@azkaalfafa - Chirurgico Tizzano
First up on The Interns’ list is the Chirurgico Tizzano. Going through some reviews, praise was directed at the great example of a modern design with retro touches, although some felt that the rear lacked a little panache. The driving experience was similarly praised, excelling both in the day-to-day and on track, though ride comfort and the feeling of safety do tend to lag behind the pack. Not seeing any reason to end its run here, The Interns added the Chirurgico Tizzano to the shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. Overall a great looking retro-inspired design, though the rear is a little simple, and it could stand to sit just a little higher overall. Engineering was by and large very good, with excellent performance metrics, good to great stats in the 3-star priorities, though it falls behind somewhat in comfort, safety, purchase price and service costs. Despite that, it wins in enough areas to earn a spot in the finals.
@Riley - Zephorus Grimsel
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Zephorus Grimsel. Reading through some reviews, there was praise directed at the design, liking the sharp and aggressive front fascia and clean side profile, but criticism was levied at the rear design, particularly the taillights, which get lost on the bright yellow paint of their test car. Reviewers generally thought the Grimsel drove well, but other cars drove better, and were sportier for less or the same amount of money, and the core reason they think it falls behind is the choice to run wide 305-section tires on all four wheels, which provided good cornering grip, but ultimately limited how much fun one could have in the Zephorus. Moreover, while reliability was expected to be very good, the projected service costs for the Grimsel are among the highest in class. For those reasons, The Interns crossed it off their list.
End Result - Eliminated. Design wise it’s overall pretty good, but you lose contrast on the taillights and they end up just kinda blending into the bodywork, and the side intake cuts a little too deep into the body for my tastes. Engineering, however, is what tripped up the Grimsel, with the very wide square tires limiting drivability and sportiness, and the highest overall service costs in the semi-finals in conjunction with being at the top of the price cap ultimately pull the Grimsel out of contention.
@Tsundere-kun and @66mazda - Cascina Durandal and @Oreology - Viettor Velisca
Next up on The Interns’ list are two surprisingly similar cars - the Cascina Durandal and the Viettor Velisca. Reading a comparison test of the two cars, The Interns found that the Cascina and Viettor were equally as fast, but the Viettor being sportier. They were also equally easy to drive normally, and felt equally as prestigious, however, when it came to expected reliability and safety, they were tied up there as well, but the ties started to break apart a little when it came to purchase price - the Durandal being $10,000 cheaper than the Viettor, but the projected service costs for the Viettor were expected to be lower. Aesthetically, the reviewers liked both cars, but the clear advantage went to the Viettor, being a masterclass in a retro-inspired design. Not seeing a good reason to get rid of one of these cars for the other, The Interns decided to add both to their shortlist.
End Result - Finalists. Engineering wise, both cars were exceptionally similar, with the Cascina taking wins in reliability, safety, comfort, and purchase price, but the Viettor took wins aesthetically (the second highest design score in the entire challenge), in sportiness, and service costs. Everywhere else, you were essentially tied, with only one car having a very minor advantage over the other in most cases. Being too close to call, I’m putting you both in the finals to duke it out.
@abg7 and @Kitami - LVC LS860 Proto
Next up on the block was the LVC LS860. Reading an early first drive, there was particular criticism levied against the design, with reviewers calling the front insect-like, with the large headlights and very short front overhang giving it an unfortunate, squished aesthetic. The rear was also criticized as well, being too simple, and not fitting in well with the rest of the design. On road, it was fine to drive and felt decently sporty, but at $120,000, it isn’t doing well enough in those areas to stay competitive with similarly priced, or even cheaper cars. However, it was very prestigious, reasonably reliable, safe and comfortable, and expected service costs were projected to be fair. Despite those wins, The Interns knew it wasn’t the right car for the show.
End Result - Eliminated. Design is okay, but the very large headlights in combination with a very pushed in front give it an unfortunate-looking bug face, and for me, the rear fascia doesn’t work very well with the rest of the car. Engineering is fine, you do have the distinct advantage of having the highest prestige in the entire competition, but in most other areas, you’re either just meeting, or just above average, and when you’re right on the price cap and getting beaten in those areas by even cheaper cars, it’s hard to keep it in the competition.
