-wheel drive; Vast array of interior equipment; Plucky handling; Great economy Lows: I..OOOOOOOOOOO Dearth of modern mechanical equipment; Unrefined powertrain Summary: OOOOOOOOIOOOOA bit more performance and it could be a legendary sleeper

7/10

From Issue #9 of 1993

The Concerto is the latest compact car offering from Isshin, a manufacturer we don’t often discuss on The Open Road due to their tendency to make very small, basic cars that don’t fit the needs of most US consumers. And initially, we became interested in this new compact because we wanted to confirm that Isshin could at least still excel at that but found a very different revelation beneath the surface. Read on to find out.

Let’s start with things that are “simply good” - the interior appointments. Isshin have gone out of their way to make the inside of the car modern: A CD player is standard, something not even a Corvette can say for itself,and all windows are power-operated: unheard of for a compact. There’s an airbag, cupholders, climate control, fully lit instrument panel - the works. It’s a “Concerto” of modernity and ergonomics, if you will.

Where things aren’t as idyllic, however, is under the hood. Even a nn-car person is likely to notice that the engine is oriented differently from most current compact cars, because the Isshin Concerto… Is a rear-drive car. Now, to be fair, so were all of the other Isshins before it, but back then this traditional layout wasn’t as taboo on small cars. With the previous cars, though, it was clear that they were made that way for ease of restyling and to focus all of the company’s efforts on robustness and practicality.

This was shown to clearly not be the case during our public-road test drive. The Concerto exhibits many of the qualities a “sporty” car might exhibit on the road: The springs are stiff and the gearing is quite short, with the engine running at a stout 3000 RPM at highway speeds. Said engine, Isshin’s 2-liter four-pot, is pretty buzzy owing to its lack of balance shafts - but with 130 hp in this small package, at least there’s really no reason to complain in terms of power; a more pressing issue is the overactive rev guard, which engages pretty much immediately after the power peak - hampering acceleration. The final shortcoming we recorded is overly light steering at highway speeds, a natural consequence of the non-variable power steering. Overall, driving quality is alright for a car its size, but it could - and in fact should - have been better from a car whose independent suspension setup mirrors that of a BMW 3-series compact.

We took the Isshin to the track, expecting some serious performance out of it. Unfortunately, between the open differential, budget tires and the aforementioned rev limiter, there wasn’t that much. If the Saarland Kosmos tested a couple years before suffered from a lack of power and a bangy suspension, then this Isshin suffers from a lack of easily obtainable components seemingly at random: an example being that the Concerto possesses four-wheel vented disc brakes, but the primitive shock absorbers froth up before the brakes even begin to fade and still cut your track time short. What the Isshin did give us is a great amount of fun: The tail is controllable but easy to kick out, and that’s something no front-drive car in the segment can say.

For your AM$20,600, the Isshin Concerto is a fairly good car. As a sporty compact, it certainly entertained us more than the Saarland Kosmos. However, there are simply serveral more steps the people at Isshin have to take to make it a true champion of cheap performance in the vein of the AE85 and AE86 Corollas a decade before - and those steps mostly have to do with better components. The engine already has variable valve lift, it just needs internals capable of letting it rev out more. The drivetrain and suspension are already entirely sufficient, but they need better factory tires to get more usable grip, as well as gas shocks. We think that the Concerto is a fine - if somewhat unbridled - car for the money, but we are convinced it would be a much better one with AM$1000-2000 worth of better hardware. The good news is, with the automotive press largely concurring on the Concerto’s flaws, it’s likely that Isshin will work to fix them in a future model year or facelift.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$20,700 Body and Layout: OOOOOO.OOOOOOO4-door sedan, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOOOOO122ci straight-4, 16-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, electronic port injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO129 hp@6000
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO128 ft-lb@3600
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO5-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOIIIOOOOO MacPherson Struts/Semi-Trailing Arms
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOO 10.8in steel disc/9.0in steel disc
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO Alloy rim, 185/55HR15 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OIO 95.3 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 160.0 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 66.1 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 73.4 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 2525 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 9.3 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 5.9 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 17.1 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 130 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 128 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.85 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 37/35/40 mpg