@the-chowi - Crowley Blackbird Super Ten
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Crowley Blackbird. Reading a first drive review, The Interns saw general praise for the design, with high marks for the proportions and detail, but some complaints were directed at the slightly tacky goldish bronze accents on the wheels and exhaust tips, the routing and position of the exhaust tip, and the patterning on the grille, which they thought felt a little chunky and not fitting of the rest of the design. On road, the Blackbird is rapid, drives well on the open road and the track equally well, however it falls behind slightly in the feeling of prestige. Reliability is expected to be very good, but projected service costs are very high, and it loses some more steam when it comes to safety and comfort. That being said, the Crowley does enough right for now, so The Interns chose to add it to the shortlist.
End Result- Finalist. A strong entry, design-wise I like the shapes and proportioning of everything, but I’m not really a fan of the gold (?) accents on the wheels and exhaust tips, nor am I a fan of the position of the exhaust tips, nor the pattern inside the grille. Engineering wise it does pretty good, with great performance stats, good drivability and sportiness, and decent, but slightly below average prestige. It falls apart a little when it comes to safety, comfort and service costs, but the Crowley gets enough right to put it into the finals.
@ErenWithPizza - Mancini Alessa
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Mancini Alessa. Reading some reviews and owner forums, The Interns found general praise for the Alessa’s design, but some criticism was directed at the large and awkward-looking side vent, and while the rear was tall, it generally made good use of the space except for the rear diffuser, which appeared to just be floating in mid-air. Performance wise, it lags somewhat behind the competition, and ultimately isn’t as nice to drive or as sporty-feeling as its competition either. However, it was decently prestigious, reliable, safe, comfortable, and it wasn’t too expensive to service. For The Interns, however, the Alessa fell flat aesthetically, and doesn’t have the performance they want - leaving them with no other option but to strike it from the lineup.
End Result - Eliminated. While overall the Alessa is nicely designed, and out of most of the designs on this body it uses the space on the rather tall rear well. Where it come apart, however, is the side intake, which is too large and looks a little awkward shape wise, and the rear diffuser fixture, which seems to be just hovering off the body. The other death knell though is the performance, with the Mancini scoring generally well below average. Drivability and sportiness were behind the curve as well, and while it scores well in many of the 2 and 1 star priorities, the Alessa still doesn’t make up for its errors enough for me to put it in the finals.
@VaporRossa - Maartens Spitfire 595/RS
Next up on the list was the Maartens Spitfire. Reading a few reviews, The Interns found a lot of praise for the Spitfire’s design, described as being “clean and focused”, with simple and elegant lines, and a very nice rear design to boot. Some criticism was directed at the front fascia design, which looked somewhat messy, and almost unfinished to some. On the road, the Spitfire was far and away the easiest car to drive normally, but felt in the middle when it came to how sporty it was, and lacked a little in the prestige department. However, it made up for those minor errors with high expected reliability, good safety technology, a very comfortable ride, and reasonable projected service costs. Seeing no reason to cross it off their list, The Interns added the Maartens to their final group of cars.
End Result - Finalist. The Spitfire does well aesthetically, with a clean and simple design that generally works from all angles, but for me, the front is a little rough and lacks a little detail to make it seem more complete. It generally scores well in performance metrics, and has the distinct advantage of having the highest drivability in the entire challenge, however sportiness is exactly average, and prestige is slightly below average. In the other priorities it scores above average pretty consistently, and has very reasonable service costs. For those reasons, it takes a place in the finals.
@Ne0 - Walter 826
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Walter 826, and upon reading some reviews and owner’s forums, they found some praise towards the design, but some remarked that overall it wasn’t sleek enough for a supercar, the red paint on the press spec was so metallic that it seemed more like colored metal, rather than paint, the large red centerlock mechanism on the wheels looked somewhat tacky, and the routing and position of the exhausts was not loved. On the road, the Walter was very sporty, very easy to drive, and exceptionally nimble - likely owing to the Walter’s sub-2000 pound curb weight. Owners however said that the Walter isn’t very reliable or safe feeling, and when it does need repairs, service costs are very high. Overall not compelled by the 826’s package, The Interns took it off the list.
End Result - Eliminated. While I applaud you for doing a decent job at trying to work a kinda awful body into something good, it falls flat in some areas, namely the rear, which is too tall and doesn’t make the best use of the space, weird exhaust positioning, the paint is way too metallic and doesn’t even look like paint in some lighting, and the red centerlock caps on the wheels are a miss for me. Engineering wise, while you score well in the 3 star priorities, you don’t do well elsewhere, with just average to below average stats in the rest of the scored areas, and being on top of the price cap with the 2nd highest service costs in the entire challenge do you no favors. Because of that, I can’t justify moving it into the finals.
@chiefzach2018 and @Portalkat42 - Zacspeed ONE
Next on The Interns’ list was the Zacspeed ONE. Upon first glance at the ONE, The Interns agreed it was a little too racy for what they were looking for, but agreed to keep an open mind. Reading over a few reviews, the ONE’s design was generally praised, with compliments directed towards the innovative pop-down headlamps, the aggressive race-inspired fender shaping, and the overall cleanliness and focus of the design. However, the rear design caught some flack, feeling as if it was one large grille surface with taillights and a diffuser somewhat pasted over it. On the road, the ONE was very easy to drive, very sporty and felt prestigious enough. Projected reliability was expected to be very good - important as expected service costs are well above average compared to the competition. Moreover, despite its aggressive exterior demeanor, the ONE was very comfortable, very safe, and carries a reasonable $118,000 price tag. Seeing no immediate reason to take it out of contention, The Interns decided to add it to their shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. While generally a good design, the ONE’s design aesthetically misses the point of the brief - feeling more track-focused than I would have liked. The details and ideas are all good, but for me the rear is somewhat lacking - mainly that a large portion of the rear is just a bunch of grille texture, with the lights kind of awkwardly placed over it and a somewhat disconnected diffuser design. It, however, makes up for some of these flaws with its engineering, scoring very well across nearly every scored category; SVC being the major exception. For all of its faults, the ONE represents a good entry and narrowly earns a spot in the finals.
@KSIolajidebt and @Texaslav - Hoffsman Rattlesnake
Next up on The Interns’ list is the Hoffsman Rattlesnake. Reading through a few different reviews, they found a lot of praise directed at the design, the only major complaint being the squared off nature of the taillights against the otherwise rounded bodywork. The majority of the criticism however was directed at the driving experience, which on-road was described as unpleasant and difficult - largely due to the Rattlesnake’s front-engined, RWD nature, and it didn’t make up for it in the sportiness department, feeling only a little better than average. The Rattlesnake felt prestigious enough, projected reliability was expected to be good, as were service costs - but even at its very reasonable MSRP of $106,000, there were cheaper cars that it competed against that ultimately outperform the Rattlesnake, and for those reasons, The Interns pulled it out of contention.
End Result - Eliminated. The design is great, I don’t have any real notes there other than the three-dimensionality of the taillights is somewhat fighting against the shape of the body due to being fairly squared off - if you were to do them again, taking the time to make the taillights follow the shape of the body a little better would be a nice touch. The biggest errors of the Rattlesnake can be tied to 1 major decision - the choice to stick with a front-engined, RWD platform. Performance is far behind the other cars, with the 2nd slowest 0-62 and 1/4mi times; 20m grip was decent however. Sportiness is just barely above average, drivability is well below average, but otherwise it does fairly well. Price and service costs are good at $106,000 and $4908, but there are cars that score better overall for less money, and with similar or better service costs. Had this been running AWD like the majority of the other entries, this would probably be a different outcome. Respect for playing up the bit, but unfortunately it misses the mark.