Thanks to @mben92 for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Pony Car Showdown: 1985 Bannack Sheridan BS20 vs Arlington Foxhound XRi

---

From Issue #1 of 1985

And before you ask: Yes, we did in fact stand these two muscle cars forty feet apart. Yes, we had both of them perform a highly unsafe and lengthy simultaneous peel. And yes, you may cut out this picture and use it as you see fit; we are not ashamed. Such are the lengths we go to here at The Open Road for dramatic effect. In any case, this is a showdown long in the making. Two of the hands-down most powerful pony cars on the market, both sporting high-performance 303-cubic-inch engines outputting over 230 horsepower. Both of them look pretty good, so we’ll assume ther is no “ugly” and try to resolve which of them is “the good” and which is “the bad”… Draw!

The Arlington Foxhound is in its fourth model year - pending, in fact, a major facelift for MY1987 - but looks as fresh as ever. The XRi option enters its third year, and second with the current engine. The Bannack Sheridan is a brand-new body, and signals the nameplate’s sharp pivot towards muscle - and it looks it, with a body that actually uses its taller body to add sharpness to its aero-optimized design - and also harkens back to the origins of the pony car class, looking more like a sportier compact car and not a stretched 2-seater. The strangest part about this impression is that it’s totally disconnected from reality: the Sheridan is the one riding on a unique - and simplified, for hot-rodders’ pleasure - chassis, whereas much of the Foxhound’s architecture will be carried over to Arlington’s next-generation front-drive passenger cars. We aren’t sure on whether or not the Sheridan’s design beats the space-age Foxhound with its bombastic rear bubble and outrageous windshield rake, but it does make entry quite a bit easier - and creates some much-needed contrast in the pony segment.

The ‘simplicity’ we were talking about in the Sheridan’s chassis refers to its suspension setup - a strut front end and a live axle rear. This isn’t a promising sign for the car’s ride, but it does mean it can handle lots of power and is good for straight-line starts. The chassis itself is a rust-proofed unit body, same as in the Arlington. The Arlington’s suspension setup - the first independent suspension on a pony car remains the same, with transverse leaf-sprung double wishbones in front and coil-sprung diagonal trailing arms out back. Two things put the Bannack into the more complex Foxhound’s ballpark: the larger wheelbase, which in fact is the same on both vehicles, and the year-one introduction of the factory-performance BS20 package. This option comes with a standard torque-sensing rear differential, a serious one-up on the Foxhound’s clutch-type, a high-output 303-cubic inch mill that we’ll get to later, and a sports suspension tune that makes the Sheridan deceptively good under hard cornering.

While we have mentioned that both cars have the same engine displacement, the engines themselves are not the same. The Bannack’s V8 is a carryover from mainline Bannack models - a “good ol” pushrod engine with an iron block and heads, as well as a distinctive 60-degree bank angle which is a result of sharing a production line with the company’s V6. The BS20 trim gives it extremely well-breathing ported heads, a high-lift camshaft and a big four-barrel carburetor. It’s like the engine’s just come from the 1960s, except now there’s some emissions equipment hanging off it. Even with all the dead weight, this mill manages 235 horsepower and 270 lb-ft of torque. Most of this firepower is owed to the head, which allows the Sheridan to breathe long after other OHV V8s of our time are out of steam. We expect this engine to be souped up immediately after purchase by at least a tenth of its buyers.

The Foxhound XRi’s engine, one we’ve tested before, is a different animal. “XRi” stands for X-Ram Injection - essentially two throttle-body injection units sitting in place of carbs on a performance crossram manifold. This system, unlike some competing units, is a good power makes due to the manifold being able to handle high airflow loads - but it’s not the only trick up the Foxhound’s sleeve. The system has been made to work with a true perpendicular-valve, rocker-arm-actuated, single-overhead-cam valvetrain. It still has 2 valves per cylinder, but due to the perpendicular positioning they breathe much better - and combined with the trick injection, make the same 235 horsepower as the BS20 mill with much milder, more efficient cams that also help yield 15 more lb-ft of torque. We believe that this engine has somewhat less tuning potential due to the complex technology that makes it tick.