@iivansmith - Moretelli Modica
Next on the list was the Moretelli Modica. Scanning through reviews, The Interns found praise for the Modica’s design - being described as “clean and focused” and “intelligent”, however some criticism was levied against some angular elements on the rear of the Modica, which some felt fought with the curved and shapelier nature of the rest of the rear design. Performance was very good, scoring near the top against its competition. Drivability in the day-to-day was very good, as was on track performance, feeling very sporty. The Modica felt very prestigious, and it was expected to be very reliable and reasonable to service. Not seeing any real downsides, The Interns added the Modica to their shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. The Modica looks beautiful, and rightfully receives the highest design score in the entire competition - my only real note is that some of the more angular design elements on the rear (the plateholder and the bodywork around the exhaust tip namely) fight the otherwise curvy nature of the rear. Engineering is overall very good, scoring very well in performance metrics and in the 3-star stats; the only real downside is the just okay comfort, but it still scores above average there. All of this is more impressive once you consider the $105,000 purchase price - the 2nd cheapest car in the semi-finals. Overall, the Modica does extremely well, and absolutely deserves a spot in the finals.
@supersaturn77 - Kingsman 10R
Next up on The Interns’ list was the Kingsman 10R. Watching a few videos on the Kingsman, there were mixed opinions on the design. While the front was generally liked, some felt that the grille in the front needed something to break it up and reduce the monotony of the front fascia, the red-tinted carbon fiber on the design was universally agreed to look somewhat tacky, and some felt that the taillights were too low, and the rain light in the rear diffuser was very large - thus looking somewhat awkward. On road, the Kingsman was generally pretty good, with okay performance stats, though it fell behind somewhat in 20m skidpad grip. While it drove on the road fine, feeling very compliant and comfortable, it didn’t feel as sporty as its rivals did. Expected reliability was just okay, but the projected service costs were well below average, a big plus. While the Kingsman doesn’t do much wrong, particularly at its $92,000 price tag, it doesn’t do quite enough to sway The Interns into keeping it on their list.
End Result - Elimination. The 10R’s design is good in theory, but you needed something to break up the front grille visually - it ends up looking kind of boring being just one long, continuous piece when there’s not much else on the front of the car. The rear is okay for the most part, but the taillights are too low and a little too thin, and the rain light on the rear diffuser is way too big. Engineering is good, but sportiness is somewhat below average, prestige is just average, performance is slightly out of step with the competition - but kudos for being the cheapest car in the semi-finals, both to buy and to service. If this car’s engineering was combined with the Hoffsman Rattlesnake’s exterior design - it would have been an easy shoe-in for the finals. Overall a very good job, just a little off the mark.
@SpeedyBoi, @Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs, @Xepy - Sendo Friesia “Mulsanne Package”
Last up on The Interns’ list - the Sendo Friesia, specifically with the “Mulsanne Package”. Reading a few reviews, the design was heavily praised, with compliments directed towards the great level of detail, general design cleanliness and its focused, sharp lines. Criticism of the design was minimal - the only real complaints being that the wheels could have been larger, and that the rear design looking almost owl-like with the shape, position and internal design of the taillights being the major reason why. On road, the Friesia was very easy to drive and very comfortable. Performance was very good, and the Friesia felt very sporty despite its comfortable and prestigious nature. Expected reliability is believed to be generally good, but the Sendo is projected to be very expensive to service. Overall though, the Sendo appears to be a strong effort, and The Interns added it to the final slot on their shortlist.
End Result - Finalist. The Sendo’s design is great, I like all of the detail and the shapes/proportioning of everything, but the rear design, particularly where the taillights are concerned looks almost bird-like due to the positioning and shape of the lights, as well as the internal design. Not inherently a negative, but worth mentioning. Engineering is overall good as well, with great drivability, sportiness and prestige, decent reliability, and above average safety and comfort. However, service costs are very high. Despite that, the Sendo doesn’t have any other big weaknesses that would keep it out of the finals - thus, it takes the final spot.
Finalists
@azkaalfafa
@Oreology
@Tsundere-kun and @66mazda
@the-chowi
@VaporRossa
@chiefzach2018 and @Portalkat42
@iivansmith
@SpeedyBoi, @Falling_Comet, @variationofvariables, @yurimacs, @Xepy