Before our test drives, we thoroughly inspected both cars’ interiors. As larger, more comfortable pony cars, these two have to prove their worth in terms of interior appointments. The Sheridan has a solid, if old-fashioned, interior, with easily readable black-on-white analog gauges and a cover hiding the modern cassette player. Modern amenities are all available however, from modern air conditioning to electric windows. The rear is accessible, will hold short adults comfortably and has the middle available as a possible third seat. The Foxhound matches its competitor blow for blow; it also includes a digital instrument panel which we’re not entirely sure we want. The plastic cover on it bends and gives when you press onto it. The rear seats are separated by the full-length center console, and while legroom is okay and entry from outside is even easier through the worryingly long doors, there are serious issues with the headroom. Also, if you drive away from the sun, it’ll fry your passengers’ domes through the rear bubble window. The Arlington’s interior comes standard in a greyish-white color - a common Arlington feature that highlights the manufacturer’s Southern roots. The test car was not equipped in an optional black interior or anything of the like. Overall, the interior battle is pretty much a tie - with an edge to the Sheridan for practicality. It also gets an extra point due to having a real trunk instead of the dubious glass hatch of the Arlington.

Those points, however, are not maintained in regular driving - and that’s putting it lightly. The Sheridan has a very harsh ride courtesy of its sports suspension - not helped by the fact that half of it is, indeed, the beefy rear axle. Even on a well-paved highway, don’t expect a relaxing ride; if there are potholes about, God help you. Another factor contributing to everyday discomfort is the somewhat short overdrive gear - if it can indeed be called that, given that top speed in this car is reached at the peak of said gear. Worse still is the fuel economy, sitting flush with the bottom of the barrel in this market sector. Contrast that to the competition: The Arlington, which is in fact a softer car on top of having an IRS, soaks up bumps much better if not necessarily well - and has a proper, honest, generous overdrive 5th gear. Just don’t let Arlington forget that they only added it last year, trailing much of the industry. Finally, the fuel economy… Well, it consumes a third less gas compared to the Bannack. Overall, it’s just a nicer car to drive around.

Things were more interesting on the track. The two cars are virtually identical in their 0-60 and quarter-mile times, with our tests showing the Sheridan actually sweeping the board in passive performance - likely due to those shorter gears. It almost matched the Arlington’s taut cornering - an impressive feat for a solid axle - and had much more progressive breakaway. The Arlington continued showing that one flaw of its independent suspension that we all know and hate - scary liftoff oversteer, a natural consequence of the diagonal geometry. The two posted similar results around the test circuit; we are dead sure that the Arlington could have done better, but we couldn’t make a proper, practiced fast lap because by the time we got the oversteer sorted, it faded its brakes off. The reason? The rear is equipped with drum brakes, and discs are optional. What an oopsie, Arlington.

So: your choices in the premium pony market are a traditional pocket rocket that slays on the track but has issues remaining at all drivable, and a high-tech renegade that would’ve won it all if not for a rear end in serious need of an upgrade (ironic, considering it’s “independent” and all). The latter option also costs a significant AM$2,400 more than the Sheridan. That being said, despite coming out 3 years later, this Sheridan generation ended up being the old traditionalist in this comparison against the Foxhound’s onslaught of innovation, on nearly all fronts - even the name ‘Sheridan’ is that of a Civil War general, whereas the Foxhound shares its name with the latest Soviet interceptor jet. Tradition and value-for-money facing off against the most advanced and unconventional pony car of all… So, which is it?

2nd Place - Bannack Sheridan BS20

The Sheridan’s first-year showing is a good one, but there are several area that make it… Less than entirely optimal. The suspension is too stiff, the gears are shorter than desired, the engine eats like an old-school Big Block and the tires are a tenth too thin - with better and wider units, it could have actually, decisively toppled the Arlington on the track. That last point is not to be ignored, though: The Sheridan was that close to punching out a bigger fish. Maybe in a couple years it will, perhaps with an updated engine and better wheels. For now, this package is still worth buying if you want an easily tunable dragster.

1st Place - Arlington Foxhound XRi

Yep, this thing’s still dominating. The ride is absolutely class-leading, performance is very good, even economy is acceptable - and it still looks like an angry spaceship. This test does show, however, that all is not well - that some sub-optimal components in the Foxhound’s arsenal must be updated quickly if Arlington hopes to keep justifying the hefty markups its sports coupe commands over other ponies. Rear disc brakes should really be standard on a top performance model, the suspension shouldn’t send people into orbit unabated, and - like with the Sheridan - larger wheels and tires are becoming an absolute must. Sure, they made it easier to shoot that magazine cover, but “wheelspins are fun” is no excuse to cheap out on rubber.

The Texan coupe emerges from this fight bruised, but ultimately victorious. Arlington execs have been touting upcoming updates featuring true port injection, tuned headers and perhaps more valves to keep improving on the Foxhound’s unique cammer; we wait eagerly, but cautiously. As for Bannock? The ball is in their court to catch the Foxhound at the next cycle.

By The Numbers

Arlington Foxhound XRi

Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$24,800
Body and Layout: OOOOOIOOOOOO3-door hatchback, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOOOOOO303ci V8, 16-valve SOHC, iron block/alu head, twin throttle body injection
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO237 hp@4900
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO285 ft-lb@2800
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO5-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO Control Arms/Semi-Trailing Arms
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOO 12.4in vented steel disc/11.0in steel drum
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO Alloy rim, 215/65VR15 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO,OOOOOOOOOOOI.OIO 103.9 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.I.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 191.4 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 69.9 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 92.9 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 3030 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6.3 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 4.0 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 14.7 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 146 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 121 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.91 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 16/15/18 mpg

Bannack Sheridan BS20

Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$22,400
Body and Layout: OOOOOO.OOOOOOO2-door coupe, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OOOOOOO.IOOOO303ci V8, 16-valve OHV, iron block/iron head, 4-bbl carburetor
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO235 hp@5000
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO270 ft-lb@3600
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO5-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOIIIOOOOOO MacPherson Struts/4-Link Live Axle
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 11.4in vented steel disc/10.2in steel disc
Wheels: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO Alloy rim, 205/60ZR15 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OIO 103.9 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 181.7 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 69.9 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 88.2 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 2963 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 6.4 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 3.8 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 14.7 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 154 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 121 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 0.88 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 11/10/13 mpg

Thanks to @Executive for the Bannock Sheridan BS20. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.

[Texaslav]

Road Test: 1995 AVION Vulkan Turbo 200

---

Highs: OOOO.IOO.O True, value-minded sportiness; Good interior appointments; Flashy looks Lows: IOOO.IOOO Harsh ride and gearing; Unforgiving steering dynamics; Absent practicality Summary: OOOOOOOI.OOOThe most serious light sports coupe to date - for better or worse

7/10

From Issue #8 of 1994

The resurgent light sports car market - consisting of both front- and rear-drive coupes and two-seater roadsters - has reshaped the face of performance recently, stealing the spotlight from larger, more luxurious GTs and personal luxury coupes - even hobbling the sales of longstanding muscle car nameplates. Avion, ever the savvy company, has entered this market swinging, and with a somewhat unique configuration: A hardcore two-seater coupe.

This car, the Vulkan, is in many respects a front-engined alternative to something like an MR2: No back seat, a dedicated platform with advanced suspension geometry, and rear wheel drive. This Turbo 200 trim is equipped with a 1.8-liter boxer four augmented by a turbo, producing - as per the name - 200 ponies. All this is covered up by a svelte, contemporary two-door body with a considerable amount of aerodynamic elements. We think that it looks much more ferocious than most current sports coupes - which is always welcome.

The inside of the car is similarly nice. Trimmed with black and red leather in the Turbo and complete with in-dash gauges, the interior has an overall ‘throwback’ vibe rather than a ‘hyper-modern’ one. This is enhanced by the presence of chrome and steel in places such as the gear lever and door latches; the sunroof is also welcome, but the absence of a proper CD player is disappointing. Another gaffe - though an aesthetic one this time - is the incongruently beige headliner.

On the open road, the Vulkan is only acceptable. While the sophisticated suspension soaks up bumps pretty well overall, the front springs and dampers are extremely over-tightened, and for no apparent reason to boot. The engine’s big single turbo takes a while to spool, and - to make matters worse - has no traction control to brace against when it does. While this won’t disturb an experienced driver much, it’s still nice to have some slip regulation for rainy days and such. And as a sour cherry on top of this heap of imperfections, the close-ratio transmission doesn’t actually have a good overdrive ratio - at all. The overall drive ratio in fifth is legitimately comparable to a 1960s Rock Crusher transmission - that is, you’re screaming away at almost 3500 RPM at highway speeds. To Avion’s credit, however, interior space is much better than one would expect, thanks to the company not attempting to cram baby seats in the back; we only wish more manufacturers would follow this example.

Predictably, this punishing street behavior translates to serious track prowess. Even with the mild tires from the factory, the Vulkan Turbo’s staggered setup and nonexistent weight allow for serious grip in corners, enhanced by the considerable downforce it produces - something that most coupes don’t bother with. The steering is neutral to a fault - and while the suspension is sophisticated enough to preclude wild and constant oversteer, it can get unnerving from time to time. Acceleration is strong with proper, turbo-friendly shifting technique, rivaling more powerful and expensive coupes. There is only very minor brake fade; it’s not a real issue. Overall, the Vulkan Turbo 200 is properly fast - which is exactly what it was built to be.

In the world of light sportscars, the Avion Vulkan is a very good offering overall - quick, light, and not overly expensive. You get an alloy engine, rapid acceleration, very good handling - all that jazz. However, if you’re the kind of person to daily a sportscar, look the other way: this is a weekend and track anomal that knows nothing of peace.

By The Numbers Price as Tested:OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.OOOOOOOOOOOOAM$27,900 Body and Layout: OOOOOOOOOOOOO2-door coupe, longitudinal front-engine rear-drive

Engine: OI124ci flat-4, 16-valve DOHC, alu block/alu head, electronic port injection, turbo charger
Power: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…OOOOO202 hp@6900
Torque: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO195 ft-lb@2400
Transmission: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOO5-spd manual

Suspension(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIIOOOOO Control Arms / Multi-Link
Brakes(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 12in vented steel disc / 10.8in vented steel disc
Wheels(F/R): OOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOIO Alloy rim, 205/50ZR16 / 225/45ZR16 tire

Wheelbase: OOOOOOOOOOOOIOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOIO 95.3 in
Length: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 162.9 in
Width: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 65.9 in
Footprint: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOO.O. 74.6 sq.ft
Curb weight: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO 2436 lb

Acceleration, 0-60 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 5.7 s
Best-fit Gear Passing, 50-75 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI.O.OOOOIOOOO 3.7 s
1/4 mile: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO.OOOOO.OOOO 14.1 s
Top Speed: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOO.O.OOOOOOOOOO 150 mph
Braking Distance, 60-0 mph: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOOOO 118 ft
Roadholding, 200-ft circle: OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.OOOOOOIOOIOOO 1.02 g
EPA Fuel Economy (Combined/city/highway): OOOOOOOOOOOOO.O.O 24/24/23 mpg

Thanks to @alen.alic1983 for the car. If you want your own car reviewed, please read the directions in the thread’s first post.